“Free” is a word we’re passionate about. We fight for it, die for it, and when Starbucks makes it from coffee and heavy cream we eat it.
According to some marketers, (ala Seth Godin) “Free” is the way of the future. Until people get tired of enjoying products and services at no cost–which is unlikely–we’ll continue to see products and services promoted through giveaways and free trials.
This brings me to the question I’ve been stewing over for the past few days: What sort of support should we expect to come along with free products and services?
If your pint of Starbucks tastes bad, should you expect to get a replacement without hassle? Yes! I think you should get another free pint. The savvy employee will even go so far as to check with a manager and get clearance to give you coupons for free coffee, etc. It’s important that Starbucks treat you just like a paying customer because their entire promotion is about creating more paying customers.
What about all the free services we enjoy online? Twitter, Gmail, Flick’r, Youtube, etc. Should we expect prompt and courteous responses to our concerns just as if we were paying customers? I think so. I see customer service and tech support as a big part of what makes a product or service unique.
It’s expensive to take this approach to “free.” But the benefits can be dramatic and long-lasting. Consider:
- Starbucks, if they planned their promotion well, has extra staff scheduled to keep lines short and service brisk at retail locations that carry the ice cream. The cost of the promotion is much higher than just the cost of the product because the savvy promoter carefully presents the complete product experience to potential customers. In this case, a short line, quality product, and friendly barista.
- Twitter, if they invested in a “welcome team” that greeted new users and helped them figure out the service, would not be losing users at such a high rate. (Remember Myspace’s Tom? He made a difference. Having a suggested user list of accounts that don’t reply to “normal” people is a recipe for disaster.) Would it be expensive to develop an effective team? Sure. Worth it? I think so.
- Moonfruit, had they assigned a team to Twitter during their weeklong promotion, could have generated a dramatic increase in value-added awareness (sales) just by responding to the question: “WTF is moonfruit?” popping up all over Twitter. By focusing on just building buzz they missed out on a lot of honey.
“Free” is not a new concept to those with experience in the gratuity-driven parts of the hospitality industry. “On the house” are a patron’s three favorite words. But the staff charged with distributing the free good or services rarely feel the same way. Why? Because people who get free food, drinks, massages, etc. seldom remember to tip. In the moment of “free” they fail to behave like paying customers.
A departure from normal behavior often takes place on both sides of “free.” Consumers, given the chance, take advantage (in the pejorative sense) of promotions. Producers and service providers give a lower level of service because they think it’s enough to simply give something away for nothing.
I don’t think it is enough.
What do you think?
Wow, things have changed. Would a guy with a little storefront ever given away a free pickle in 1912? No.
Nowadays FREE isn't just offered, it's expected. Right, Seth, a lot take the free and walk away, almost with a sense of entitlement. But the giver knows this, right? Being taken 'advantage' of is alright, because he knows that it still rings with the REAL prospects.
Great post on an subtle subject… but we've come to demand nothing less from you, Seth. After all, it's free, right?
-jef
Seth, that's a good point you raise here. Regardless of whether someone is a “paying client” or not, once you're doing something for them/giving them a free sample, you should treat them like anyone else shelling out their hard earned cash. If it doesn't garner you a new victim… I mean customer right away, you've still done something positive and it's bound to come back to you.
It's like Guy Kawasaki said in “The Art of the Start,” being a true mensch is when you do something good for someone who you can not benefit from. Maybe you can in the future, but that's not the point. And not to get too out there on you, but when you've dumped enough positive energy or work into the ether, Karma kicks in and you tend to get it returned to you at some point.
Now for Anderson's view of “Free” being the wave of the future, I'll be happy to take one of his books to peruse the ideas in it and see if they stand up. Free, of course, since I want to be as futuristic as the next person.
Twitter could give more.
I'm sure with the expenses [they've burned through millions], the intense hard work for over a thousand days, the success and and accolades from presidents down, they feel they give enough to millions, for free.
{Actually not true. Company principles tell me in private
their ache to do far better-even at free}
But people take for granted. And in so doing rob themselves.
We have become a society filled with people who will
never have one thing, for not ally, deeply appreciating each 'have';
enough.
Free or not, it's your product, your brand. People may soon forget the particular product, but they'll remember how you treated them, and for that reason alone a company should be prepared to offer every consumer their best possible service. The Japanese have a saying, “ichi go, ichi ei”, that translates (roughly) as “once in a lifetime meeting”. What it means is that every meeting is unique in terms of circumstances (weather, physical condition, participants) and therefore should be savored and enjoyed for what it is. This concept is expressed dramatically and attractively in the Japanese tea ceremony. Clearly, the unique nature of each individual interface between company and consumer is not quite what is being expressed in the Japanese saying (which has deeper philosophical implications); nevertheless, it does suggest the mindset that companies should be hoping their employees bring to every interaction with their users/audiences.
