The Customer Is NOT Always Right

The Customer Is NOT Always Right

Update – Woolies DM’d me on Twitter with the following response to this post:

interesting read, the decision wasn’t purely made because of our SM channels. And it wasn’t leaked to News24. thanks

Yesterday Twitter and Facebook were pumping with debate around a News24 story which reported that Woolworths “(had) taken a business decision to no longer stock any religious magazines, with immediate effect”.  Christian shoppers were up in arms, threatening a boycott until the decision was reversed, and the furore soon descended into a rather scathing (as is often the case with religion) argument on Woolies’ various social media platforms (see their Facebook fan page as an example).

Woolworths, who have historically been lauded for their conduct and responses on social media platforms (including by myself), were distinctly absent from the conversation, and to be frank I don’t blame them.  It got ugly, fast.

At 16h00, Woolworths announced the following on Facebook:

We have been overwhelmed by the response. Thanks to everyone who has supported us – we really appreciate it. It was not our intention to offend any religious group. Woolies has a deep regard for all faiths and will continue to respect all our customers’ beliefs. We’ve always prided ourselves on listening to our customers and we really do want our social media pages to be a 2-way conversation. As a retailer, we continually review all our products including magazines and stock products that our customers want and buy. You posted – we listened and have now decided to put all magazines back on our shelves. We will continue to take a retailer’s view on our catalogue going forward to ensure we stock the magazines that most of our customers want.

I don’t agree with this move.  That said, I’m not sure Woolworths had too many options left after the explosion of negative PR around the issue online.  There were clearly a series of mistakes made that hopefully you and I and other brands like Woolworths can learn from:

  1. Why was the decision made in the first place, and how was it communicated?

    2. To be leaked to News24 (who must have fallen over themselves in excitement at finding out about the rather controversial move), someone internally had to have communicated this as a decision to”remove religious titles from shelves”, or something similar.  I’m a Christian, I love God, and yet I still see the sense in a retailer removing titles from stores if those titles aren’t making enough money, or turning fast enough.  That’s just good business sense.  But somehow this was communicated internally in such a way as it sounded religiously motivated, not commercially motivated.  This was a disaster long before News24 broke the story, simply because of how it was communicated.

  2. A lack of engagement

    3. Woolies, historically very vocal in their social media channels, were suddenly conspicuously quiet – like a kid caught with their hand in the cookie jar. That silence irked consumers who have traditionally been spoiled with the openness and transparency Woolies usually leverages when the going is good, and let’s be frank, for Woolies the going is often good. Everyone loves Woolies. That’s another point – this wasn’t so much a backlash against Woolies as that age-old religious debate rearing it’s head. Another example – all those boycott-happy people who loathed BP so much for the gulf oil spill, I guarantee you, are back at BP stations filling up already. Two weeks from now nobody will remember these shenanigans and if they do, they won’t care.

  3. Woolies’ skewed perception of the role of their social media audience

    4. Woolworths have done an amazing job of building up a strong brand presence and community on Facebook and Twitter. Having achieved this their next strategic focus must be on how to include these smitten fans in such a way as to entrench a perception of transparency among them. No brand can afford to be completely transparent. They can be authentic, don’t get the two confused, but transparency is risky. So if Woolworths were thinking of removing certain titles from their shelves, and they sniffed even a whisker of controversy at that decision (which I have to believe they did), my suggestion would have been the following…

    Communicate via social media, and in store, the instatement of a ‘customer referendum’ – a bit of a political play that echoes the likes of Nandos and Kulula. Announce that the business needs to make a decision about keeping certain titles on the shelf, and removing others. Ask customers in store to vote for their 3 favourite titles (and stand a chance to win subscriptions to all 3), and ask social media fans to vote on polls on the Facebook fan page to show which titles they love best. Ascertain via this process which titles people really have an affinity for and then gently, quietly, remove those that people don’t over a period of time.

    The brand could then use the same ‘referendum’ mechanism to ask fans to vote for products they’d like to see, or products the brand used to stock which have been removed from shelves in the past, etc.

