MediAvataar's News Desk
Eighty one percent of customer experience (CX) leaders report they will compete mostly or entirely on CX, but less than half have established the rationale for why CX drives business outcomes, according to Gartner, Inc.
The goal of CX is to meet and exceed customer expectations, but while 48 percent say their CX efforts exceed management’s expectations, just 22 percent of CX leaders report their CX efforts exceed customers’ expectations.
To address this challenge, Gartner unveiled the CX Pyramid, a new methodology to test organizations’ customer journeys and forge more powerful experiences that deliver greater customer loyalty and brand advocacy.
“The fact that so many organizations understand the importance of CX to the brand, but are unable to deliver outcomes that meet or exceed customer expectations is indicative of the growing need for fresh approaches to delivering more positive outcomes for customers,” said Augie Ray, research director at Gartner. “Leading brands in CX start with a strong foundation in customer satisfaction. Getting this right and understanding how to build upon it to drive positive financial and business outcomes is what sets the best brands apart from the rest.”
The Gartner CX Pyramid (see Figure 1) is a framework to understand what separates the most powerful customer experiences from the rest. Each level, from bottom to top, defines an incrementally stronger way to forge relationships between an organization’s brand and their customers based on the way CX leaders listen for, understand, act on and solve customer needs.
The pyramid helps to identify the most powerful CX based on criteria including: (a) how the experiences are triggered, (b) the amount of effort required of the customer, (c) the completeness of the solution, and (d) the emotion and change in perception created by the experience. The CX pyramid goes beyond just solving today’s problems for today’s customers, by focusing on five key stages:
Stage 1: Communication Level – Furnish customers with the information they can use via the right channel at the right time.
Stage 2: Responsive Level – Solve the customer’s problem quickly and efficiently – meaning, balance both business and customer goals, measures and strategies.
Stage 3: Commitment Level – Listen for, understand and resolve customers’ unique needs.
Stage 4: Proactive Level – Provide experiences that resolve needs before customers ask.
Stage 5: Evolution Level – Make customers feel better, safer or more powerful.
Through these various levels, the CX pyramid should serve as a filter to review customer touchpoints and experiences throughout the entire buy, own and advocate journey.
CX leaders looking to drive more powerful, proactive and innovative solutions through the CX pyramid should follow three key steps:
Assess Your Capabilities – Ensure they’re capturing a thorough understanding of customer wants, needs and expectations, not just their perceptions of your existing initiatives.
Tailor Your Customer Journey Maps – Push experiences in the top of the CX pyramid at key touchpoints and drive customers deeper into the buy, own and advocate journey.
Measure Your More Innovative CX Efforts Differently – CX leaders must make sure to measure their more innovative customer experiences against adoption, perception and financial objectives.
• Entropik Tech is already associated with more than 50 Consumer brands, Digital Agencies & Media Houses like Viacom18, TAM Media Research, Group M, Myntra, ITC, Xiaomi, Born group, Star TV, Sony Motion Pictures &Yash Raj group among others
• The platform, Affect Lab 2.0, allows brands to measure customer response for advertisements, movie trailers &long format video content using Brainwave Mapping, Facial Expression Tracking and Eye Tracking Technology
Entropik Tech, India’s only EmotionAI startup, announced its ‘Pre-series A’ round of $1.1Million led by BIF (Bharat Innovation Fund) and co-invested by Parampara Capital, ArthavidaVentures and Jitendra Gupta (MD, PayU); existing investors also participated in the round. Theinvestments will help Entropik Tech scaletheir platformAffect Lab2.0, launch more IP based products and increase global footprint.
Part of ‘Viacom18 VStEP’ program, ‘Accenture Ventures Cohort’, ‘SAP’& ‘Plug And Play’ accelerator programs, the tech startup is also the first company in the $100M Bharat Innovation Fund’sportfolio.