If I am an existing customer of a company, I expect the same service as if I was a prospective customer. Any less would be unfair competition. Yet, many companies offer promotions to new customers and don't let their existing customers take advantage.
If you put a service out there (free or premium), you have to support it.
There may be a differing level of support, and that's something that any sane customer would appreciate. But you still need to offer the support for whatever level of service or product you've introduced to the public.
Otherwise, just keep it under wraps and don't bother with it. Free or not, negativity costs.
You'd think they'd respond as such…it's hard to get lower-level staff to take the same gracious approach.
Free? No, you just don't remember accepting the monthly subscription charge. It should be added to your phone bill? Haha!
=)
Great post Seth. Free is relative however. If a company gives something away, while it may not collect money or even make money, they still must deliver on their product or service – deliver on their brand. And that delivery isn't free. Sampling has been a marketing tactic for ages to entice and to build brand loyalty. But in the day of engagement, free takes on some new meaning. Companies can't use “free” as a ploy to gain new customers – they still have to deliver the goods, and it's not simply their product or service. That complimentary cup of coffee I might get from Starbucks is great but if it tastes like crap or is cold – even if I receive another one – they haven't delivered the goods nor have they delivered on their brand. Companies have to think through all aspects of brand delivery, regardless of whether something is “free.”
@KimBrater
Why are you providing it for free? Presumably to win customers or fans or partners. So if the service is poor you might as well not bother.
If the service isn't there chances are it is just a quick (possibly desperate) act of promotion and the company behind it hasn't really got the concept of free.
As for twitter it still baffles me that they don't at least offer some kind of premium service – maybe that way they could cover the cost of introduceing their own version of myspace Tom which might increase the uptake of new “real” users and lower the spam ratio a bit.
victim…customer…same difference? =)
Karma doesn't always come back when we'd like it or in the form we'd prefer it to take. If your action isn't honest, you'll burn out pretty quickly. “Some point” can be a point years from now and most people, especially in this space, have no interest in waiting that long. The spammer community will always have a steady flow of recruits as a result.
I believe Anderson's book is actually available for free download…i'd have to check where. =)
Insightful. What I find interesting is that in your article you talk about the value that an organization would get by taking the free offering so seriously that it includes the kind of service a paying customer would expect. What I find interesting in myself is that I have this expectation anyway. Not just that there be free offerings of services (particularly on the internet) but also that once a company has got me to use them (and depend on them) it “owes” me a degree of service. It seems only fair. Have you noticed this?
I really enjoyed this Seth, and coincidentally enough, I wrote a very similar post that went up yesterday as well and sparked some great discussion…I'll link at the bottom.
I actually recently had an experience with a brand where I complained on the twitterstream, and received a very rude response. While they acknowledged that their response was rude and apologized, they stood by their belief that because they're a free service, they should not have to be concerned with customer service. “If you don't like it, don't use it”.
I completely disagree with this approach. I believe customer service, whether or not you're a “free” tool, and assuming you want to succeed, is quite possibly the single most powerful tool a brand has. When I complained, they easily could have responded respectfully, helped me for 30 seconds with my problem, and turn me into an evangelist. If they did, I'd be sitting here telling you a story about great customer service with a great brand, and I'd actually be able to name them.
I think the problem is that some brands don't look at customer service as a tool, they look at it as an unwanted commitment. We just do customer service because we have to, kinda thing. Until they realize the true power of a good customer service experience, they'll continue to miss out on great opportunities.
Here's my post on my blog: http://davidspinks.com/2009/07/07/free-customer...
Here's the same post that was featured on Brazen Careerist (It had a better discussion take place in the comments here): http://www.brazencareerist.com/2009/07/07/why-f...
Thanks Seth, I look forward to reading more.
David
Companies are not friends. If they give away something for free, it is because they want something in return — your business. “The first one is always free.”
Many companies, though, are run by idiots who think that if something is free, they shouldn't have to support/replace/put their best into the item. Avoid these companies. They have a cutting-corners mindset that will likely show up in the product itself and even in their customer service for paying customers.
I would be curious to see how a company who was giving something away for free, yet refused to support the item, would react if someone were to take a picture of the item and write a nasty review of the item with massive syndication that bridged media outlets. Methinks the company would figure out pretty quickly that a good reputation is more valuable than money.