The major issue I see here is that Woolies have a skewed perception of the role and influence of their social media audience. The audience is a minority. A small, loud bunch of fans who should not drive business decisions. Changing a business decision because 34,000 fans are arguing about it is like refusing to drive to work because you have a blister on your foot. Sure it’ll sting, but at least you’ll be earning money.

The social media audience should have been included in the decision making process, thereby enforcing their advocacy and fanaticism for the brand. You could still remove religious titles rather surreptitiously, but I guarantee much less noise would have been made because all customers and fans would have felt like they were part of the process. Remember – the customer is king, but they sure as hell are not always right.

You might argue that it’s over and Woolies have won over their audience again by this retraction, but I argue that they’ve set a very dangerous precedent they will have to honour in future by being swayed by a blister on their foot. It’s going to be interesting to see how that pans out for them.

Related Posts

  • http://nicharalambous.com Nic

    Hey Mike,

    Good post and I agree with you. I genuinely feel that the voices in social media being heard is a great thing, however much like the Cell C “outcry” by a very, very, very small percentage of the population I think that Woolworths has 100% made the wrong decision. You can also throw in DStv making their porn decision based on a TINY group signing a stupid petition.

    An overreaction of such great proportion by brands is a terrible misunderstanding of roles.

    But, what can you do? This is how things work in the end. Let’s see how it pans out for them. I firmly doubt that more Christians are going to now walk in to a Woolworths to purchase a magazine. This decision makes no difference to their bottom line. In fact, it probably harms them.

    • http://www.mikestopforth.com Mike

      I disagree on the porn thing, of course, but thanks for agreeing with everything I said… very unlike you ;)

  • http://www.6000.co.za 6000

    As I said yesterday after Woolies backed down, this wasn’t a victory for, nor a demonstration of, the power of social media.
    This was a hasty surrender in the the face of 20 or so (have a look – it really is very few) vociferous Afrikaners.

    I agree that the initial decision was poorly and confusingly communicated and in a way, they set themselves up for a fall. But for me, there’s no value in a kneejerk reaction to a kneejerk reaction.

    • http://ctnlist.co.za/ Richard Catto

      6000, I recall you criticising me for my blog posts which were anti-Afrikaner Christians.

      Yes, this is another instance of Afrikaner Christians threatening to boycott a reputable business.

      Is it not time that South Africans realised that Afrikaner Christians hold opinions that are not worth listening to?

      • http://www.mikestopforth.com Mike

        Richard, please, this is not a race nor creed discussion. Try not to make it so…

  • Motheo

    I agree entirely with the post until we get to the referendum and voting processes and so on. Though it’s a nice gesture, I don’t even think that’s necessary. Woolworths is a business, not a democracy. There business decisions should be made on merit – thus making Woolies a meritocracy. And if that means Christian magazines go, then Christian magazines go. If it means Rolling Stone goes, then guess what? Rolling Stone goes.

    Where Woolworths messed up – and you’ll see I agree with you in a few places is:
    1) How this was communicated. It might be a spiteful mole who leaked the story with the tabloid-worthy ‘Christians targeted’ billing, but simply saying ‘we’ve revised our magazines and cut low performing ones is sufficient.’ The fact that they’re religious magazines have no bearing and attention shouldn’t be brought to that.

    2) How Woolworths backed down. Listened to the customers? Please. It was reactive and a bit cowardly, spawning out of being bullied. If anything, reversing the decision to remove these magazines from shelves goes against their fiduciary to maximise shareholders value. Petty? Maybe. True? Absolutely. Perhaps the feeling is the backlash would have been so great that it undermined said value, but I doubt that. And as a public company, Woolworths needs to be mindful of who it ultimately answers to.

    Water under the bridge, though. Woolworths is a fantastic company, and is incredibly well run, but they blew it here. Big time.

    • http://www.mikestopforth.com Mike

      Motheo – you missed my point on the ‘democracy’ thing. I’m saying include people in the decision making process, make the same decision, and you get off scott free. I’m advising brands to use social media audiences to create the perception of transparency.

      • Motheo

        I actually didn’t miss your point. I acknowledged that – hence why I said it would be “a nice gesture” – but still think it isn’t a ‘necessity’ for brands to create the perception of transparency. A nicety?Yes. Necessity? Absolutely not. It’s nice in that it would have sidestepped this drama, but it isn’t necessary if they had announced the change in a more sophisticated manner.

