Alberto Ferrer Blog » Client

Ciao Bella Turns a Fan into an Advocate

Alberto Ferrer — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:44:51 +0000

About ten days ago, I left the office at around 8:30 pm and walked to Grand Central Terminal to catch a train home. As I walked towards the correct track in the lower level, I spied the Ciao Bella Gelato sign and my grumbling stomach and sweet tooth together lobbied successfully for a treat. I thought “if they have dulce de leche flavor, I’ll get some.”

Well, they did and I did. I ran to the train with recent purchase in hand, my mouth watering at the anticipation of the wonderful flavor and luscious mouth feel of Ciao Bella dulce de leche gelato. I’m a big fan of gelato and dulce de leche and of this brand in particular.

Sadly, when I started wolfing down (did I mention I was hungry?) the gelato, I was unpleasantly surprised by the quality of the product. It wasn’t sweet. Its texture was more grainy than velvety. It just wasn’t very good. I was quite disappointed because I had never had a bad experience with this brand before. So I decided to whine about it.

I took out my phone and tweeted:

albertoferrer Usually lovely Ciao Bella dulce de leche flavor gelato today not so much. Bland, a little rancid, even some ice cristals. Sigh.
8:39 PM Feb 4th from txt

About an hour later, a fellow fan of the Ciao Bella brand tweeted:

mindytweets @albertoferrer ohhh, fail!! Try the blackberry cabernet flavor, yum!
9:41 PM Feb 4th f rom UberTwitter in reply to albertoferrer

I got home and thought nothing more about the incident. That was until I had some free time the following week and checked my Twitter feed more closely. There I found this tweet, from the Ciao Bella folks:

CiaoBellaGelato @albertoferrer Oh NO! Sounds like a remelt issue. Please call our office or email info@ciaobellagelato.com and we will handle it. sorry
2:58 pm Feb 5th from TweetDeck in reply to albertoferrer

I was floored. These guys had not only picked up my tweet, but they had tentatively diagnosed the issue and responded with (1) a promise to make it right and (2) contact information. And that was done in less than one working day. I was also thrilled.

Following their instructions, I emailed the company, explaining the situation with the tweets above pasted into the body of the email. This was on a Wednesday afternoon. The next day I received an email reply from Justine DeRose at Ciao Bella.

She apologized for the incident, which clearly was not their fault (it was the retailer’s), explained in more detail what might have been the cause of the issue, and asked for the code at the bottom of the package so they could better look into the matter. She also offered a coupon for a free pint.

The explanation was great, as it directed any questions I might have about the product away from the product itself. Asking for the code on the package also was great because it suggested that they’d really look into the matter (“these people are serious about the quality of their gelato!” I thought). And of course the free pint coupon was just icing on the proverbial cake: unexpected and delightful.

I replied to the email saying that I no longer had the packaging but letting her know where I had made my purchase. She then asked for my address and mailed me the coupon. I received the free pint coupon this weekend.

Since this situation transpired, I have visited the Ciao Bella website several times (that’s where I was able to put a face to the name of the person at Ciao Bella who was actively engaged in resolving the issue), I have looked for stores that carry their product beyond the stores I usually frequent, and I even tried to buy a pint online. I’ve told the story to several people I know and they’re all impressed with how quickly Ciao Bella handled it, how positive the experience was, and how big an advocate for their brand I’ve become. And now I’ve written this post and will tweet about it.

Was that customer service? Was that marketing? That’s for another post. But from the perspective of a consumer, it doesn’t matter. It was done very well and it will pay off for Ciao Bella. Kudos to them and special thanks to Justine.

Update:
Within an hour of my tweeting the link to this post, Ciao Bella re-tweeted it with a thank you and responded here with a comment by Deborah Holt, their VP of Marketing.

