Monday, 19 November 2012

Health is nothing but healthy suppression (ascribed to Freud)


















A look at how different cultures deal with health, sickness and prevention.

Over the years we have worked on numerous insight and customer engagement projects in health and health related areas. Splitting my time between Singapore and Australia we have recently researched health and health care motivations in South East Asia. The way different cultures deal with health is very different, interesting and relevant for pharmaceutical, supplement, food and health care companies.

In Asia, as more and more Western influences are adopted, the cultural self-understanding is changing. Conversely, in Australia, with a fast growing Asian population, the adoption of Asian influences in health and well-being continues to grow.

Attitudes towards dealing with pain and flu are a good example to look at the different psycho:logic.
Germans try to avoid taking painkillers and medication and get by for as long as they can. Only when they feel it becomes unbearable, they will take medication, but then decisively. But not before telling others about it and others making the suggestion they should take something and go home.

“I don't take medication unless I really have to. You should try to get through without”
Then Germans do just that and go home and take their time until fully back on board. It is well accepted that one has to then fully recover before going back.

In contrast, people in the US tend to hide any feelings of being unwell from their colleagues and often family. Not being on top of your game is considered letting the team down. A good dose of self importance plays a role, too. Thus medication is taken early, proactively and trying to push through.

“I don't like telling people I’m not well. They depend on me. I feel like I’m letting them down”
Australians continue to portray a frontier spirit in that they are more willing to get by without going to the doctor, take medication early and strongly and literally ‘soldier on’ as one big brand advertises.

“Naahhh… a couple of XYZ and I'm good to go.”
Asian attitudes vary a lot between generations, but the traditional attitudes and motivations still carry strongly even with young Asians. Medication is still strongly associated with being natural, herbal or animal based. These are considered to be medication as much as Westerners consider pharmaceutical medicines and their efficacy is considered as good, if not better. In the foreground is the motivation to use natural medication that works with and supports the body and mind, while pharmaceuticals are often considered artificial and counter productive in the long-term.

“I don't even take Panadol. They’re drugs. It’s not made for your body. I take natural medicines. They’re made for the human body”
The motivation is to recognise the feelings of being unwell early and build the body up against it. The ambitious nature and the strong family and peer interdependencies further drive the need to not be a burden and to push through.

While some of the motivations are the same, the needs fulfilment in each culture and every generation is very different. This is true for dealing with pain and flu as it is with all other health related topics like prevention, dealing with chronic ailments and life important issues like diabetes, heart or cancer.

Brands need to understand that in approaching different cultures, be it within one or multiple countries, they need to be trusted for different reasons and that the brand or product features that will drive people to trust a brand need to be personalised depending on the cultural needs.

HuTrust® is mext’s proprietary tool to build and manage trust with customers and other stakeholders. HuNeeds® is mext’s proprietary needs modelling approach. Both are based on the most modern psychology, statistically sound and practically proven globally.

By Rama Witjaksono
with Stefan Grafe


Wednesday, 26 September 2012

Client needs modelling provides new opportunities for legal firms to create customer value.

There has been a lot going on the in legal sector – global consolidation, off-shoring, margin pressure, in-housing and the challenge will keep building - not least through an uncertain and sluggish economy.

After having helped King & Wood Mallesons develop their hugely successful global brand and advertising campaign the team at mext turned their attention to a big gap in the legal market. A deep understanding of client needs and trends in working with firms.

Having developed over 60 customer needs models globally from airlines to utilities mext conducted 49 interviews with clients and firms and used the most modern psychology to develop and map client needs for legal services.

The result is a comprehensive and conscious understanding that helps firms better fulfil on their client needs and thus create higher value for them and greater opportunities for themselves.

Senior industry insiders with whom we discussed the HuNeeds® model considered the approach ground-breaking in the industry, providing new potential to shape the way they work with clients and deal with the challenges ahead.

Lawyers Weekly wrote that the challenge will lie in firms understanding and adopting this kind of thinking. With mext’s experience in applying the HuNeeds client needs modelling approach with King & Wood Mallesons and first reactions from firms this worry seems to be unfounded.

The study identified the structure of 6 core motivations and 29 specific needs that help firm dealing with challenges ranging from brand to experience Design, margin pressure to new business development and innovation.

One mext client called the HuNeeds approach 'the cornerstone of all their marketing activities' because it provides a scientifically sound and intuitive framework every lawyer can use.

As a proactive study and tool developed to support their clients, the findings of the study are available to all legal services firms as the study results and through workshops.



Media
http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/news/client-needs-to-know
Home
www.mextconsulting.com


Monday, 27 August 2012

King & Wood Mallesons nominated finalist for ‘best new brand launch’

King & Wood Mallesons’ audacious brand launch was nominated as a finalist in the AMI’s prestigious ‘best new brand launch’ category. The nomination is testament to King & Wood Mallesons’ ground breaking thinking in creating one of the world’s largest legal brands and the first large scale China/Western merger. 

In developing their new brand, the King & Wood Mallesons team engaged mext for their extensive global brand development experience and unique tools based on trust. Mext worked with the team as the merger was unfolding, making it a very exciting and challenging project. 

The brand results are no less ground breaking than the merger. The brand launch received widespread publicity and accolades for its clarity of positioning and immediately lead to new business opportunities. The advertising campaign created based on the brand strategy by mext partner, mr mumbles, was so well received that some clients reportedly put the ads up on their wall. The internal launch included a program that allowed global staff to send messages to each other via messages on T-Shirts.

