- 10/13/2012 1:18:58 AM
Noreen, you are very much correct. Steve Jobs being the face of Apple was in private, socially awkward and a bully, far different than his carefully crafted public image, while he and Apple steered clear of controversial social/political issues. Their label is void of any outside connection. Whole Foods and Chick-Fil-a jumped right into the fray, linking their label indentification to emotional and partisan issues. Fail to see the business savy in that!
- 10/13/2012 12:40:06 AM
Beth, agreed he took remedial action that appears to have effectively calmed the fury. Hats off to him for his business acumen in following the data, not his leaning. But I still fail to see why a business would unnecesseraly expose their label to controversial issues. I suppose some subscibe to gaining publicity any way necessary.
- by BethSchultz, Blogger
- 10/12/2012 6:35:20 PM
Hi rbaz. I'm not sure I'd exactly say Gilt Groupe showed a lack of discretion in that it thought it was doing its customers a favor and thoughtfully planned a strategy -- at least from my understanding of the situation. And to point out a positive, I like that Gilt so quickly recognized and remedied its approach. Listening the customers -- and the data -- is good!
- 10/12/2012 3:52:56 PM
Interesting how our opinions about an executive sometimes shape our perspectives, but are ignored in other cases. Steve Jobs was almost universally considered an unpleasant man, but we still bought his Kool-Aid. But Whole Foods drew ire for speaking out about health care; Chick-fil-a, on gay marriage.
Maybe it's ok to be a nasty person as long as you keep your politics to yourself
- 10/12/2012 2:03:16 PM
You are absolutely correct! Case in point, the Chic-fil-a controversy where the owner publicized his conservative values on a sensitive social issue. That drew the ire of a segment that called for boycott and praise from the opposite that called for supporting him by frequenting his restaurants. Sales went through the roof, so much so that they were running out of supply. That is a potential short term marketing success. It remains to be seen what the long term ramifications. Short term marketing strategies can be very costly in the long term!
- by impactnow, Blogger
- 10/12/2012 12:32:25 PM
There is a fine line between personalization and people feeling watched. That is where this campaign probably went wrong. As we all know Amazon profiles you incessantly, however this may also be a case of a different clientele. Possibly higher end clientele are more sensitive to messages that are overly personalized. Now there is an analytics project for someone any takers?
- by Alexis, Data Doctor
- 10/12/2012 9:28:53 AM
Clothing sizes are too personal and too volatile for a company to promote without the specific consent of the customer. Gilt Groupe should have surveyed some real buyers before embarking on such a campaign.
- by Ariella, Blogger
- 10/12/2012 9:05:50 AM
@Cordell You're right. The main quesiton for those in charge of business strategy is what's the bottom line? Was there a net gain as a result of using the data? It's an impossible goal to make everyone happy all of the time. On the other hand, if complaints get very strong, the negative effect can outweigh the positive, so they need to do that risk/benefit assessment. I'm sure there are analytics for that.