Ranjan Kumar, Founder & CEO, Entropik Tech quoted, “We live in an era of digital clutter, where almost 300 hours of video are uploaded every minute on a single platform like YouTube. On the other hand, talking about human attention span, we can merely clock 12 to 8 seconds of attention, even lesser than a Goldfish! So be it short format content like Ads and Trailers or the long format content like Movies and TV series, only content that strikes an emotional resonance captures the consumer mindshare.”
Developed to decode consumer emotions, Affect Lab 2.0 enables brands and publishers to understand how consumers feel about their Ads, Trailers and Promos by measuring their subconscious responses. Brands can also benchmark their content against competition.
Talking about effectiveness, Ranjan continues, “We also help brands optimize their content & with our recommendations, they have been able to trigger a jump as high as 4x Views per dollarspent. For TV Promos, we also predict the likely viewership conversion using ‘Emotional Efficacy’ of content, thus empowering publishers to invest on the winners to reap best marketing ROI.”
Ashwin Raguraman, Partner, Bharat Innovation Fund, said, “Entropik Tech’s AI techniques to interpret emotional states and responses from brainwaves is path breaking and has a wide range of uses ranging from understanding consumer preferences to improving mental health. The possibilities are exciting and we look forward to supporting Entropik (them) in maximizing the potential of this disruptive technology.”
Jatin Desai, General Partner, Parampara Capital, said, "We are very excited to be part of Entropik's journey as Ranjan and his team have built world class products in Emotion-AI using deep tech with multiple use cases across various verticals. Their products have relevance both in India and for global markets and it's a perfect fit for IDFC-Parampara Fund's investment theme."
“It’s extremely gratifying to have over 50 clients spread across Media & Advertising, FMCG, Retail and Market Research industries, use our platform to know more about their consumers & optimize their Ads, Trailers, Products and User Experience ( UX ). I am very excited about the disruptive potential EmotionAI has towards solving real business problems. There is a lot to be done!”said Ranjan Kumar
Based out of Bangalore, Entropik Tech is a 20 member team that relies on over 150 years of collective experience to build EmotionAI based products and technologies. Entropik Tech has filed multiple patents since its inception and recently achieved a 100% revenue growth in the previous quarter.
Mohamedali pulls no punches, ropes in Mike Tyson to launch the global Kumite 1 League
· For the first time, an international MMA league will be played in a team format
· Live scoring to be introduced in the history of combat sports
Kumite 1 League, the first global team Mixed Martial Arts league, is all set to host boxing legend Mike Tyson. The brainchild of Mr. Mohamedali Budhwani, the league is promoted by India’s Toyam Industries Limited and supported by the All India Mixed Martial Arts Federation (AIMMAF).
This marks the first time an MMA competition will be contested by teams representing their countries, with India going against UAE in the first Kumite 1 bout.
Boxing legend Tyson has signed on with Kumite 1 League and is set to fly down to India for the first time on September 29th, 2018 for the league’s launch, which will be held at the NSCI Dome in Worli, Mumbai.
In yet another global first, the league will have live scoring, something never seen before in the history of combat sports.
Mr. Mohamedali Budhwani, Founder, Kumite1 League said, “I am thrilled to host world boxing legend, Mike Tyson in India for Kumite 1 League. For the first time in the history of MMA, we are launching a combat sports league in a team format. We believe there is a lot of potential for mixed martial arts to flourish as a mainstream sport in India. With the support from MMA federations across the globe, we will be going to the grassroots and scout for the best talent. With a legend like Mike Tyson flagging off the event, we are confident that Kumite 1 League will establish itself as a prime international MMA property originating in India.”
Boxing legend, Mike Tyson said, “This is my first visit to India and I am happy to be associated with Kumite 1 League. When Mohammedali reached out to me for the first time and discussed his vision for the league, I was convinced that this is something that has great potential. I will be in India for the launch event and very excited to meet my fans in India.”
Kumite 1 League will undertake a grassroots development programme that will create a platform to groom budding MMA talent.
