All Posts By

BJ Bueno

The Sound of One Hand Clapping: Applause and Your Brand Lovers

During the Florida Republican Primary Debate, moderator Brian Williams asked the audience to refrain from applauding or booing anything they hear the candidates say. While this is the norm for presidential debates, the request drew mixed reaction in this instance.

There are those who praised the silent format, claiming that it reduces the theatrical aspect of the debate, forcing the focus onto the actual content of the discussion. There are those who criticized the move, claiming that the audience’s free speech was being stifled.  Additionally, these critics asked, isn’t the theatrical aspect of the debate part of the point?

This conversation raises larger questions. They transcend politics. The question of applause is relevant to every sphere of life, but most especially in the area of the relationship we have with our customers. We need to talk about the power of applause, the many roles applause can take, and the impact applause has on several parties: the person (or organization) being applauded, the person clapping their hands, and perhaps most important of all, those who observe the applause.

Why We Talk: Applause As Social Currency

To understand why applause is powerful, we have to take a look at the underlying psychological motivation forces that guide our behavior.  We’re all influenced by these forces whether we’re aware of them or not.  The need to belong to a group is very strong. Just belonging isn’t enough, however; we need to have a comfortable position in the group, one in which we understand our role, feel we receive an acceptable amount of support and validation, a place where we’re respected.

Part of the way we gain position in a group is by the exchange of what social scientists call social currency. Applause is a form of social currency.  When you clap for someone, you’re signalling your approval and admiration.

This has benefits for the person being applauded. They feel better, obviously, fulfilling the esteem needs. Applause attracts attention: other people want to see what’s so interesting. Increased attention boosts social status, which can result in an extension of influence.

Clapping has its own reward. Applause can be used to declare elements of identity: you can tell who a man is by paying attention to what he claps for. To find people who like the same things you do, follow the clapping.  You can gain social status by being among the first to applaud: there’s always been a special cachet associated with being in the know.

Applause strengthens the relationship between both parties. There are many benefits and expectations woven into the nuanced dance of the celebrated and the celebrator. It’s only when those expectations are understood and met that you see the applause continuing on an ongoing basis. Do a superlative job, and the applause grows in volume and intensity. It’s a cyclical pattern that begins with that first tentative clap.

Applause takes many forms. There’s hand clapping, but there’s also reviews and ratings. Any grading system is a specialized form of applause: if you meet these standards, we’re going to applaud your performance with an “A.” (Good to know if you’re in the restaurant business!) It’s important to be aware of how your best customers are likely to applaud you, as well as what type of applause they pay attention to.  That awareness is fundamental to forming deep, meaningful connections with your customers.

And that’s a fact no one will debate!

February 1, 2012 by

Beyond Question: Are There Things Your Brand Should Never Ask?

Arthur Brisbane has been having a rough week. On January 12th, the NY Times‘ public editor (a position created, you may remember, in the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal) used his high-profile soap box to ask the most amazing question: Should the Times be a truth vigilante? Was it incumbent on reporters, he went on to ask, to challenge public figures when their statements were less than accurate?

In itself, it’s not a particularly difficult question.  Most NY Times readers answered it quickly and succinctly. No duh, the collective wisdom went.  Of course it’s the NY Times‘ job to verify that the facts they print are actually facts—not politically-motivated spin, egregious falsehoods, or just plain old nonsense.

NY Times executive editor Jill Abramson joined the conversation, pointing out that fact checking is central to what journalists—and by extension, the NY Times—do.

The conversation quickly moved from there into a more complicated inquiry.  NY Times readers wanted to know why Brisbane was asking the question at all. It’s impossible to get even approximately accurate numbers on reader response, as the paper closed comments within hours of the editorial posting, but it’s not hard to discern the emotional tone of the conversation. Extremely high levels of anger, hostility, and frustration are easy to see.

Where is this emotion coming from?

It’s important to note that Brisbane did more than write an uncomfortable editorial.  That in itself would not have been so noteworthy.  Instead, he did something far more disruptive: he questioned a fundamental aspect of the NY Times‘ mythos.  The mythos is the shared cultural narrative, composed of beliefs held often unconsciously, in common by the NY Times, the NY Times readership, and the community at large.

