Opinion, Analysis and News from MarketingProfs Opinion. Commentary. News.
BLOG HOME RSS/XMLBOOK CLUBMARKETING PROFS
   
 
Ted Mininni Ted Mininni   Bio
01.30.07

Nickeled & Dimed

stumbleupon digg del.icio.us

Recently, computer-generated TV ads have hit the airwaves depicting a baffled consumer wading through multiple pages of her monthly invoice from her financial services firm, questioning a number of fictitious-sounding fees. Ms. Consumer then whips her glasses off and gives her incredulous take on this....

Paraphrasing: “You’ve got to be kidding me! Who sits around all day and thinks this stuff up? Account research fee? Deposit verification? I mean. . . what do these things even mean? (And by inference: why are the fees attached to them adding up to such a significant amount of money? I feel like I’m being gouged here!)”

You’re thinking: “Been there. Said that.”

It’s sad that companies—especially service providers—think they can add to their bottom line profitability by nickeling and diming the consumer to death. For the consumers who take a few moments to really analyze (and many of us seldom do) phone bills, utility bills, credit card bills, bank statements and mutual fund management statements, the feeling has to be the same:

“What on earth is going on here! What does all of this gibberish mean, and why is it adding substantially to my bill?”

After that initial reaction, the one that follows is indignation, if not downright anger or disgust. Talk about a turn-off. It makes one seriously wonder why companies engage in these practices. Obviously they’re more interested in short-term gains than they are in building long-term customer relationships, otherwise they wouldn’t engage in this practice! Forget the loyalty programs—bonus points and rewards programs be damned if we’ve more than paid for them.

When you consider how much money companies spend on advertising and marketing/PR initiatives to raise their visibility, image, and to build trust with the consumer, only to torpedo their own efforts by nickeling and diming them, you just have to shake your head. Let’s face it: one of a company’s most valuable assets are its loyal, core customers. It costs more to attract new customers than it does to retain current ones.

So why can’t companies treat their customers with more respect than this?

I’m just waiting for a whole cadre of consumers to stand up and say: “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!” (That always was a great line!)

Time to stand up and head for the exits to register customer displeasure—that is—time to take our business where we’ll be treated with R-E-S-P-E-C-T! There’s enough competition out there for our business. . . sometimes we, the consumers, are the force for positive change.



Read more on this subject:



TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.mpdailyfix.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/6240

Comments

My favorite is the "convenience" fee tagged on to online ticket purchases. I'll admit it's more convenient for me not to trudge out in the cold to the box office, but it's also a lot more convenient (and cheaper) for the team/theater/whatever that's selling the ticket. Grrrrr.

Posted by: Maureen Rogers | 01.30.07

Ted,

Your correct: this is about short-term profits, not long-term relationships. Loyalty be damned.

We learn in Business 101 that we make money catering to our customer base because it is less expensive to sell to current customers than to find new customers. Apparently, some CEOs slept through that class.

Posted by: Lewis Green | 01.30.07

Obviously these companies are willing to forgo any CRM initiative for the short term gain. It is not enough that they are already charging me interest for the right to use their money or service, but then have to add additional annoyances to ruin my experience and their reputation.

I know I have certainly left companies for their competitors because of such events in the past, and would not hesitate to do it again.

But hey, maybe it is just me.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff Herz | 01.30.07

Great point. I also think of this lesson when I stay at hotels that charge anywhere from $15-20 for internet access. I understand that these hotels are capturing easy surplus from captive, expense-account-driven, price-inelastic business people. I'm not quibbling with it as a sound pricing/profitability strategy. But for me, it still cheapens the brand. I'd much rather see the price simply rolled into the base room rate. I think to myself, "If Courtyard can offer free internet access in a $100 room, why can't the W roll it into a $250 room?"

Posted by: Mark Martel | 01.30.07

Based on my past experiences, a number of these companies seem to be banking on the fact that their customers won't have the time or the inclination to go through the bills they send out.

It's annoying and irritating when as a long-term customer I've come to the realization I was being duped by some reputable businesses. In cases like this, I've chosen to take my business elsewhere.

Posted by: Claire Ratushny | 01.30.07

I'm sure many of us are with you, Maureen. GRRR.

I agree with you, Jeff. Consumers who feel they've been burned simply take their business elsewhere: the competition.

Excellent point, Mark. Why not add some of these costs into the brand? Better yet: why even charge so much for what ought to be a basic hospitality service these days?

Lewis: succinct and on-target, as usual. "Loyalty be damned"--obviously the thinking of companies that routinely engage in these practices.

Service providers ought to be thinking in terms of taking the long view if they want to sustain relationships with their customers and develop loyalty among them.

Posted by: Ted Mininni | 01.30.07

These big businesses that nickel and dime us have the government in their pocket too. Meaning, Keeping fat cats fat guarantees the companies leeway to charge ridiculous fictitious fees without regulation.

Sure I can take my business elsewhere but they're all doing it. What do you do when you run out of options? I've tried to play cat and mouse with different services and pit them against each other but after a while whether I'm the cat or the mouse I get too exhausted to play anymore. So I roll over and just Grrrrr.

Posted by: Tammy Strnatka | 01.30.07

Good point, Tammy. Consumers have limited options in some cases, especially if an entire industry engages in these kinds of practices. In that case, groups of customers should band together and write/call the company to express their displeasure in a courteous manner. They should also let it know they will take their business elsewhere. Customers can also say they will use WOM to inform everyone they know of these practices.

Many companies don't want to have that kind of negative publicity in today's competitive business environment, and with a bit of applied pressure, they might relent.

Bottom line: if consumers have no reaction, this kind of thing will continue to happen. It's up to all of us to object to these practices.

Posted by: Ted Mininni | 01.31.07

One thing to remember here is how the lesson applies to our own businesses and business practices. We used to routinely charge clients "project management" costs and "file management" costs and the like. Yes, these things (meetings; locating and massaging large files) DO take significant amounts of time (and therefore money) which must be recovered in order to profit. BUT, we receive far fewer pricing complaints now that we roll those charges into our "creative services" fee. People don't want to distrust you (or us). Don't give them a reason to.

Posted by: Mandy Vavrinak | 02.01.07

Great spot! The message the must have had a real affect on customers everywhere. Would love to see the numbers.

I've spent the last 20 years in financial services marketing, client and agency side. Nothing is more discouraging than when some bean counter (CFO) orders up a boatload of fees to boost income - all at the expense of your most loyal customers. Instead, we should treat those loyal customers like gold...the cost of acquiring new customers is high, the cost of losing them is a lot worse.

Posted by: Casey Davis | 02.01.07

Casey,
Thanks very much for your input. You're right on target when you say that: "the cost of acquiring new customers is high, the cost of losing them is a lot worse."

Let's hope discussions like these start a groundswell of consumer discontent and that they do something about it.

And let's hope the companies that engage in these practices, change tactics. Not only due to public opinion and pressure, but because it's the right thing to do.

Posted by: Ted Mininni | 02.02.07

I have forward this article to several people within our company everytime they realize some vendor is "getting to us" for this or that. And when they read this article, they go back and scour their bills. Great article!

Posted by: Scott Townsend | 02.15.07

Post a comment

Most Active Posts

Login to Daily Fix  |  Contact the Editor  |  RSS/XML  |  Advertising

 

Copyright 2008 © Marketing Profs, LLC   |  User Agreement  |  Privacy  |  XML Site Map