Does Recession Beget Consolidation? When myopia displaces reason

Alberto Ferrer — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 00:36:20 +0000

In trying economic times like the ones in which we now find ourselves, knee-jerk reactions abound. The power of the mighty dollar (or better said, the might of saving dollars) makes many generally-reasonable people make unreasonable decisions. Some people purchase failing financial institutions. Some others slash marketing budgets. Yet others take money out of their bank and put it in a coffee can in their fridge. And of course, there are those that take multicultural marketing business from multicultural marketing agencies and give it to their general market shops. I don’t know which of these examples makes the least sense.

While I can speak to the marketing budget slashing issue, that’s been done to death. There is ample evidence that the marketers with the stomach to power through a downturn and maintain (or increase) their marketing investments in times like these are the ones who profit handsomely when the business environment improves.

The other issue that gets my goat is the myopic shifting of multicultural business to a general market agency. I believe that generally to be a misguided decision that will backfire.

When making such moves, the marketers generally cite the savings that they will realize by combining multicultural and general market activities in the same agency. Some openly acknowledge that the quality of the work will suffer but still opt for the short-term savings in order to relieve the pressure put on them by their finance folks. Some others have been led to believe that the quality will be the same as it was with the multicultural agency (in some cases better!) and so to the marketer it seems like a no-brainer. What folly!

For the uninitiated, this is generally what happens:

Step One: The client finance people issue an edict requiring marketers to reduce their expenses in agency compensation (some clients do that in parallel with overall budget cuts, while others do so as a “share-of-budget” exercise, keeping budgets flat year-over-year but reducing the percentage that is dedicated to compensating agencies.)
Step Two: Marketers contact their agencies to let them know what will be required. Some contact all agencies, others start off with their “lead” (read: general market) agencies, where the bulk of the agency fee expenditures occur.
Step Three: General market agencies, facing the prospect of revenue reductions, opt instead for manageable margin reductions and thus offer to take on the multicultural work for the same agency fee as in the previous year (or perhaps a bit more). It goes something like “Hey, instead of cutting our fee, how about we keep it flat to last year and instead we take on the multicultural work for no additional fee (or a very small fee)? That way, you save all those fees you’re now paying the multicultural shops.”

Now the client looks at the option of streamlining his or her life by working with one agency, having one scope discussion, paying one fee, having one meeting, etc. And on top of that, they save a bunch of money! It sounds like a dream. But it is more like a nightmare. Here are a couple of thoughts for marketers contemplating such a move.

Ask yourself how the general agency can do the multicultural work for no incremental fee (or a very small one). The work that was being done still needs to be done. If the work can just be absorbed by the general agency, that’s a tell-tale sign that either they have been overcharging or they will put a junior person with the appropriate last name or skin color on the multicultural portion of the business and call it a day (after all, the objective is a lower price tag, not good multicultural marketing). Maybe both.
Ask the general agency to provide proof of the quality of the work they say they’ll deliver. Have they done multicultural work before? Are they a leader in their space? Is that their specialty? Would they know good multicultural work if they saw it? Don’t discount the importance of quality work in trying economic times. Remember that alienating a multicultural audience will cost you dearly and for the long term.
Don’t cut the multicultural agencies out of the conversation. Share the issues openly with all stakeholders and get everyone working together to arrive at a workable solution that achieves your cost reduction goals without gutting any one area in your marketing plan. If you have to reduce overall compensation costs by X%, see how the whole team can share the burden. (Perhaps efficiencies can be achieved by consolidations in production or by sharing resources, instead of reducing intellectual capital).

All this notwithstanding, should you choose to follow the silly notion of moving business from agency to agency, do the right thing and offer the option to everyone. That is, if you’re considering moving your multicultural work to the general market agency, also entertain the option of bringing your general market work to the multicultural shop.

It wouldn’t surprise me to see the multicultural agency, experienced in working with constrained budgets and compensation, being the best option for the overall account. They can provide the same assurances of quality on the general market work as the general agencies do on the multicultural work, and they will certainly do it for less.