The Mythos of the NY Times

As a legacy brand, the NY Times has a long and storied history.  The “Old Gray Lady” built a reputation as the paper of record. The NY Times brand was more than credible; it was strong enough to serve an editorial role in the national conversation simply by deciding what was included in “All the news that’s fit to print.”

The NY Times has a personality, a history, a known editorial slant and, despite some very well publicized mishaps, a reputation for adhering to rigorous journalistic standards. All of these elements combine in the brand’s mythos, and all of these elements are essential. For any organization, the mythos plays a strong role in defining the brand’s appeal. When an organization’s mythos is as strong and robust as the NY Times, you play with it at your peril.

So Mr. Brisbane has learned. By questioning one of the fundamental aspects of the paper’s mythos—the story that the NY Times is a dependable source of reliable information—he has introduced a tension into the customer/brand relationship. Doubts have crept into a space reserved for certainty.

This isn’t the first time there’s been mayhem in the NY Times‘ mythos, but it’s one of the most troubling.  If the leadership at the NY Times can’t believe in and articulate the fundamental aspects that define the paper as something different, special, and remarkable in the media, why should anyone else?

January 25, 2012 by

Ringing in the New: Champagne, Brand Modeling, and Looking Ahead to 2012

There’s never a bad time to be a winemaker—or so we have been assured by vineyard owners—but some years are better than others. Champagne, in particular, has been enjoying a great year, with sales up a reported 5.2% over the first half of 2011.

That’s an awful lot of bubbly! Champagne is the beverage of choice for festive events, essential for wedding toasts and, of course, New Year’s Eve celebrations.  Now that the ball has officially dropped, and we’ve embarked, for better or worse, into 2012. It’s a good time to look at this CNN Fortune story about legacy Champagne brand Piper-Heidsieck and their efforts to remain relevant in a crowded, confusing marketplace.

We have to admit that our curiosity was piqued by new CEO Cecile Bonneford’s comment, “Market research tells me what the average consumer wants and I’m not interested in the average consumer.”  Bonneford’s reported plans center on positioning Piper-Heidsieck as a luxury brand for younger, affluent drinkers.

Before these plans can be implemented, however, it’s essential that Piper-Heidsieck has a deep, nuanced understanding of how her prospective market views luxury.  What are the essential traits that a brand must embody in order to qualify as a luxury brand in her customer’s eyes?

Brand Modeling: Finding A Path Forward

There are tangible and intangible answers to that question. We can talk about the physical qualities of the product. Piper-Heidsieck is actually produced in the Champagne region of France; a meaningful distinction for oenophiles.

What iconography and imagery comes to mind when her audience hears the word “luxury”?  Does Piper-Heidsieck look like, smell like, and most importantly taste like a luxury Champagne? It’s essential that the customer expectations are understood, met, and whenever possible, surpassed.

The conversation goes on from there. The intangible qualities that define luxury are in many ways more critical than the tangible. Piper-Heidsieck has several great cards in their hand. They’ve been in existence for more than 100 years; longevity is the hallmark of a luxury brand. It’s hard to beat a celebrity endorsement list that boasts both Marie Antoinette and Marilyn Monroe.

Identifying these and other similar factors begins the exploration of the values and narratives that this audience associates with luxury. This process lies at the heart of discovering a Brand’s DNA, one of the key steps in Brand Modeling. Through this discovery, dominant organizations learn the best ways to connect with their existing customer base, attract new customer interest, and convert the casual fan into a devoted afficionado.

Bonnefeld’s definition of luxury is fascinating. “Luxury is about tension,” she said in the article, “tension about history and tension about today.” There’s certainly a lot of room for interpretation there, but if Bonnefeld’s interpretation is in alignment with her market’s, she’s in a good position to succeed.  Understanding what critical points of tension a customer faces and providing a proven, reliable, enjoyable way to resolve those tensions is how dominant organizations put customers first.

We’ll be keeping an eye on Piper-Heidsieck. We think that they may find themselves with something to celebrate!

