Comment le retail peut aller à l’encontre de l’expérience client ? (3 étapes)

Depuis quelques années je constate des tendances lourdes, qui sont assez choquantes pour l’expérience omnicanale dans une ville à population dense. Je vais en lister quelques unes.

  1. Plus proche c’est mieux

Globalement ce n’est pas faux, sauf que un petit CA reste un petit CA, qui plus est si tout sauf quelques produits du merchanding sont carrément 30% plus cher que la concurrence. D’ou un positionnement sandwich avéré, qui n’est je pense pas rentable ou vaguement.

2. Plus gros c’est mieux

Dans la même logique, plus gros peut être mieux, sauf si ladidte cible connaît les prix en province. Pas de composition sur la baguette (c’est fait avec quoi?), des prix encore plus chers qu’une unité de marché (qui a dit un cassoulet en conserve de 200g à 3€?). Sans parler des employés qui tirent un peu langue. Pas étonnant, ils travaillent depuis déja 10 heures quand on y va le soir, ils sont crevés.

3. Le digital est vaguement accessoire

Dans cet effort de monopolisation locale, le digital est carrément mis de côté. De ce côté tous les commerçants d’enseigne nationale ont des cartes de fidélité qui sont potentiellement des leviers d’engagement, mais jamais utilisés. C’est pourtant une mine d’or, si elle est tactiquement utilisée avec parcimonie et permission marketing.

Dans ces 3 étapes tout va à l’encontre de l’expérience client dans une logique de monopolisation de la distribution. Est-il possible d’optimiser l’expérience client ? Oui et au moins 3 fois oui !

List of smartphones and devices size for responsive design

A handy list of most common smartphone devices size in CSS – commonly used in responsive web design (also email design). You can check it on mydevice.io.

Common Smartphones values
name
phys.
width
phys.
height
CSS
width
CSS
height
pixel
ratio
phys. ppi
CSS ppi
Apple iPhone 6 750 1334 375 667 2 326 192
Apple iPhone 5 640 1136 320 568 2 326 192
Apple iPhone 4 640 960 320 480 2 326 192
Apple iPhone 3 320 480 320 480 1 163 96
Apple iPod Touch 640 1136 320 568 2 326 192
LG G4 1440 2560 360 640 4 538 384
LG G3 1440 2560 360 640 4 538 384
LG Optimus G 768 1280 384 640 2 318 192
Samsung Galaxy Note 2 720 1280 360 640 2 267 192
Samsung Galaxy Note 800 1280 400 640 2 285 192
Samsung Galaxy S5 1080 1920 360 640 3 441 288
Samsung Galaxy S4 1080 1920 360 640 3 441 288
Samsung Galaxy S4 mini 540 960 360 640 1.5 256 144
Samsung Galaxy S3 720 1280 360 640 2 306 192
Samsung Galaxy S3 mini 480 800 320 533 1.5 233 144
Samsung Galaxy S2 480 800 320 533 1.5 217 144
Samsung Galaxy S 480 800 320 533 1.5 233 144
Samsung Galaxy Nexus 720 1200 360 600 2 316 192
LG Nexus 5 1080 1920 360 640 3 445 288
LG Nexus 4 768 1280 384 640 2 320 192
Microsoft Lumia 1020 768 1280 320 480 2.4 332 220
Microsoft Lumia 925 768 1280 320 480 2.4 332 220
Microsoft Lumia 920 768 1280 320 480 2.4 332 220
Microsoft Lumia 900 480 800 320 480 1.5 217 144
Microsoft Lumia 830 720 1280 320 480 2 294 192
Microsoft Lumia 620 480 800 320 480 1.5 252 144
HTC One 1080 1920 360 640 3 468 288
HTC 8X 720 1280 320 480 3 341 288
HTC Evo 3D 540 960 360 640 1.5 256 144
Sony Xperia Z3 1080 1920 360 598 3 424 288
Sony Xperia Z 1080 1920 360 640 3 443 288
Sony Xperia S 720 1280 360 640 2 342 192
Sony Xperia P 540 960 360 640 1.5 275 144
Xiaomi Mi 4 1080 1920 360 640 3 441 288
Xiaomi Mi 3 1080 1920 360 640 3 441 288
Lenovo K900 1080 1920 360 640 3 401 288
Pantech Vega n°6 1080 1920 360 640 3 373 288
Blackberry Leap 720 1280 390 695 2 294 177
Blackberry Passport 1440 1440 504 504 3 453 274
Blackberry Classic 720 720 390 390 1.8 294 177
Blackberry Q10 720 720 346 346 2 328 192
Blackberry Z30 720 1280 360 640 2 295 192
Blackberry Z10 768 1280 384 640 2 355 192
Blackberry Torch 9800 360 480 360 480 1 187 96
ZTE Grand S 1080 1920 360 640 3 441 288
ZTE Open (Firefox OS) 480 720 320 480 1.5 165 144
Common Phablets values
name
phys.
width
phys.
height
CSS
width
CSS
height
pixel
ratio
phys. ppi
CSS ppi
Apple iPhone 6 Plus 1080 1920 414 736 3 401 249
Motorola Nexus 6 1440 2560 412 690 3.5 493 336
Microsoft Lumia 1520 1080 1920 432 768 2.5 367 240
Samsung Galaxy Note 4 1440 2560 360 640 4 515 384
Samsung Galaxy Note 3 1080 1920 360 640 3 386 288
Common Tablets values
name
phys.
width
phys.
height
CSS
width
CSS
height
pixel
ratio
phys. ppi
CSS ppi
Apple iPad Pro 2048 2732 1024 1366 2 265 192
Apple iPad 3, 4, Air 1536 2048 768 1024 2 264 192
Apple iPad 1, 2 768 1024 768 1024 1 132 96
Apple iPad mini 2, 3 1536 2048 768 1024 2 326 192
Apple iPad mini 768 1024 768 1024 1 163 96
Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 10″ 800 1280 800 1280 1 149 96
Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 10″ 800 1280 800 1280 1 149 96
Samsung Galaxy Tab (8.9″) 800 1280 800 1280 1 170 96
Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 (7″) 600 1024 600 1024 1 170 96
Samsung Nexus 10 1600 2560 800 1280 2 300 192
HTC Nexus 9 1538 2048 768 1024 2 281 192
Asus Nexus 7 (v2) 1080 1920 600 960 2 323 192
Asus Nexus 7 (v1) 800 1280 604 966 1.325 216 127
LG G Pad 8.3 1200 1920 600 960 2 273 192
Amazon Kindle Fire HD 8.9 1200 1920 800 1280 1.5 254 144
Amazon Kindle Fire HD 7 800 1280 480 800 1.5 216 144
Amazon Kindle Fire 600 1024 600 1024 1 167 96
Microsoft Surface Pro 3 1440 2160 1024 1440 1.5 / 1.4 216 144
Microsoft Surface Pro 2 1080 1920 720 1280 1.5 207 144
Microsoft Surface Pro 1080 1920 720 1280 1.5 207 144
Microsoft Surface 768 1366 768 1366 1 148 96
Blackberry Playbook 600 1024 600 1024 1 169 96
Other connected devices
name
phys.
width
phys.
height
CSS
width
CSS
height
pixel
ratio
phys. ppi
CSS ppi
Google Glass 640 360 427 240 1.5 ? 144

