get realsight

Companies should be life coaches

Life coaches help people better manage their lives to achieve personal and professional goals. The demand for coaches continues to rise as our lives become more hectic with every major decision we make, whether moving to a new job, starting a family or retiring.

Unfortunately, most companies don't think of themselves as life coaches. They treat their services and features as expenses, ultimately having a negative impact on brand loyalty with customers. Below are two examples from my life, each experience has driven me to find alternative solutions.

Healthcare: I have a wonderful allergy doctor that has treated me for the last 6 years with positive results. Just when I have finally made it through my first spring season without a sinus infection my insurance cuts the coverage a medication I need to maintain good health. It took me years develop an efficient maintenance routine and now my insurance wants to disrupt this routine and force me to find a new option. This will increase medical costs for both my insurance company and myself.

Financial Management: I do not keep receipts, rarely have cash, and rely on memory and my bank to keep records. It’s a routine to managing finances that is error prone with significant financial risk to me and my bank. To help alleviate this risk, I decided to sign up for automatic statement downloads into my financial software and have the program automatically categorize the transactions. This was going to help me save time, get on top of bills, and help the bank in the long run. The plan was crushed when I found out my bank wanted to charge me $10/month for this service. If the bank just gave me that service for free, it would be a tremendous help to me and reduce risk for the bank.

If companies thought of themselves as life coaches, the tangible benefits and deep emotional connections with new and existing customers would far outweigh the small gains from treating services and features as expenses. By delivering services and features that meet the needs of the routines we all use to manage our lives, companies will increase switching costs and strengthen brand loyalty.

The Golden Rule of Behavior Modification

It's difficult to change behavior. We all are comfortable with our daily routines and the way we live our lives. Our behavior becomes so efficient that we're hesitant to change any part of it in fear of disrupting what we perceive as perfect. To get us to change our habits, we need to be reassured it will help us in a positive way.

If you want to alter behavior and strengthen the connection with your brands, show people the positive rewards that will come from a change. These rewards can be personal, social or environmental. Sadly, not all companies provide positive rewards. There are many that think they are helping, but in fact are punishing people for behavior that may not be all that "€œbad."€

Here are two recent examples:

1. Airline fees: With the higher fuel prices airlines are looking to make up costs by charging for everything that was included in the price of a ticket. Case in point, the luggage charge that has not changed passenger behavior the way it was intended. Instead of charging people for bringing extra "€œstuff"€ when they travel, why not reward people for not bringing unnecessary items. Whether coupons for free drinks or food, movies, personal DVD players not being used, or a free shuttle to your car in long term parking, there are many ways to reward people for bringing fewer items that will help corporate economics as well as weary travelers.

2. Adopting a green lifestyle: The goal of the TV show Wa$ted is to help people help the environment. As described online: "This eye-opening half-hour reality series makes shrinking your ecological footprint appealing and virtually effortless. What's an ecological footprint? It's a way of describing the scope of the damage that each household does to the planet.€" Great idea, but executed with negative reinforcement, not positive reinforcement. The last sentence in the description tells it all. Not only do they point out all the "damage" people are making, they try to force people to live a truly "green lifestyle"€ which disrupts their routines. If people choose not to make a change (such as the girls not wanting to change their make-up in an episode I viewed) the show still compares what their carbon footprint could be vs. what they chose it to be. Shouldn't the producers be happy they made any change at all?

A professor of mine at Stern gave us a simple rule to live by: If you may end up with negative publicity on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, don't do it. Similarly for marketers: Test your communications and programs with your loved ones in mind. If you'€™d never want them to be treated that way, don't do it.