January 3, 2012 by

Is Wendy’s Winning or Burger King Losing?

All of a sudden, everyone is talking about the Burger Wars again.  Nothing’s actually changed yet—McDonald’s is still the undisputed leader of the pack, with Burger King in the number two spot.  But things are about to change.

The Wall Street Journal revealed that Wendy’s is poised to knock the King off his throne. This is big news, and lots of people have theories about how it happened. A lot has been said about menu revamps: Wendy’s was both timely and well-executed, while Burger King’s lacks both cohesion and relevance, especially in terms of healthier offerings.

While Wendy’s has gone after the upscale end of the fast food market, Burger King is routinely slammed for the poor quality of their food.  Wendy’s has capitalized on its legacy relationship with their Brand Lovers by running campaigns featuring the chain’s namesake, Wendy Thomas. Burger King, on the other hand, only recently stopped an off-putting and unsettling campaign featuring a creepy cartoon version of the King that alienated more customers than it attracted.

There’s a lot of wisdom here.  Every theory captures part of the reason Wendy’s star is on the rise, while Burger King is declining. If we want more than a partial understanding, we need to combine these theories with the type of deeper understanding that Brand Modeling provides.

Connecting With Your Customer

To achieve and maintain the number two position in the massive fast food market is a huge challenge. Brand Modeling teaches us that the only way an organization could be successful in such an endeavor is to develop a deep understanding of who their best customers are. Armed with this understanding, companies can then successfully anticipate their customer’s needs and meet them in a way that surpasses expectations.  This process strengthens the relationship between the customer and the brand.

From the Wall Street Journal, we hear how Wendy’s has tried to deepen its understanding of its customer base. Wendy’s spent 18 months interviewing 10,000 consumers. “They told us they liked the idea of fresh foods with as little processing as possible and ingredients they were familiar with,” said Denny Lynch, Wendy’s spokesman. This understanding prompted Wendy’s to change their trademark square burger shape, rounding the corners to create a less-processed look.  Understanding the value of freshness and familiarity certainly influenced the creation of a familiar tagline: You know when it’s real.

The chain clearly understands that the public is hungry for more than a burger. They have deeper needs to be met, emotional and subconscious needs. We see Wendy’s meeting the need for reassurance and tradition. The emphasis on fresh and familiar ingredients is more than a food-wish-list; the deeper message is about safety and home.

In a time when its best customers are facing economic upheaval and financial uncertainty (albeit to a lesser degree than Burger King’s best customers, the young men who are suffering disproportionate rates of unemployment), Wendy’s is telling a story of family and continuity, honoring tradition while embracing innovation. Wendy’s is winning because it’s telling its Brand Lovers the story they want to hear.  There’s sea salt on the fries, and it comes with a side order of hope and optimism.

For Burger King, this is another in a string of wake-up calls.  Will it work? If BK can reconnect with their Brand Lovers successfully, hope remains. But time is of the essence. The fast food giant will have to move quickly indeed.

December 28, 2011 by

Trouble at the Top: The Leader’s Challenge

If there’s trouble, look to the top.

Brand Modeling teaches us that the force most responsible for a dominant organization’s success is the enthusiastic support of its best customers. So what force is most responsible for an organization’s failure? A not-insignificant portion of the time, the answer resides at the top. The Daily Beast recently ran a feature entitled 10 Worst Corporate Boards of the Decade that highlighted some monumental leadership challenges.

It’s not an in-depth piece, but as you flip through it, you’ll see that there are certain traits exhibited by the worst leadership teams that seem to keep cropping up.  Board members are over-committed, inexperienced, and have interests and agendas in conflict with their organization’s health and success.

Sometimes Boards are asleep at the wheel.  Tyco was included on this list because they allowed their CEO, Dennis Kozlowski, and CFO, Mark Swartz to steal over $150 million from the company. Insufficient oversight is perhaps the most generous way to describe what happened there.

GM made the list for other reasons.  A lack of strategic planning and failure to adapt to market changes kept GM from hitting the highway to success. Throw in significant accounting errors that put potholes into GM’s already rocky road, and it’s not surprising that the company went off track.