A Hispanic-Targeted Site Is a Need-to-Have, Not a Nice-to-Have

Alberto Ferrer — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:38:31 +0000

This very challenging economic climate (to put it mildly) is making otherwise rational business people make some misguided decisions. In the now-in-fashion-more-than-ever hunt for saving money, those in charge are looking everywhere for savings. On the one hand, I understand that when business realities call for leaner expense budgets, changes need to be made. On the other hand, however, I don’t understand how some of the things that are being evaluated for cutting would ever make it to that list. A particular one that doesn’t make sense: cutting support for Hispanic-targeted corporate websites.

Even before the US economy took its swan dive into the commode, corporate sites targeting Hispanics were few and far between. Never mind the research supporting the need for companies to have Hispanic market sites up and running, even with full transactional capabilities. Never mind the research finding that Hispanics are going online in droves and finding precious little content tailored to them. Many clients still resisted and remained general market, English-only, on the Web. This was the case even for marketers with support for Hispanic advertising. Imagine that, investing in advertising to the Hispanic market, while alienating the same consumers online.

Today’s economic realities make things even tougher. As marketing budgets get cut left and right (enough has been written about the folly of cutting marketing investment in recessionary times, so I won’t go into it here), multicultural marketing budgets commonly find themselves in the crosshairs of short-term-thinking clients. Keeping the Hispanic website becomes a line item that is often too easy to cut as companies reduce headcount in internal support staff (who’ll manage the Hispanic site now?) and overall marketing communications targeting this population (would they prioritize the website over running a few more television spots?).

Especially in these tough times, clients need to reconsider any thought of cutting the support for their Hispanic-targeted corporate website. Here are a few reasons why, some of which I alluded to above:

Hispanics are online. According to comScore, there were 20 million Hispanics online last month. Brands should be there too. Marketers should not alienate Hispanic consumers on the Web by providing only a general market site.
Hispanics who are online tend to be better-educated and have higher incomes and better credit, making the Web a bit of a filter for the cream of the crop of Hispanic consumers. Talk about efficiency!
There is a dearth of Hispanic-targeted content online, making any marketer’s content stand out much more than in the general market, where there’s plenty of me-too content to go around.
Hispanic consumers often go online to learn about the products and services they seek, even if they end up completing the transaction in offline channels. Lacking a website, where will these consumers go to get the information they need to make a purchase decision?
Analyzing server logs from their Hispanic-targeted sites can provide companies valuable insights into consumer behavior. Product preference, information needs, purchase behavior, and more can be gleaned from “watching” consumers on the site.
Marketers who cut their Hispanic sites may find their Hispanic consumers more easily swayed by the competition, which by maintaining a robust online presence for Hispanics, sent the clear message that the group is important to them.

In summary, I would strongly advise clients to not only forget about cutting Hispanic-targeted websites, but to increase the support (e.g., funding, resources) behind them. It’s an investment that will pay off handsomely in more business from this very attractive population.

Account Management or Client Service

Alberto Ferrer — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:04:58 +0000

You say “toh-MAY-toh” and I say “toh-MAH-toh,” the song exclaims, suggesting that it’s the same thing simply pronounced a little differently in each instance. Does a similar dynamic apply in the ongoing debate of Account Management versus Client Service? As I understand it, this is not a matter of simple semantics. It is a deeper discussion about what we do as agency folks.

Client Service is the older of the two terms and has been used for generations. I was part of the Client Service department when I started in the agency business many years ago. The term is easy to understand (“it’s the people who work with the clients”) and tried and true. It focuses on the client.

At the same time, there are those who see a more negative meaning here. They feel that the term connotes subservience (the “service” part of the term makes many an account person bristle) and a “jump!” “how high?” mentality that is not the reality in business today. They believe that today account managers lead client businesses and thus they need a term that more accurately reflects that: Account Management.

Account Management is a newer term that focuses on the account versus the client. It drives home the point that account people manage the client business rather than servicing anyone or anything. It’s perhaps a stronger term.

However, some people believe the term suggests that it’s taking the people out of the equation and that account managers are all about the business and not about the softer side. They feel the term connotes an arrogance about the account manager (we know what’s important, the account) versus giving clients their due.