  • http://www.6000.co.za 6000

    There’s another point I meant to make here – Beeld’s role in all of this.
    I reckon Woolies might have actually got away with dropping the magazines if it wasn’t for the laughingly inaccurate but ever so inflammatory: “Christen-tydskrifte verbode in Woolies” headline.

    • http://www.mikestopforth.com Mike

      Too true – yet another example of our newspapers chasing sensationalism instead of journalism…

    • http://stii.co.za Stii

      In the light of the recent attack on the media, they’re not doing much good for their own cause by doing this, are they? Beeld and News24 headlines were so far removed from the truth it looked like a tabloid article.

      • http://ctnlist.co.za/ Richard Catto

        They’re taking a leaf out of the Daily Sun’s book, which is the only “newspaper” whose circulation is on the rise.

    • http://stii.co.za Stii

      Oh, and then they have the audacity to analyse “What Woolies did wrong” http://www.women24.com/CareersAndMoney/Technology/What-Woolies-did-wrong-20101021 Pfffft

  • http://www.empireavenue.com/robd Rob Dickens

    I don’t even think they should ask and they should let the numbers speak for themselves. They should state that certain titles are in the relegation zone and NOT just religious titles. If customers want these titles to stay on the shelves they must vote with their wallets. Release the numbers and stats and if no improvement over three months they get chopped and no debate will be entered in to.

    • http://stii.co.za Stii

      It should not be the way business is conducted. Product stats is none of the consumer’s business and I would hate to go through an exercise like that every time I have to make an decision on a product. Noble, but totally impractical. Business should make their own decisions. The less we know about it as consumers, the better as this debacle proved.

      Good post Mike. You should really blog more often ;)

      • http://www.mikestopforth.com Mike

        I agree Stii, but when there is a high risk of controversy from a decision, I suggest including the audience in the process, even if you’re going to make the same decision as the outcome – it’s just safer and gives the impression you care. Even if you don’t ;)

  • http://www.popimedia.com Daniel Levy

    Well written article Mike! Some very good points.

  • Ryan Silberman

    I would be surprised if the decision involved the team behind social media at all or if they were even aware of it until the news hit their fan page. Funny how business decisions land up being the responsibility of social media to resolve. A perfect example of how PR and social media are becoming one and how social media should play a bigger role in business decision making.

    • http://nicharalambous.com Nic

      Completely disagree with that. Social Media should have little to do with (maybe a bit more than a little) actual bottom-line business decisions. Woolworths is a capitalist business not a religious based charity or organisation. Not everyone gets to have a say in how they run their business, especially not a minority of vocal and extremist individuals.

      • Ryan Silberman

        Nic, are you saying that decisions that impact consumer sentiment and that social media will be responsible for in the face of the public should not be communicated to the team and the approach agreed with before hand?

        I am saying that the team behind social media for a company should be integrated into the business whereby any decision made by business can be approached with and prepared for from a social media perspective – take Mikes idea – the only chance of that being possible is for the team to be aware of business decisions that could cause such outcry – and then influence the decision itself to actually improve the bottom line.

        So the teams involved in the decision and the approach are marketing, pr, logistics, purchasing, anything else? oh yes social media!

        :)

      • http://www.mikestopforth.com Mike

        Nic you’re making this a religious debate again. This is a discussion about if and how social media audiences, specifically those around a certain brand, should be included in the decision-making process. Remember, again, that including someone in a decision-making process does not necessarily oblige you to take their advice!

      • http://stii.co.za Stii

        Mike, you’re 100% right. If they said they’re culling magazines that don’t sell, it would have been fine.

        I wonder how it happened though? Did they maybe contacted these magazines and told them that they’re being chopped due to their policy? Well, tbh, they made a crap decision when they made the policy statement. :P I suspect that is what must’ve happened and that one of these magazines ran to a News24 journo with a skewed story. Maybe some of these mags even belong to Media24?

        Doesn’t matter really, I’m just curious.

  • Georgina

    Completely agree Ryan!