In a previous post I mentioned that there were some disturbing trends lurking in WARC’s analysis of campaign trends from this year’s Cannes Lions. To my mind those trends say a lot about the sorry state of marketing practice today.
In the WARC report, my colleague, Graham Page, Kantar Millward Brown’s Managing Director, Offer and Innovation, focuses on the positive in his assessment of key themes from this year’s winners. He notes that news-driven motivation has a powerful impact on sales, that emotionally powerful or humorous advertising has always been effective, and that purposeful campaigns are powerful because they have meaning and command attention. All true. And all too often ignored.
In contrast to Graham’s assessment, the trends that struck me from the WARC report were far less positive.
Lack of budget
In 2018, 20 percent of shortlisted papers claimed not to have any budget, up from 8 percent the year before and reflecting a general decline in budget size. While WARC dresses up smaller marketing budgets as ‘brands become more resourceful’ I see the trend to smaller or no budgets as an outcome of the ‘do more with less’ refrain that has dogged marketing for years. Let’s be clear, the evidence finds that the odds are stacked against doing more with less. If you do not reach new buyers your brand will not grow, and while big budgets are no guarantee of success, they do help you afford the media to reach a good proportion of potential new buyers.
When it comes to duration WARC does not dress up its finding that ‘short-termism dominates’. 71 percent of shortlisted campaigns had a campaign period of three months or less. That is not a campaign, it is an event. Too many marketers are focused on driving social commentary (the most popular media channel used by 86 percent of those shortlisted) which requires them to come up with a series of shareable events that fail to build brand coherence and have a cumulative impact.
Lack of effectiveness metrics
WARC definitely does not dress up this one, stating,
“Despite regular calls over the years from judges in this category wanting to see clear commercial results, many papers listed impressions as a metric for demonstrating an impact, or regarded flimsy data that was self-serving as sufficient to prove their case.”
As noted by Paula Lindenberg Vice President Marketing, AB InBev Brazil, metrics proving the impact of marketing make it easier to sell creativity and get the budgets to make it happen. But more than that, I would argue that effectiveness stems from setting the right objectives in the first place. If you know how a campaign or activity is going to make more money it makes it a whole lot easier to assess whether that campaign has been effective or not.
What do you think of my assessment of the state of marketing today? Too negative?
Written by Nigel Hollis,Executive Vice President and Chief Global Analyst at Kantar Millward Brown.
The internet has been billed as the great equalizer, breaking down barriers and giving voice to millions. At the same time, it has allowed for abuse online – whether in the form of hate, harassment or offensive content. The freedom to express is an essential democratic principle, but should it persist unfettered? How and where should we draw the line, and who – or what – should play a role in moderating online debate?
Today, Facebook’s Hard Questions, a series that explores the most challenging issues Facebook confronts, hosted a discussion about the line between hate and debate, featuring a diverse range of views. Moderated by Andrew McLaughlin, the co-founder of Higher Ground Labs and Former Deputy CTO at The White House, the panel includes: Monika Bickert, Facebook’s Head of Global Policy Management; Malkia Cyril, executive director of the Media Justice Network; Daniella Greenbaum, formerly a reporter at Business Insider; and Geoff King, journalist and lecturer at UC Berkeley. See the full discussion and highlights below.
Monika Bickert on how Facebook thinks about free expression…
“We want Facebook to be a place where people can express themselves. It is about connecting people. It is about giving people a place where they can share things with one another and learn from one another. […]”
“We know that people won’t come to Facebook if it’s not a safe place. We actually do have these guide rails in the form of our Community Standards that tell people ‘this is where we draw the line.’ And we draw the line in most cases because we think that speech might lead to real world harm. […]”
“We don’t allow hate speech on Facebook because it creates an environment where people feel personally attacked, where they won’t feel comfortable coming and sharing themselves. But it’s really hard to define hate speech. […] When we think about how to define it, we think about what constitutes a personal attack. […]”
“The one thing that we don’t remove is where someone simply asserts something false. What we do is try to counter the virality of such content or try to promote or make visible other views.”