One common trait unites all of these examples.  There is a fundamental disconnect between the leadership and the companies they were supposed to be directing.  It’s a pattern of behavior as old as time itself; a cultural narrative that has a deep and profound place in our collective unconscious.  Today, we speak about Boards of Directors and pillaged corporate funds.  Two thousand years ago, the story would be that the shepherd has laid down his staff, yet still he cries when the sheep are lost.

Brand Modeling: The Role of Leadership and Brand Vision

What we see happening instead in dominant organizations, time and time again, is the opposite situations. These are companies that are thriving because they exist in a state of alignment. There is what we call Brand Vision, a shared vision of success that motivates and guides decision making. This vision is shared at every level: it’s as familiar to front-line employees as it is to your C-level executives and yes, Board of Directors.

It’s especially important that an organization’s leadership understand and be invested in the company’s Brand Vision. Directors, after all, are there to direct and guide the company in a more successful direction. They are pathfinders, charged with leading the charge up the mountainside. The journey becomes infinitely easier when they know what the summit looks like.

The more dominant an organization is, the more thorough and involved their Brand Vision is likely to be. Knowing what success looks like means understanding how the company is positioned in many spheres: in the relationship with the Brand Lover, as a force or presence in a given market, as an employer or investment possibility. A unity of vision keeps the organization on track. Decisions are made to realize that vision, keeping the leadership, company, and Brand Lover aligned throughout the process.  That’s putting customers first, and that’s how dominant organizations win.

December 12, 2011 by

Mythbusters Mayhem: A Branding Opportunity

For most organizations, the news that the company inadvertently sent a cannonball careening out of the safe confines of the firing range and through a private home would be a nightmare. Most organizations aren’t Mythbusters. For this wildly popular Discovery Channel show, a ballistic blunder could prove to be a priceless branding opportunity.

Thankfully, no one was injured in the incident. (This statement doesn’t include, of course, Mythbuster’s relationship with their insurance company!) Accidents and mishaps are inevitable in some businesses; productions that regularly do things like test urban legends with high-powered explosives fall squarely into that category.

Almost every episode of the show features a segment where the testing went wrong. If you’re a Mythbusters Brand Lover (one of the legions of ardent fans who never miss an episode, buy Mythbusters merchandise, and participate in online discussion forums, nitpicking every experiment within minutes of its airing), you understand that failure is inherent in the discovery process.

And what a magnificent failure this was! There’s a almost cinematic element to the incident: it’s not hard to visualize the cannon firing; the cannon ball going up, higher than anyone expected; fear and panic rising as the ball went out of sight; the relief upon discovering no one was injured. It’s the ultimate, ramped-up version of the show—a version that no viewer would even know to ask for, because who would believe it possible?

Brand Modeling: Understanding Peak Experiences

Emotional expectations shape the relationship between our customers and our brand. If we meet or exceed those expectations, the relationship becomes stronger.  If we fail in those expectations, the relationship is damaged. A big part of those expectations is what we call the Peak Experience: what is the ultimate emotional state the consumer expects to experience after engaging with us?

If we were to speculate about Mythbuster’s Brand Lovers, we’d guess that their Peak Experience has a lot to do with excitement and intellectual curiosity. These are people who want the answer to the question, “What would happen if…”  Mythbusters has built their relationship with their Brand Lovers by consistently answering that question in an exciting way, steadily ramping the size and scope of the experiments up to satisfy viewer curiosity. This is the team that used a jet engine to flip a school bus.

With a single incident, every bit of emotional payoff Mythbusters Brand Lovers receive from watching the show was just delivered in a super size version. This was the ultimate answer to “What if…?” Slipping free from safety’s bounds showed us what Mythbusters could be, in a world absent consequences.

The Discovery Channel needs to be smart and strategic about how they handle this incident. Of course, there must be an acknowledgment of the safety issue and appropriate compensation to the homeowner who wasn’t planning to have two-cannonball shaped holes installed in their house. At the same time, it’s essential that the sense of gleeful exuberance that comes with discovery (even in the wake of destruction) comes through.