    • http://www.mikestopforth.com Mike

      Ha ha Georgina – classic ;)

  • http://www.aasia.co.za Aasia

    I think we need to be careful about how we use Social Media to illicit change. Or else we will turn into an online COSATU.

    Or become online sheeple (people but with a sheep mentality)

    My question to Woolworths, is why was it made newsworthy in the first place. As a business I presume they would have discontinued many product lines in the past. Are we going to get a news 24 article, if they discontinued Mayonaise or a specific brand of toilet roll? Most newspaper agency would have just taken it off their shelves and be done with it.

    When I want islamic literature, my first port of call will not be a woolies or a PnP. It’s just silly.

    This was an online disaster, if I had worked in their social media team, I would have rtold them to stick to their guns. Implement the change and to hell with the online cosatu brigade.

    • http://www.mikestopforth.com Mike

      Well said Aasia.

  • http://stii.co.za Stii

    As a matter of interest, I wonder how this would have played out if Woolies didn’t have an online presence. What I mean is that their Facebook page was the nexus or hub where most fighting happened and concentrated the heat of the issue.

    I guess what I’m trying to say is that it seemed as if their FB page and Twitter account was the fuel that kept the fire burning. Not their fault, but it was where people could go and vent their frustration and anger.

    Hmmm… it is time Telkom gets a FB page.

  • Keith

    This is off the Woolies topic but relates to this discussion on Social Media and activism. Fascinating read – I can’t help but agree with Malcom Gladwell

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell

  • fred

    Who published these mags that got pulled – M24 maybe
    Was this really worth an announcement?
    This is so stupid!

  • http://ctnlist.co.za/ Richard Catto

    Mike, I think what is happening here is that opinions expressed online seem to get magnified out of proportion.

    I’m not sure why this happens or if there is a name yet for this phenomenon, but any time some angry outraged opinions are expressed online by a relatively small population size, they tend to exert more influence than they ought to.

    I really don’t think Woolworths needed to justify their decision any more than they already did, that the mags weren’t selling well. In response to complaints, WW could have just reminded customers that they could purchase their religious magazines at other outlets, including Christian bookstores, many of whom struggle to survive.

    Religious magazines are niche products and WW is positioning itself to sell products that have appeal to a broad range of customers.

  • Neil Duly

    This for me is a case of a firm missing the real time bennefit and feedback from the social media environment.

    If Christians are going to buy the magazines because they are loyal readers then why not let their local church bennefit from the sale. I’d actually welcome the income into my religious community.

    And that leads me to the point that most Christians I do know claim they purchase their religious material from their Churches.

    Woolworths has great equity and have made few mistakes so I totally agree. Stick to your guns if you’ve made a decision and when you deal with such a sensitive subject make sure you understand the community and they can understand you. Dont become relevent for the wrong reason.

  • http://www.twitter.com/chrisonderstall Chris Onderstall

    I love how when you screw up in social media your steps taken to rectify your mistakes are 9/10 times seen as a PR win.

    Nice post.

  • http://www.pike.co.za Walter Pike

    I wrote down some of my thoughts on memeburn so if anyone is interested go have a look at http://memeburn.com/2010/10/some-quick-thoughts-on-woolies/

    I don’t think that Woolies did this well at all.

    Mike the point that I don’t necessarily agree with is the “Woolies have a skewed perception of the role and influence of their social media audience.” small numbers with the ability to publish are in fact pretty powerful and have an ability to get ideas to spread pretty far and pretty fast.

    Kevin Kelly talks about the power of a thousand true fans http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php

    I do think that listening to what your customer is saying is not the same thing as doing everything that everyone wants. I mean as a keen follower of the sport of Mongolian under water synchronised basket weaving I insist on a magazine on every shelf! Ludicrous.

    To be fair I think that Woolies just didn’t know what to do.

  • GC

    Is it true that one of the top dogs at Woolworths was incensed by an article written in one of the Christian magazines?

    If so, it would seem to suggest something deeper at play. A good journalist would try to find out.

    It’s quite surprising that nothing is being said anywhere about a consumer’s right to withhold his custom if he wants to, for whatever reason he deems fit.

    • http://www.mikestopforth.com Mike

      I can’t comment on that GC, and I’m not a good journalist, I’m a blogger ;)