Open up your mind and say, ahh...

Building loyalty is just as important to a business as growing its customer/user base. Here’s 500Friends’ VP of customer success Kristine Jacobs on maximizing the measurable rewards of motivated devotees.

Loyalty. If there were any logic to the language of business, loyalty would be synonymous with profits. Unfortunately, plenty of companies struggle to find a balance between simply growing their customer base and cultivating devoted followers. It’s a challenge for businesses both large and small –even such juggernauts such as Facebook, which at 845 million members and counting, recognizes the need for a sustainable, long term strategy that not only keeps those users coming back, but engages them on the site longer.

It’s especially true for retailers, says Kristine Jacobs, vice president of Customer Success at 500Friends. “What retail does really well is optimize for conversion,” she notes. In other words, management efforts are always focused on getting shoppers to the check out with goods in hand. Getting them to talk about their purchases with friends, not so much.

Though making a sale is measurable outcome, Jacobs, a veteran of e-commerce and digital strategy at the likes of Rich Relevance and Digitas and self-professed analytical shopper, hit on an opportunity that was being overlooked. “How retailers can optimize a long term relationship with that consumer and extract value from all the ways customers interact with their business,” she says.

That’s one of the reasons she’s excited about her work with 500Friends. The San Francisco-based startup founded by Justin Yoshimura provides a social solution for whipping shoppers into a loyal froth beyond their purchase. 500Friends SaaS can be customized for the retailer’s site either on the web or mobile to let merchants go beyond the ‘buy X get one free” punch card and reward devotees with points every time they tweet, post to Facebook, write a review, or refer their friends.  

Jacobs says its then up to the individual business to determine what to offer in return for the points but the ROI will be tangible thanks to 500Friends’ guidance and program analytics. In an age where 62% of retailers say the ROI from their social commerce programs is unclear, according to a recent Forrester study, that’s something that can put on a balance sheet.

Since building loyalty is something any business can use more of (think staff, clients, users, etc.), Jacobs offers Fast Company readers some pointers on maximizing the measurable rewards of motivating hearts and minds. 

Connect the Dots

Jacobs asserts that loyalty programs can be difficult to manage. “A really robust program takes a lot of bandwidth over time,” she says, so most businesses take the path of least resistance (and resources). Though simple promotions or microsites are easier to implement than multi-channel incentives programs, Jacobs says that thinking is tactical vs. strategic.

In order to better understand what motivates a customer, companies should offer them value beyond standard transactions and reward social sharing. “Maybe if the business knows the user is such an influencer, they would treat them differently,” she observes. By tracking that data businesses can “connect the dots” between their customers’ transactions and their future engagement.

Enable the Soapbox

Jacobs is a firm believer in turning loyal customers into advocates. She says businesses should enable customers to “stand on their soapbox and tell their friends.” With reviews of products, referrals, etc. the potential to reach prospects is greater than traditional advertising. “When a trusted friend provides a valued opinion, you are much more likely to go to that site,” Jacobs says. 

Deepen the Relationship

Make sure that downstream transactions are also rewarded. Says Jacobs: “Retailers know it is cheaper to retain a customer than acquire a new one,” however, businesses would do well to continue to recognize and reward repeat clients.”Make sure you are treating them in a way that when they return again you are adding recognition status. It only deepens relationship and makes them more loyal,” she says. 

Differentiate

Jacobs points out that it only takes a little creativity to be more effective at building loyalty. 500Friends challenges retailers to think beyond standard discounts when determining incentives. Exclusives, early access, and other VIP perks that are relevant and unique to that company can make the business stand out.

A recent example popped up on Facebook + Media in which the social network encouraged content providers to engage their fans by posting exclusives on their FB pages. “It may be more difficult to implement at first,” says Jacobs, “but so worth it in long run especially for those who want to move away from discounting.” 

Always Reap ROI

Jacobs says that because 500Friends platform enables the retailer to be as creative as they want, ROI is dependent on their approach. “Make sure rewards are tangible, compelling, and achievable but also that they are financially viable.”

In the case of e-commerce site Scentiments.com, a loyalty program launched in December gave members up to 10 additional points each time they included the company in updates on Facebook and Twitter. More than 2,000 shoppers signed up in the first two weeks and about 500 members started talking up Scentiments.com on social media. The company reported a lift in holiday sales directly related to the program.

Jacobs advises spend time in the strategy phase to make sure you’re going to make bank. “Any loyalty program has to make business sense.”

Image: Flickr user abby28xyz

Google has never been a design-forward company, revolutionizing our lives through interface design. Instead, they’ve taken over the world building products with raw intellectual horsepower–brilliant artificial intelligence to fuel search, wise mapping systems to take us from point A to point B and clever cloud-syncing apps that allow us to collaborate on projects from around the globe. Google never had to be pretty. It’s always been smart.