Mythbusters had a catastrophic systems failure, but they failed doing what their Brand Lovers expect them to do, in the way their Brand Lovers expect them to do it.   There’s messing up, and there’s messing up magnificently. Mythbusters has the opportunity to showcase the difference.

December 7, 2011 by

Flushing Your Brand Goodbye: Starbucks and the Public Bathroom Question

Talk about a tidal wave of change!

Starbucks recently made headlines with its decision to close the public restrooms in many of their New York locations.  Too many people are using the Starbucks’ bathrooms, not all of whom are paying customers, and this makes it difficult for Starbucks’ employees to take bathroom breaks in a timely fashion. Add in the not-insignificant expense of keeping public restrooms clean and operational in New York City, factor in the fact that the chain is not by law required to provide restrooms in shops that seat less than 20 people, and it seems that switching to employees-only facilities is a sensible, straightforward business decision.

That is, of course, until you stop and think about what Starbucks sells.

Starbucks sells coffee.  Coffee contains caffeine, and caffeine is a diuretic, especially when consumed in large amounts.  Diuretics cause the body to produce increased amounts of urine.  In other words, if you drink caffeinated coffee, sooner or later, you’re going to need a bathroom.

Coffee isn’t all Starbucks sells. In fact, coffee isn’t even Starbucks’ primary offering.  What Starbucks sells is the experience.  People choose Starbucks because of the coffee shop’s atmosphere, community, and unique culture. Starbucks is the hipster’s home away from home; a place to relax, read the paper, cruise the internet, and connect with like-minded friends. Enjoying the coffee is secondary entirely to the experience, but it still an essential element of the customer-brand interaction.

This cycle only works one way.  When we drink coffee, we develop a need to use the bathroom. There’s only one way to resolve the tension we’re feeling. By removing the public restrooms from their facilities, Starbucks has introduced a biological limitation on their customer’s experience.  People are free, of course, to continue to come in, order coffee, hang out, and enjoy the atmosphere and community—as long as their bladders hold out.

Once that threshold has been reached, and the need to visit the bathroom is one that can no longer be ignored, it doesn’t matter how compelling the community and ambiance may be. When you’ve gotta go, you’ve gotta go! If there are no bathrooms in  Starbucks, you have to leave the coffee shop and go somewhere else.

Brand Modeling: Predicting the Impact of Organizational Change

How quickly will you return? Brand Modeling tells us that success lies in understanding the wants and needs of your best customers, and fulfilling those needs better than anyone else does.  Starbucks won valuable market share by being the coffee shop that provided a certain self-aware, self-congratulatory atmosphere for its patrons. They clearly understand the psychological and emotional needs of their clientele. But what about their physical needs?

It will only take one distressing experience for a Starbucks’ consumer to decide that they’ll get their next coffee at a shop that delivers less in the way of ambiance and community and more in the way of bathroom facilities.  In the interest of saving a few dollars and some employee time, Starbucks is introducing an unnecessary tension into their operation that can damage the customer relationship.  There are already rumbles about Starbucks failing to be a good corporate citizen; customers sense the disconnect when an organization has a millionaire CEO and can’t afford to fund basic bathroom maintenance.

Small resentments can create large problems, even for the world’s best brands. We’re really not sure that closing the bathrooms is a great move on Starbucks’ part.  What do you think?

November 29, 2011 by

Target, Turkey, and Giving Thanks

Happy Thanksgiving to one and all! It is our hopes that everyone reading these words has enjoyed many blessings this year. We’re certainly grateful for those of you who have made this an interesting, thought-provoking, and productive year: you have made a difference in our lives, and we thank you for it.

Thanksgiving occupies a special place in the American pantheon of holidays.  We’ve developed a complex routine. There’s the menu: the largest turkey anyone ever saw, surrounded by all the trimmings.  After, there’s pumpkin pie and football … and that’s when the real activity starts.