The panelists on how Facebook should draw the lines…
“The more that Facebook can adhere to free expression principles, including international guidelines, essentially international law taken on voluntarily, the more robust, uninhibited and wide open debate will be.” – Geoff King
“Whether we’re talking about Facebook, Google, any of these other companies […] at the very top are groups of mostly white people making decisions about whether or not speech is violent, whether or not speech is dangerous. And I have to say that they’re making decisions in their own interest. […] If we’re going to live in an economic system where the public square has been so deeply privatized, then I absolutely expect those private companies to take on decisions that protect all the people.” – Malkia Cyril
“More than 80% of [Facebook’s] users live outside the United States. So if they’re going to adopt any sort of governmental system, it certainly doesn’t need to be [the US]. I do think it’s a good system and it preserves freedom of speech, which I see as an important right and social good. But beyond that, I think that Facebook has this incredible opportunity to be a platform for debate and engagement.” – Daniella Greenbaum
“There are some things where we’re all going to agree. We’ll all agree that you don’t want child sexual abuse imagery online…. But it’s when you get to these edges, around things like hate speech, around what constitutes an actual threat of violence, what constitutes actual harassment or bullying that’s where the conversations are the most difficult and also where the enforcement is the most difficult.” – Monika Bickert
On whether Holocaust denial should be allowed on Facebook…
“There is a classical liberal view of free speech that political debate be uninhibited, robust and wide open. […] That said, Facebook, again, is under no obligation legally to allow that on their platform, and I think that’s largely Facebook’s call, but if Facebook is going to make that decision, it needs to have clarity around its decision, it needs to have transparency around it.” – Geoff King
“It’s not about speech, it’s about power. People are actually dying on the streets because of the speech that’s taking place online. So let me be clear about it, it’s not a question of whether an individual has a right to say whatever’s on their mind. That’s a strict US constitutionalist view of the question of free speech, that’s not my view of free speech. […] What I care about is whether or not anti-Semitic crimes are going up as a direct result of people on a platform allowing individuals to organize criminal activity online.” – Malkia Cyril
“Trying to eradicate bad ideas from platforms is not going to succeed at eradicating these ideas from the world. So I’d rather have more room — whether it’s on Reddit or Facebook or platforms that don’t even exist today — for bad ideas to aired and challenged and debated and brought to light so that we can actually engage in meaningful debate and hope that reason will prevail.” – Daniella Greenbaum
“If somebody promotes the idea of the Holocaust or violence of any sort, we remove that. If somebody engages in anti-Semitic speech by saying ‘Jewish people are…’ and applying a dehumanizing label, [we would remove that]. If somebody mocks survivors or victims of the Holocaust, any of that would violate our hate speech policies. And we also block the speech where countries have told us, ‘this is illegal in our country,’ — then we will remove that speech in that country alone. […] Even if it is a horrible assertion of falsity, whether it’s about the Holocaust or any other world even, we don’t remove content simply for being false.” – Monika Bickert
On who’s affected by the debate over free expression…
“The decision-makers around what speech is allowed and what speech is not are the same people that benefit from that reality. So how do we end up with fairness under those conditions when that is what is happening?” – Malkia Cyril
“Especially for marginalized communities, especially for minorities, especially for groups that are targets of oppression, we need to be supporting the broadest possible speech in the hopes that that speech will be used — and again, this is an optimistic note — in order to stop oppression, in order to help marginalized communities and in order to ensure that minorities always have a voice and a platform on which to say ‘what’s happening here is not okay.’” – Daniella Greenbaum
“Often times with censorship, […] it’s often not the powerful loudest voices, the people with the most access, who end up being affected by those policies, but those policies tend to often times be used against people who don’t have political power, not the dominant ideology.” – Geoff King