Yesterday, Google officially revealed a project that will push them to their creative limits. It’s called Project Glass, and it’s a pair of glasses that layers digital information over the real world.

It’s your smartphone, right in your eyes. You can read text messages. You can take photos. You can listen to music (thanks to some built-in earbuds). You can even be told that the subway is closed as you walk up to it, and be redirected to your destination by foot.

It’s your smartphone, right in your eyes.

But maybe most notably, nothing about what Google has presented is an actual product yet, or considered close to finalized. “We wanted to let people know about what we’re doing, and what we hope to achieve with it,” a Google spokesperson told Co.Design, “But in terms of the graphics, the visuals, the hardware setup, there’s a lot of experimentation going on. And a lot of rapid prototyping on the team.”

The concept video Google has shared is meant to signify what the team feels “would be of most value to people,” and what they’re closest to actualizing. Now that this concept is public, Google will be entering what they called the “feedback gathering phase,” in which they’re looking for the community to chime in on what they want to see (and don’t want to see) in a fully realized product.

So where does this leave us for now? What Google has shown is promising, but their design challenges are clear:

There’s a reason that video glasses haven’t taken off yet (and by that, I don’t mean augmented reality glasses like Google’s, but something more like Vuzix). And, for lack of a better term, we’ll call it The Segway Problem. Technology can be a symbol of your future-forwardness, or it can be the exact opposite: a sign of the future’s ridiculousness. The Segway flopped in part for its cost and in part for the fact that humanity isn’t quite that lazy, but there was a deeper, visceral reaction to the core of the product that signified a silly future rather than an inspiring one. So far, the actual glasses Google is showing off aren’t inspiring. To succeed, Google will need to sell us on the either the stylishness, or the invisibility, of video glasses. And may we suggest copying the iPod in this approach? Make the technology as obscured on the user as possible…except for one trademark calling card (in the iPod’s case, white earbuds).

As inspiring as moments in Google’s concept video may be–and the photo-taking moment is an aha moment if I’ve ever seen one–it’s also stuffed with notification, none of which is fundamentally different from what we could be checking on our cellphones less intrusively. The functions that Google blocks will be as integral to the platform’s success as those that are enabled. Finding the perfect level of obtrusiveness within an omnipresent internet connection could be the largest challenge of human-device interaction the electronics industry has ever encountered. And as Google is paving new ground, they’re working outside their comfort zone: Google has no data to mine for how much notification is too much notification. If ever there’s been a product ripe for Google Labs field testing, it’s Project Glass.

People in the Valley used to talk all the time about finding “killer apps”–that is, the one, defining use of a technology that’ll spark its mass adoption. And no wonder: With technologies such as augmented reality and Project Glass, the possibilites seem to outstrip the actual need. As I suggested before, these glasses aren’t yet doing anything our phones can’t. So why do they need to be glasses?

A good counter-example is the iPad. Lots of people dismissed it when it first came out, saying, “Sure, it’s cool, but what does anyone need another computer for?” Well, it turns out, people didn’t need another computer so much as they wanted one–a computer that would make surfing the web from your bed or couch a lot less clunky and more fun. With Project Glass, I’m not sure that have have that use-case yet–that is, the perfect scenario where this just makes sense in people’s lives. There might be some set of features and interactions that makes it so, but these haven’t quite appeared just yet.

Where Project Glass is at now, what one spokesperson labeled “the feedback gathering phase” in our brief conversation today, is an tenuous spot to be in. Crowdsourcing can create great products, but when it comes to inventing something that no one has conceptualized before, we need bold visionaries, not naysaying internet whiners. Not just anyone can design a user interface. And I’d posit that almost no one can design a usable interface that will sit in our eyeballs 24/7. Crowdsourcing user feedback at the invisible level–the advanced A/B testing Google does when they test the color blue without us even knowing it–could be integral to fine tuning Project Glass at a number of levels. But at heart, they will need to present us with a most singular vision if they expect any of us to don a pair of glasses, not a mishmash of suggestions from the peanut gallery.

*

The softest touches of design will define Project Glass’s future.

The little things, the softest touches of design, will define Project Glass’s future in the marketplace. Is the interface loud or quiet? Do we use vocal commands with some functions or all functions? Are notifications really in the center of the screen, or can they be repositioned? Will images be opaque or partially transparent? What will the glasses show when I sit at my computer or when I drive? All of these “how does it feel” components will matter even more than they do in a cellphone. But on top of all this, and maybe most importantly, we’ll need to know the one big reason that we’ll all want to wear our phones rather than keep them tucked away in our pockets. As of right now, I don’t think we’ve seen it.

Most of us interact with at least one Google product every day. Many of us use their products all day, every day. Whether or not you’ve been particularly inspired by their design, you can’t argue that their approach hasn’t worked well enough so far.