We’re talking, of course, about Black Friday.  Black Friday has become an event in and of itself.  It’s the “official” kick off to the holiday shopping season. To see shoppers waiting in the frigid pre-dawn hours of a November morning, shivering and determined to get their door-buster special, is to see a special type of desperate competition. Crowded stores, trampling throngs of shoppers, furious frenzies to grab this season’s must-have item: for some people, this just can’t start soon enough.

Evaluating Difficult Corporate Decisions

Target has joined the throngs of big box retailers who are pushing back the clock on Black Friday.  This year, they’ll be opening their stores on midnight. If you work for Target, you’d better enjoy that turkey dinner early: you’ll need enough time for the tryptophan to wear off so you can be bright eyed and enthusiastic!

Not everyone has welcomed the news with open arms.  Target employees, in particular, were not amused.  They partnered with Change.org and gathered close to 200,000 signatures from people who thought that Target should let their staff have an entire day of rest to celebrate and count their blessings.

Target has shown no inclination to change its position. Target’s human resources director has been quoted that workers should understand it’s a matter of staying competitive. Anahita Cameron said, “Our guests have expressed that they would prefer to kick off their holiday shopping experience right after the holiday celebrations, rather than getting up in the middle of the night.”

Employees who have pushed for an entire holiday off have been criticized widely in the media for being ungrateful. In an economy where so many have no jobs at all, protesting working certain hours because they happen to fall on a day reserved for national celebration and thanksgiving strikes some as clueless.

Yet one wonders.  If Target had chosen to start their Black Friday slightly later on Friday—opening at 6 am, perhaps, or 3 am, they would have escaped this criticism entirely.

Did pushing back the big event to midnight on Thursday really gain Target enough of a competitive advantage that it more than offsets the damage Target did to its employee relations? What about the damage done to customers who care about how retailers treat their employees? Dominant organizations win when their employees are aligned with and invested in the organization’s success: actions that seem punitive or mean-spirited, such as intruding on what had traditionally been a special day, a guaranteed holiday, do little to bring a team into alignment.

Brand Modeling gives us the tools we need when we’re facing choices like how early Black Friday should begin. Target has indicated that they’ve had consumer demand for an earlier start.  Did this demand come from Target’s best customers, who will follow through on their stated interest? Or will those early sales be more disappointing than the pumpkin pie Aunt Minnie brought for dessert? What do you think?

November 23, 2011 by

Brand Modeling, Organizational Change, and Google: An Examination

Becoming the dominant player in any industry is tough.  Holding onto that premier position is even harder.  Brand Modeling teaches us that it is the leaders of any organization who must have a clear, fully articulated vision of what success means for their company—as well as the resolve and resources to make that vision reality.

That’s why we read this NY Times article about Google CEO Larry Page with great interest. To quote:

Despite the many external pressures on Google, it is dominant in its business and highly profitable. But, when asked at a recent conference about the biggest threat to his company, Mr. Page answered in one word, “Google.”

Growth has consequences.  Google has grown to be one of the world’s largest corporations.  There’s no doubt that the company has a dominant and pervasive presence in our culture.  However, while developing this dominant, pervasive presence, Google has lost some of the essential qualities that made the company so strong in the first place. Namely, according to Mr. Page, velocity and execution.

Why is this a big deal?

Mr. Page believes (and he’s almost certainly right) that a large part of the reason that Google is the organization it is today was the rapid creation and deployment of innovative web tools and strategies.  Rapid is a key word here.  Google had grown to such a size and in such a way that it wasn’t moving fast anymore. They have lost one of the key qualities that made them appealing to their customers in the first place.

Mr. Page is changing that.  He has eliminated more than 25 projects.  The organization is getting a much-needed trim.  Change like this is never easy.  It’s one thing to talk about eliminating projects, but at the end of the day, what gets eliminated is people’s positions. This can create fear, anxiety, and disruption in an organization precisely when it’s most critical to have everyone on the same page.

Fostering Organizational Change

What is the best way for Mr. Page and the rest of the Google leadership team to address this organizational change internally? Clear communication is key. Google’s team needs to know not only what changes are being made, but why those changes are made.  They need to see the larger vision.  Sharing information about organizational changes is more than common courtesy. It provides a much needed answer to what is the top question in every Google employee’s mind: What is going to happen to me? What is my role with the company going to look like?