You can also check your current values on this site : Discover your device values.

Email debate: why spend resources on email? you can shoot image-based emails at will

Question:

I was asked today “since image based email is ‘bad’ why does some of the largest retailers, Gap, Target, [name your retailer here], still do it”? And it’s true, I get hundreds of tile layout image based emails.

As we tested for deliverability (less than a half of a percent), the major errors that came back were non-specific for clients like Juno, Aol and other no name clients, no one would ever think to test. (Digico comment: bad general marketer philosophy: if low, let’s crack it even more..)

My basic philosophy on the concept is that a healthy dose of image and text helps fight the war on Spam. However when contrasting content based spam with server side spam irregularities (like Comcast hating everyone for no reason). Most of that “war on spam” seems to now be fought on the servers rather than in HTML. (Digico comment: I think he never heard the concept of client nurturing – digital marketing is all but war).

So are image based emails still something worth fighting over when it comes to brand style guides?

My answer:

Rightful questions, most ecommerce businesses think in a logic of speed. Speed is good, but after some time (let’s say a 6 monthes to 1 year period) using cheap approaches to emailing, leads to high burnout on list. Not to mention damage in brand by sending half-baked campaigns that are barely readable on a smartphone (if not showing like i often see, fully unreadable).

Finally, if a business works in a full burnout logic for clients on email, it’s not a sustainable one. For example, did you see full image email from fab.com? I didn’t. Because they don’t. And while with no particular competitive advantage at first sight, they are now a thousand million business. Do they compete Ikea? No. Do they use image emails? Never.

Email is not about shooting, it’s about your digital strategy. If you want to approach digital marketing using Pareto Law, you can it’s possible. But do you know the cost of each email you send? Did you calculate the attrition rate at each image-based email VS carefully-built email with managers for the task?

Volume is not an option any more.

I’ll also add, that in general thin ecommerce margins, there are only a handful of very profitable customers – that you’d like to care about. Your junior approach to shoot image-based emails won’t do. They probably blocked your emails already.