Outside in vs. Inside out
As Mitali says, 'one harrowing experience with an outlet does irreparable damage to their image & customer loyalty' !
Now that's the 'outside in' approach. Create the image and then try and deliver. The problem with it is the same, as mentioned by Mitali. When the experience turns contrary to the image, loyalty vanishes (that is, if it did exist in the first place).
The 'inside out' approach is when the brand lets the experience dictate the image. Sure it may take some to time for the image to get built. But if it does get built because consumers speak about their wonderful experiences with a brand, the 'solidification' of the image is ensured and will sustain longer.
The 80-20 reaction on the part of Brands, as mentioned by Manasa, sure is prevalent but flawed because it looks at customer relationships form a transactional perspective and not a relationship one. The difference would be that brands would not just take into consideration present earnings but potential future inflows from the customer, should they take the 'relationship' route.
Now that's the 'outside in' approach. Create the image and then try and deliver. The problem with it is the same, as mentioned by Mitali. When the experience turns contrary to the image, loyalty vanishes (that is, if it did exist in the first place).
The 'inside out' approach is when the brand lets the experience dictate the image. Sure it may take some to time for the image to get built. But if it does get built because consumers speak about their wonderful experiences with a brand, the 'solidification' of the image is ensured and will sustain longer.
The 80-20 reaction on the part of Brands, as mentioned by Manasa, sure is prevalent but flawed because it looks at customer relationships form a transactional perspective and not a relationship one. The difference would be that brands would not just take into consideration present earnings but potential future inflows from the customer, should they take the 'relationship' route.
Comments