But it’s been a while since Google was the first to market in uncharted territory (and it begs the question, have they ever been, really?). Wearing a computer has the potential to redefine the human experience even more than PCs or smartphones did. WIth Project Glass, Google has the task of designing the interface of our lives, and I can’t imagine a greater challenge ahead of them.

With a looming $10 billion IPO on the horizon and a community that’s estimated to hit 1 billion users this Fall, Facebook seems unstoppable. Yet on one important front, the store front that is, Facebook has exposed an imperfection. People are not proving ready to actually buy goods and services in Facebook – at least not at the scale retailers are used to seeing through traditional e-commerce. And suddenly, many question the role Facebook actually plays in the monetization strategy of any business.

F-commerce emerged only three years ago, offering the ability to buy and sell on Faceboook. Early adopters such as 1800FLOWERS and Delta Airlines opened capable and impressive initial Facebook storefronts. Once retailers saw what was possible, waves of F-commerce shops crashed over the social network one-by-one eventually transforming brand pages into digital malls. While initial reports painted promising future for introducing transactional relationships, Bloomberg stuck a pin in the balloons of idealistic social commerce strategists everywhere. In just the past year alone, Gamestop, Gap, J.C. Penney, Nordstrom, Banana Republic, Old Navy among others have opened and closed storefronts on Facebook. Now many wonder what the future holds for F-commerce and whether or not retailers will ever Like it again.

I mean F-commerce only makes sense right? If the attention of almost one billion potential shoppers is fixated in one place then opening a Facebook storefront must be the answer! While only 7% of brands with a brand page experimented with F-commerce strategies, many struggled to justify the costs of designing and supporting customized boutiques on an evolving platform that’s far less standardized than the much more stable and proven foundation of e-commerce.

F-Commerce is the Failed Execution of the Uninspired

The problem is as much the platform as it is the vision of many of the F-commerce strategies we’ve seen in play to date. I believe that in new media, social, mobile, and disruptive, that brands tend to assume a mediumalistic approach. This is a phenomenon where architects and strategists place inordinate weight on the technology of any medium rather than amplifying platform strengths and the unique possibilities to deliver desired experiences and outcomes. It has less to do with the the ability to make a purchase than it has to do with the dynamic of Facebook, the overall UX, and psychology of social commerce.

As an analyst, I’ve studied the design, execution, and performance of many Facebook storefronts. As a strategist, I’ve also designed stores for global brands. With certainty, I can attest that the sky isn’t falling on F-commerce, but it is early. What’s missing is balance between creativity and capability and the desire or sense of need that unites them. Essentially, F-commerce only gets an “F” because brands used Facebook as yet another digital catalog for selling products and not as a platform for activating new experiences based on the nature and the psychology of the relationships that define the network.

As my fellow Pando Daily collaborator Erin Griffith recently observed, businesses need to, “Stop trying to make F-commerce happen.” She’s right. It seems forced, narrow or uninventive.

There are certainly examples of companies that take a test and learn perspective and in those cases, we see what’s possible when we re-image storefronts and social commerce overall. P&G for example, proved that with the right timing, the right interface, and the right product, companies can move product on Facebook. When the company launched a store for its new Pampers Cruisers line of diapers, 1,000 packs were sold at $9.99 in under an hour. I also think back to the Walmart Crowdsaver trial and the power of Likes to create a sense of urgency or exclusivity and eventually influence decisions. At one point the company offered a Groupon-like deal on a 42-inch plasma TV that unlocked after it earned 5,000 Likes.

As in any commerce strategy, the customer journey must be defined. This isn’t just about Facebook. It’s about all emerging channels where customer attention becomes increasingly distributed. Moving forward, businesses must look beyond mere distributed commerce plays and design a syndicated commerce program where commerce is designed for each channel, taking into account the needs, expectations and behavior within each. Channels can of course point to a common hub, but what’s most important is that they’re holistic in the experience the deliver and that the outcomes are defined at the platform and at the overall commerce levels.

To define the future of F-commerce, social commerce or syndicated commerce overall, it takes thoughtful UX and design, not just technology that facilitates sales and marketing. As IBM noted last year in its study, “From social media to Social CRM: What customers want,” customers have expressed that they do indeed wish to purchase within social networks. But, we can’t take that for face value. That’s the mistake many F-tailers make, they didn’t think through the experience nor did they seek inspiration from social customers to think through a new journey or transaction. Naturally, people want discounts and promotions. And if you dig deeper, they’re looking for exclusive opportunities that they can’t get anywhere else. And, by exclusive, these offers are also tied to deadlines and interactivity to make people feel vested in the transaction or that the transaction has a sense of urgency around it. It’s also the introduction of game mechanics to promote sharing around transactions to help engage the community beyond a sale.