And of course there’s the hybrid Account Service term, which perhaps means that we provide service to an account. Not loving that one.

To me, it really isn’t about the name. It’s about what’s behind it. In my opinion, we need a little account management and a little client service. My view, and what I tell my teams, is that we need to do both.

We need to do Account Management. That is, we need to manage the client’s business. We need to manage their account, get the work done, lead the process, etc. That’s the nuts and bolts part.

We also need to do Client Service. At the end of the day, agencies are in the service business where clients pay the bills. And by clients I mean human beings. These are the folks with whom we interact every day, the folks who approve (or not) our briefs, our work, and our fees. We need to provide service to them, to be a resource to them, to be nice and engaging to them, to be accommodating and sympathetic. You get the point.

Clients hire and fire agencies both for the quality of the work and for the human element of the relationship (among other factors). Therefore, having a strong relationship with both the account (the business) and the client (the people) is critical.

The best work done by arrogant jerks will get you fired just as crappy work done by the nicest most accommodating people in the world will. The challenge is balancing both in a way that the client feels listened to, understood, and valued as a person and contributing member of the team, while managing the business as passionately as if it were your own.

Information Freedom

Alberto Ferrer — Fri, 18 May 2007 23:43:24 +0000

When I was working at Leo Burnett as an AAE, I thought quite highly of myself. There I was, making $16,000 per year, working on the prestigious Procter & Gamble business. I had my very own cubicle, my very own key to come in and out of the office (no access cards back then), and my own extension (no direct lines back then). I even had use of the three IBM PCs that were available to the Client Service department. I thought I had it made. I also thought I knew everything.

It got to the point that I thought I knew more than my boss, the Account Supervisor on the business. I ran my projects well, with not a ton of supervision, and usually with no issues. I even had some minor client contact and did not embarrass myself or the agency. I thought that I was indispensable. And that’s when it started.

I began to keep my boss just a little less informed than normal, and give her information just a little later than before. I started sharing less, less often, and later. I was the keeper of the information. I had the knowledge. She didn’t. Knowledge is power, they say, so I was powerful. I continued like that for a while, almost walking on air intoxicated by my perception of power. I was like the squirrel stashing away nuts for the winter, storing away information so that I could sound smart or knowledgeable (more up to speed or up to date than my boss, even) if anyone asked anything.

Hoarding makes your cheeks floppy

Then it happened. We had a problem. A big problem. A big client problem. It was traced back to part of my work, to things that I managed. Things that I had been managing myself without sharing as much with my supervisor. All of a sudden, all eyes were upon me. Lots of questions were asked “how could this happen?” was a popular one), all the way up to the Director of Client Services. I was freaked out and afraid I’d lose my job (which made sense considering that my not sharing information had kept the agency in the dark about something that seemed insignificant to me then but to the trained eye of my managers would have meant something).

In the end, no one was fired and things were cleared up. My Account Supervisor heroically covered for me and taught me a huge lesson in the process. From then on, I was the most prolific sharer of information out there. I learned that having the information itself does not really give any power. It’s knowing what to do with it that does. It’s not about having the information and keeping it to yourself (where’s the power in that?). It’s about the power of sharing it and letting those around you know that you have it (that’s power).

I learned that the more I shared with my Account Supervisor, the more she saw how I was understanding things, managing things, and being proactive. That helped her assess my performance and it allowed me to grow. It also made my boss look good. And there I learned that making my boss look good makes me look good. It all trickles down.

Information about the client business, about a project’s status, about what someone said in a creative presentation related to our work, all wants to be free. Sharing it often with your supervisors lets them stay abreast of what’s going on (which is part of your job) and helps them help you do yours (which is part of their job).

Keep your boss informed of things so that he or she is not surprised (in any business, surprises are not exactly welcome) by any development. Keep your team abreast of what’s going on so that everyone benefits from your information and you benefit from theirs. And don’t hoard. It makes your cheeks floppy.