When employees understand what it will look like when the company is successful, and what role they play in creating and continuing that success, implementing change becomes easier.  You achieve critical buy-in only when employees see that they will benefit from the changes.

Has Mr. Page been doing that? The reports we’re seeing seem to indicate that he’s making a large effort to be more open and communicative, especially in shareholder meetings.  Expanding that trend toward open, transparent communication with his leadership team and employees can help bring the organization into alignment —even when the organization is as big as Google.

November 15, 2011 by

Did BofA Blink? Maybe They Just Opened Their Eyes

On September 29th, Bank of America announced that they were going to start charging debit card users $5 a month for the privilege of using their debit cards. It was a move intended to offset the impact of new limits on swipe fees.  Swipe fees are the charges BofA charged merchants for debit card processing.  Unable to collect from merchants, BofA intended to replace that revenue directly from their customers.

It was a great plan, from BofA’s point of view.  BofA’s customers had another opinion on the matter.  One of the tenets of Brand Modeling is that you must always be aware of and responsive to your best customer’s needs. We tell clients continually that this is  not difficult.  Today’s customers are empowered. Social media has become the platform of choice to share reaction and responses to corporate action.

Molly Katchpole used that power to share her anger and frustration with BofA’s new debit card fee on Change.org.  Part of her commentary read:

“The American people bailed out Bank of America during a financial crisis the banks helped create. You paid zero dollars in federal income tax last year. And now your bank is profiting, raking in $2 billion in profits last quarter alone. How can you justify squeezing another $60 a year from your debit card customers? This is despicable.”

300,000 people agreed with her.  The viral campaign, coupled with a Credit Union National Association report that credit unions had gained 650,000 customers since the September 29th announcement, was enough to change BofA’s mind.  They announced on November 7th that the new fee wasn’t going to happen.

Did BofA blink—or have their eyes been opened to some fundamental business realities?

Brand Modeling: The Value in Knowing Your Customers

This is hardly the first time that BofA has raised fees.  The charge for basic checking has gone up, and there is now a fee for replacing a lost or stolen debit card. It’s $20 if you need the replacement card overnighted to you.  Until September, card replacement and shipping had been free services. Yet there was no outrage over these changes.  How was Bank of America to know that a little $5 fee would provoke such widespread consumer outrage?

They might have tried paying attention.  Brand Modeling tells us that the route to true business dominance is putting your customers first. Identifying your most profitable customers and understanding what motivates their purchasing behavior is easier said than done.  You can’t just look at demographic data or even previous patterns of customer behavior to predict, with any degree of accuracy, how consumers are going to react to an operations change.

Instead, you need to know, with pinpoint accuracy, where your customer’s heads and hearts are on any given day. You can’t rely on general data. You need specific actionable intelligence. What pressures and tensions are your customers facing? What challenges are making their life tougher? How is your brand making their lives better—or worse?

BofA’s customers, the legions of small account holders who rely on debit cards as a way to control both cash flow and interest expenses, are feeling pretty strapped.  Economic pressures are hitting hard.  To be an effective brand manager, you have to understand what tensions your customers are under, and how they’re handling those challenges. You have to know how many straws are on the proverbial camel’s back—preferably before you add another to the load.

BofA didn’t know. Or if they knew, it sure looks like they didn’t care. Piling another fee on customers already stressed to the max was just dumb, no matter how you slice it. Customers are paying more attention to fees and charges than ever before. They are watching every penny, and are fearful about their financial security. Had BofA been following the tenets of Brand Modeling, they would have been aware of the levels of customer tension and bail-out related resentment that made a new fee untenable at this time.  Instead, they had to do it the hard way, imperiling their relationships with their existing customer base and deterring would-be customers from giving them a chance.

Will this wake up call change the way BofA does business? Only time will tell, but one thing is certain. BofA’s customer base is not willing to tolerate many more mistakes.  We don’t think BofA blinked.  We think their eyes were forced wide open. How about you? What’s your take on the BofA fee reversal?

November 10, 2011 by