The most important insight I took from this chapter was the
assertion that the research results of a marketing campaign can form the audit
data for another cycle of the campaigns. This allows companies to continually
refine their relationship with stakeholders. Theoretically, if the methods are
sound, this should perpetually keep most stakeholders satisfied. With the
forums for feedback getting wider, and the timelines in which to give it becoming
shorter, this perpetual cycle of research should be increasingly prominent.
A great example of this is Domino’s Pizza. In 2009, the
company sought
to change its reputation as last place on customers’ taste buds. While the
its reputation rankings were from a quantitative survey of stakeholders’
preferences, Domino’s used qualitative focus groups, surveys, and social-media
feedback to audit specific comments about its pizza. The harsh criticism the
company received was not only used as the basis for improvements, but as the
content for a clever marketing campaign after recipes were adjusted.
While the objectives of the campaign (improve reputation)
clearly came from the quantitative brand rankings, I suspect that the planning
and execution did not so much come from the qualitative feedback. I think it’s
fair to say that Domino’s knew its reputation was already in the dumpster, and
was proactively seeking a way to use that fact as jumping-off point for change.
This counter-intuitive strategy (“Look at how much you hate
us!”) may have worked even if the recipe hadn’t been tweaked too much, but to
Domino’s credit, they also measured stakeholders’ feedback of the new pizza.
This time, they used a quantitative survey method to gather
customers’ evaluation on the quality of food and service as it’s ordered.
I don’t think most companies to resort to the dramatic
actions that Domino’s took, unless they are in truly dire straits regarding
their reputation. This is, after all, a gimmick that should only work once.
However, their methodology of letting quantitative rankings guide qualitative
audits that flow into quantitative results provides a perpetual cycle of
stakeholder feedback and continuous improvement. It may take significant
up-front investment, but once the cycle is begun, it could be part of business
as usual.
Cornelissen's presentation of research as a cyclical process is the most salient point from Chapter 7 for me as well. Your example of Domino's is excellent as I remember this campaign clearly. I recall appreciating what you called the counter-intuitive strategy of highlighting the negative public perception of their product in order to improve both the product and the perception.
ReplyDeleteYour post made me wonder if Domino's expansion into offering sandwiches, chicken wings, and other non-pizza options grew out of this same research, or if the impetus cam from elsewhere.
I'm sure the addition of their side-items stemmed from further probing of stakeholder feedback from the campaign from 2009. I also remember this well and found their approach to seem quite genuine, i.e. I generally thought that the statements they were communicating was a reflection of a total change in recipe and organizational culture. They seemed to be more in touch with stakeholders and I assume the initial research and continuing measurement techniques aided in shaping the campaign that was pretty successful in terms of changing assumptions about their past reputation.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the addition of their side-items stemmed from further probing of stakeholder feedback from the campaign from 2009. I also remember this well and found their approach to seem quite genuine, i.e. I generally thought that the statements they were communicating was a reflection of a total change in recipe and organizational culture. They seemed to be more in touch with stakeholders and I assume the initial research and continuing measurement techniques aided in shaping the campaign that was pretty successful in terms of changing assumptions about their past reputation.
ReplyDeleteI love Dominos' pizza and always have. I think their approach was brilliant and has obviously paid off. I agree that they used qualitative to inform quantitative results. And it worked. They are still in business.
ReplyDelete