The Washington Post: “While customer grumblings abound about airline travel, a new report suggests that satisfaction is actually at its highest in more than two decades … Highest rankings went to ease of check-in process and ease of making a reservation, while lowest scores went to quality of in-flight services (beverages, food, movies and music) and seat comfort.”
“According to the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) Travel Report 2016, top ratings go to JetBlue Airways and Southwest Airlines (which tie for highest satisfaction), followed by Alaska Airlines. Spirit Airlines brings up the rear, preceded by Allegiant Air and Frontier Airlines … Except JetBlue, all of the airlines’ scores went up from last year (JetBlue is down 1 percent), and some did so substantially. Budget airlines Spirit and Frontier, which rank last and third from the bottom, respectively, both had double-digit improvements in customer satisfaction, at 15 percent for Spirit and 14 percent for Frontier.”
“The overall customer satisfaction ranking in the 2016 survey increased 4.3 percent, to 72 out of 100 points, over last year’s score. This year’s score ties with the highest one that airlines have received since the survey began … American Airlines’ score went up 9 percent, to 72 points, and United Airlines’ score rose 13 percent, to 68 points … both airlines recently returned to serving free snacks in economy class … Customers’ embrace of airline loyalty programs slipped one point, to 73 this year, and the report points out that travelers find it challenging to redeem rewards.”
A San Francisco coffee house called Philz plans to challenge Starbucks with a different kind of experience, Forbes reports. “At Philz you won’t find the fancy brewing equipment of an artisanal coffeehouse. Beans are ground to order and then splashed with 205-degree water in pour-over funnel brewers. The coffee is good, but it is not cheap–a small coffee costs almost twice as much as Starbucks’ equivalent. Philz proponents say the value lies as much in the experience, or in what (founder Phil Jaber and his son Jacob) call ‘Grandma’s House,’ as it does in the coffee.”
“Unlike the corporate uniformity of Starbucks or the manicured hipster haunts like Blue Bottle, Philz has an informal charm that can be found in the mismatched couches at its original location and in the cup-by-cup approach of its baristas, who load drinks with heavy cream and brown sugar to each customer’s preference. ‘Taste it and make sure it’s perfect,’ a barista says before handing over a beverage. Details like that foster ‘an emotional connection’ for customers, says Jacob, 29, the CEO. ‘We think of ourselves as more in the people business than the coffee business.'”
“This year Philz plans to open at least two locations in Washington, D.C., the first true test of whether the company’s service-oriented approach can succeed outside California. Ultimately Jacob has visions of expanding into New York and Boston, with 1,000 stores nationwide, and “disrupting” the coffee industry … So far the company has interviewed more than 300 people, and Jacob has hired 30 … All will go through the company’s Apple-influenced Philz University training program, where they’ll be taught not to ask for customer names the way Starbucks does when taking orders. Doing so, Jacob says, is impersonal, because it suggests you’ve never met, and there’s a chance you’ll get it wrong.”
What defines loyalty in the customer-brand relationship? Until this week, Starbucks defined it as the number of times the customer bought a cup of coffee; buy 12 cups and you get one for free. The retailer has now re-defined loyalty as the amount of money spent. This has caused upset among some of its “loyal” customers, who now must purchase 32 cups of coffee to get that free cup. Starbucks apparently was inspired by certain airlines — Delta and United — that now award loyalty points based on the amount of dollars spent, and not on the number of miles traveled. This might telegraph as: We want your money but we don’t want you.
The Starbucks switch was at least partly motivated by profits; obviously it is more profitable to motivate its most profitable customers. However, it also suggests a change in culture. As reported in The New York Times, the Starbucks loyalty program previously was premised on a warmer, fuzzier idea, as articulated by a Starbucks marketing manager in a 2012 blog post: “At Starbucks, our rewards program comes from a different philosophy. At its simplest, we like seeing you, regardless of whether your purchase is a short-brewed coffee or four Venti White Chocolate Mochas. My Starbucks Rewards is designed to show our appreciation simply for stopping by.”
This would be consistent with the way Starbucks famously welcomes everyone to hang out as long as they like at their stores, even if they buy nothing at all. Sadly, such “customers” are the poor cousins of those who gamed the Starbucks loyalty program by asking cashiers to ring up each item separately to artificially inflate their number of visits. This subterfuge also caused lines to slow, making the Starbucks experience worse for everyone else.
The Starbucks-customer relationship in total calls into question the very meaning of “loyalty,” and whether it even exists in a commercial context. As the Times article notes: “Starbucks fell into a trap that is common with loyalty programs: establishing not just an exchange relationship with its customers based on mutual benefit, but a communal relationship based on mutual caring and support … If customers are going to take a ‘hey, it’s just business’ approach to their relationship with Starbucks, they should expect the company to do the same — and it has.”
Those who are slower to adopt new products or services tend to be more loyal to their choices, reports The Wall Street Journal.
Typically, a late adopter is “a person who buys a product or service after half of a population has done so. Late adopters tend to share certain characteristics: They are skeptical of marketing and tend to point out differences between advertised claims and the actual product. They often value a product’s core attributes, ignoring the bells and whistles intended to upsell the latest model. They may not try something new until weeks, months or even years after the crowd has moved on.”
“It takes a long time to change late adopters, but once they’ve done all that research, and once they are convinced about a product, they are going to stay for a long time,” says Sara Jahanmir of the Nova School of Business and Economics in Lisbon.
Late adopters are also believed to have “important things to tell companies about the role new products should play. Because they tend to be highly critical, late adopters can be useful to companies perfecting their wares … By listening to late adopters of the old version of a product, developers can create a new version that is quicker to be adopted.”