IBM’s perception gap above exists within every company. What people want and what we think they want are often on opposite ends of the spectrum. Late last year, I ran a research project for the Pivot Conference where we asked marketers and brand managers if they knew the needs and wants of their social consumer. An astounding 77% said yes. But it is the next question that revealed the truth. We then asked if they ever asked customers directly what they wanted, preferred, or disliked from brands in social networks. The answer reflects the problem with F-commerce and social commerce overall, 53% said no and another 12% didn’t know.

Building a Bridge Between e-Commerce and Social Commerce

The lesson in the current state of F-commerce comes down to acting first rather than designing experiences that trigger desirable network effects and outcomes. By embedding the Like and Share buttons on e-commerce sites feeds customer desire or actions back into the Facebook News Feed. Brands must develop an experiential bridge that connects commerce and emotion to entice people to share AND take action. Data already shows that sharing or the ability to share contributes to customer discovery and ultimately to customer influence. For example, Ticketmaster and Eventbrite can tell you the value of a Like or Share as it converts into a sale that leads from Facebook to the website. And Levi’s can tell you the value of a Like sourced from the website, back into Facebook. Additionally, we know that revenue per click sourced in social networks is of greater value than that of traditional email. CelearSaleing minted that number at $5.24 versus $3.18 respectively.

With the rise of the Open Graph and “frictionless sharing,” brands are now presented with an opportunity to influence customer actions by empowering them to think beyond the Like. What those buttons and experiences look like, the language shared through the social graph and the resulting reactions are yours to define. And, as such, experiences and the customer journey require definition and not just a programmatic reaction to new technology.

Businesses must now think about a distributed commerce strategy that accounts not only for social commerce, but also all forms of commerce ranging from mobile commerce (m-commerce), e-commerce, Facebook commerce (F-commerce), social commerce, real world (in-store) commerce, e-mail commerce, and every other form of commerce that matters.

The future of commerce is not simply social. The future of commerce takes a holistic approach in the form of syndicated commerce where each channel’s strengths are played to create meaningful and shareable experiences. Customer deals, offers, promotions, and experiences must be one with the brand and the brand experience. To achieve oneness across syndicated commerce, business leaders must define the experience, desired outcomes, and mutual benefits along the way. Without an integrated approach to syndicated commerce, it’s impossible to grade any platform as a failure when it is in fact the strategy that’s under performing against the opportunity.

Image Credit: Shutterstock

Last week, Canada’s finance ministry announced the country would soon no longer be distributing the country’s one-cent piece, effectively killing the penny. Now, in yet another sign that money is transitioning away from physical currency, the Royal Canadian Mint, the government-owned corporation that produces Canada’s coinage, is set to launch MintChip, a digital form of currency that enables value transactions in the cloud.

In other words, Canada has essentially just launched its own version of BitCoin. “MintChip brings all the benefits of cash into the digital age,” according to MintChip’s website. “Instant, private and secure, MintChip value can be stored and moved quickly and easily over email, software applications, or by physically tapping devices together.” (Check out MintChip’s video here.)

Details of the program are sparse–we reached out to the RCM, but haven’t heard back yet–but it appears users are given a MintChip ID, and allowed to top up their accounts with funds. Users can exchange value with each other, or pay merchants via MintChip. The value will be stored on MicroSD cards, USB sticks, or remotely in the cloud, all for use by smartphones running Windows, iOS, Android, Blackberry, or on desktop and mobile browsers–that is, once the apps are created.

The news comes only days after RCM’s chief financial officer Marc Brule criticized Bitcoin’s solution. The problem, he told Reuters, was that Bitcoin was not backed by a credible source. “The system we would bring in would be backed by a fund,” Brule said. “Bitcoin may work for the small group of people that believe in its value, but that could change very suddenly.”

The comparisons to Bitcoin only go so far. Bitcoin offers currency from a decentralized source, whereas RCM’s solution is from a centralized authority. Bitcoins are also all stored in the cloud, whereas MintChips depend on hardware.

It’s still a long way from this solution being implemented, but to kick things off the RCM launched the MintChip Challenge, a $50,000 competition to attract developers to create apps for the platform.

Impressed by the bent plywood furniture of Charles and Ray Eames? Then feast your eyes on what a bunch of students whipped up at a university in Zurich.

This giant umbrella of a pavilion is made by stretching oversized sheets of curved plywood, each as much as 8 feet wide and 36 feet long, over the steps of the architecture department at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH).

A plywood structure that big and heavy should collapse on itself. But by carving perforations into the wood, the designers made it easier to bend and more resistant to powerful wind loads. Then, they arranged the plywood sheets to overlap and interlock, creating a set of “self-stabilizing vaults.” Cross-bracing cables help keep everything in place.

The pavilion was a collaboration between the Chair of Structural Design at ETH and the Emergent Technologies and Design program at the Architectural Association (AA) in London. Read more about it at ArchDaily.com.

Images via ArchDaily.com