by Josh Davenport
A recent article discussed how retailers are largely ignoring people on social media networks. Two-thirds of all customer issues are largely ignored by retail brands. This shocking statistic indicates a lack of understanding of the inherent qualities of social media.
Social Media's main quality is the conversation. That is, the web is a space where retailers can connect with their customers one-to-one. It's not dissimilar to the storefront: customers come in, associates interact with them, give them advice and guidance and ultimately, the customers purchase the product.
With the rise of the big-box stores (and some of the worst offenders are big boxes), customer service became an issue. Stores became widely known for having few associates and those who were there were unknowledgeable. Even department stores have cut staff in an effort to shave costs.
These efforts were largely counterproductive! Customers who had a bad experience would tell their family and friends. Even if the store had cost on its side, often the retailer would lose sales to a higher-end retail brand that put effort into making customer service a key part of its strategy.
Now we find the process repeating again. Even as companies like Zappos and Southwest Airlines are owning the social media space, interacting with their customers on Twitter and Facebook, we find that retailers are ignoring their customers once again.
Companies see Facebook as a platform for marketing: offering deals and coupons to customers who like their page. This ignores the primary purpose of the medium: to connect. These retailers are doing nothing more than treating the greatest method for reaching out and connecting with their customers as nothing more than a grab for eyeballs, like any other traditional media outlet.
The irony is that there are companies who've learned this lesson well. These are the companies whose agility in the social sphere will pay off with increased sales and brand loyalty. Others... may find themselves abandoned by irate consumers. Ambivalence, in this case, is worse than contempt.