I agree that man don't do a good job of appreciating what they have. That said, I still think a robust user integration program would do a lot for Twitter.
I'm grateful for what I've gained from Twitter. I'd like to see them keep more of their users and grow as a viable enterprise.
The companies that work the hardest to share a common vision, from the lowliest subcontractor to highest-paid CEO, are often the ones that have the easiest time making sense of customer relations.
Associates dealing with customers is a process looking to fail from the nametags down. People providing a service interacting with people who use the service…now we're getting somewhere.
“Savor” and “enjoy” are two words I don't think one hears a lot in customer service. =)
Thanks Nictos!
[...] This is the question being asked today by blogger Seth Simonds. [...]
I think this is so true. Whether free or discounted or however, the customer is always observing the level of response and commitment the company presents to them. They are figuring out the kind of relationship and level of service they can expect from that particular company. It should exceed expectations in every way (price being only one aspecto of it). If a company is investing in FREE it might as well invest in the BEST FREE POSSIBLE. The way I see it, it is still an agreement: I give free, you take free: we are in a relationship. Same goes for discounted. In my opinion, if you cannot afford to give top notch with the discount, it is not worth it!
I just read a book review in the WSJ today about a new book out by Chris Anderson called, “FREE, the Future of Radical Price.” There's a good podcast with the author on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Free-Future-Radical-Chris... about this very subject. Great post!
Ahh, yes. I see that a lot with telecom ads. “offer open to new users only.” How silly. I'd be psyched if I got to upgrade my service like the new people. I hope the mindset of “existing customers won't leave” will change to the point where companies are making continued effort to woo consumers who have already signed up.
Even if your service leaves people's content high and dry if they decide to stop using it? =)
I like the idea of keeping something behind closed doors until support can be fully available to help with users bumbling about the service beta.
VC-driven ventures seem intensely driven to get a product into circulation and see how the idea takes. There seems to be less worry about sustained organic growth and more concern over riding a wave of buzz.
They'll get it right someday!
Would you be referring to DISQUS, my good man?
VC is an old, outdated model (or at least the mindset behind it is). Silicon Valley (and I use that as they're generally VC pimps) often have more money than sense and it's a “I'll do this to beat so-and-so down the valley” approach. If better service (and the costs incurred by it) mean less VC nonsense, I'm all for it.
You just took the wind out of so many happy social media sails, Kim! =)
Free is not only expensive but it's a lot of work. Just another price point? I think so.
I'm not in the loop enough to know what future plans are. I've seen ads (not enough to make sense of things) and I've thought of some premium options that would work for Twitter.
However, until they get some sort of income I'm not sure how they could justify a big in-house pr team. Cart before the horse when they need to be side-by-side.
We shall see! =)
I'm starting to think the first thing on twitter's customer service agenda should be getting rid of the spam – would e-mail be any use at all anymore without the spam filters?
I know I don't have to follow anyone – but both #s and search results are becoming full of crap as well, plus the sheer amount of noise is putting newbie users off – you join, you're excited to follow people and you get 99% spam so you never log in again.
So there we are – get income, provide a great service for free and filter out the junk (not necessarily in that order) Ev and Biz have got an easy job!!!
Totallly agree – free is just another price point…and free is never free. If companies just focused on excellent customer service, perhaps the idea of giving something away for free or otherwise might not matter so much. Brand loyalty negates such tactics.
Hey, Seth – Been meaning to respond to you on this. We do expect a lot — even when it is free. And, companies should be willing to support it in the same way that they support paid products. So, I totally agree with your comments.
But, the recent, broader conversations around free — which you allude to — are definitely starting to bug me a little. In my experience — on the brand side — whenever you give something away for free — even with great servicing behind it — you get a less engaged, less loyal customer. The attendant attrition from a free product is always a good 2-3 times higher than for a paid product (just look at Twitter or any of the iPhone apps). Despite the public's desire/demand for free, whatever they obtain for free, they usually don't value (“who cares? it was free”). If consumers don't value something, how does a business sustain itself? How does our economy sustain itself? Free is great from a sampling the brand tactic but it's not sustainable.
Yes. I see it often. Most view the “free” as a trial experience offered in good faith by a company that believes its product to be so useful that it warrants a financial investment to retain continued use.
It's a relationship no matter where you have your first conversation.
Coming from a heavy customer service background, I believe the level of customer service one should receive should not be measured if the product/service was provided for free to at a cost. The bar should always be set high. In fact, you could argue the bar should be set even higher for “free”, because there is even greater potential for someone to “buy” something from you if there are treated like royalty.