At the time of the launch Stuart Fuller, Global Managing Partner, King and Wood Mallesons commented: 
“We want to build great things with our clients and our people, enhancing the reputation that both firms have already built over many years and take it to the next level. In a legal landscape of ongoing rationalisation and expansion, King & Wood Mallesons has recognised that the battle for brand is the next frontier. With this campaign, we are taking the first step in standing above our competitors.” 


Friday, 20 July 2012

Are customer surveys making for a bad experience?

Many companies are now focused on end to end experience design and measurement and set their KPIs accordingly. But are some in danger of seeing their ‘sophisticated’ measurements backfire?

Some companies these days present you with a survey at every touch point asking you to rate each interaction – however small. When it’s only one or two companies doing it, customers may put up with it.  Get everyone doing it and customers will feel like they spend more time answering surveys than getting what they want.

For the companies, these surveys have two inherent dangers.

1. Data collection is often skewed
A friend was trying to deal with a telco. Every time he called, he was promised resolution and it all seemed fine. Duly he was asked to stay on the line to answer a short survey. Of course, most call centre staff do not miss the chance to ask for a good score as ‘the survey rates their personal performance’.  And because the survey only refers to the specific touch point and operator, one feels obliged to give a good score. He even gave it happily – the interaction was pleasant and he thought his issue was resolved. But later, when they had screwed up again, and he sat there fuming, there was no survey, no opportunity to let them know. The good scores he gave previously had no connection with the reality of his experience. 

Another one. My wife wasn’t happy with our bank (ever since Ogilvy we’ve know this to be important!). So after 20 years it was time to break up. After just 2 weeks and without them having been able to achieve anything, my wife is told she will receive a call for a survey. She also receives an request from the manager to please give a 9 or 10 as anything below is considered unsatisfactory!

The reliance on KPI control and leads to people at every level finding ways to skew their numbers – leaving the entire system ad absurdum. 



2. Survey creates a bad experience
All these surveys are taken in the name of a great customer experience. But the surveys now become so intrusive, that their very existence has to be considered as part of the experience design.

Coming back to the telco and my friend. As a result of ‘having been tricked into giving good scores and not being able to report bad ones’ his experience perception is now worse than if the company had just screwed it up.

We tried it ourselves across a number of touch points. Then did a few interviews to see what people thought. Initially the request for feedback is considered a nice touch and suggests the company cares. But after a short time a feeling of annoyance sets in - ‘they only ask when it suits their purpose’. Those that had dealt with more than one or two of those survey heavy companies, start to think of them more negatively. It feels to them as if:

        - the onus of providing a good experience is put on the customer
        - the company has to ask constantly because they do not know how they are doing

Transfer this into personal life. Imagine you have an employee that asks you with every task for your appraisal. You’d just go nuts. If it is a supplier, you’d go nuts even faster.  It shows their insecurity, lack of internalised standards and inability to self-assess.

In designing customer experiences we will never be able to do without some form of measurement and setting customer focused KPIs.  But surveying and measurement has to be understood as an inherent part of the customer experience, not a tool for managers to chase their bonuses.

Tuesday, 10 July 2012

What drives bank trust? Update on slideshare now.


First, why would you care? We all know that the banks are not trusted, right? All 4 major banks are, on average, not trusted or just sit on the trust threshold. In business banking none even comes close to an average trust rating.

Trust is the link between customer behaviour and company performance.

If banks could shift their average trust rating by just 5-10%, they would double positive predisposition. A shift of 20% would increase positive predisposition by 400%. On the company performance side, trust, satisfaction and propensity to recommend (NPS) always measure the same and the causality is obvious. So, if you can precisely build trust, you drive business results.

Looking at the facets of trust with HuTrust, all major banks have a similar HuTrust Profile. There is no differentiation (we all know that).  Banks are trusted for their stability and they are trusted for being there in the future. Our qual research repeatedly showed that this is partly perceived to be a result of tight regulation –‘being  kept on the leash by the government’. Considering that all banks say they are heavily investing into relationship building, they appear to miss the point and don’t understand what relationship customers actually want to trust them for.

On trust in a vision or purpose, none gets even close to the trust threshold. Vision is a curious one. Constituting one sixth of trust, it is totally overlooked as a driver of trust and customer engagement. Aside from knowing your strengths and weaknesses, which of the HuTrust facets actually drive trust the most and provide the biggest opportunity? What facets should banks invest into to increase trust – and thereby their KPIs and positive customer behaviour?

In nab’s case vision trust is not only the worst performing trust facet, it is also the most important one to drive trust and engagement. For nab it is also the one facet through which it could differentiate substantially and provide more meaning to 'breaking up' than minuscule rates and fees differences. 

Conversely, for Westpac it is competence trust. Interestingly, neither bank really appears to invest into either of these. Maybe that is the reason why none of the banks make any significant shifts in their satisfaction and NPS scores?

BTW - HuTrust facets account for 63-80% of trust variation & 52-88% of variation in propensity to recommend (NPS).


View more presentations from mext Consulting




Friday, 6 July 2012

HuTrust® proves itself in politics



Every politician would agree that it is all about trust. 

This study, with 1500 respondents, employed our HuTrust® IP to also analyse trust in Canadian politicians. Apart from the interesting results for the Premier of British Columbia and the Mayor of Vancouver, the 6 drivers of trust in the HuTrust® methodology were statistically proven to fully explain trust. We were able to analyse the HuTrust® Profiles and the politician’s specific drivers to understand what they would have to do to build more trust.
Analysing Trust in Politicians
View more presentations from mext Consulting