Can't touch this: The one thing online shopping can't replace.

You’re in a shop, you’ve spotting something you want to buy, what’s the first thing you do? Whether it’s a plant pot, a new pair of shoes, or even a garden shed – the chances are the first you’re going to do is touch it. Is it heavy? Is it itchy? Does it feel solid or does it feel flimsy? We humans are tactile creatures, programmed to interact with our world by touching things. Quality is often hard to assess by simply looking at something; we need to “feel the quality”. So as the world of retail continues to head online, does the lack of a tactile sense influence our purchase behaviour? A recent study by Australian online retailer, Sneaking Duck, suggests that it does.

From the day we are born, we interact with the world around us through physical interaction; we touch things. To see this for yourself, try walking through a mall with a toddler; they simply have to touch everything they see. Why? It’s biological mechanism. Through the simple act of touch we can tell if something is hot or cold, solid or hollow, sharp or dull, food… in fact we can tell any number of qualities about an object. And as we get older that doesn’t change - we use touch as a way to gauge the qualities, and quality of products.

But when it comes to online shopping, we do lose this ability to touch.

It had been thought that by building the quality message into the brand itself, retailers could mitigate peoples’ concerns over not “seeing something in person.” However when one online retailer put this to the test, they found this hypothesis didn’t hold true.

Australian-based prescription eyewear retailer, Sneaking Duck, recently undertook a series of trials to test their customer’s attitudes towards their products. They surveyed customers who had simply purchased glasses online; customers who had chosen to try their free, no-obligation home trail first; and customers who has done neither.

The results showed that those who didn’t purchase, and those who purchased WITHOUT touching the product first had very practical concerns – the fit, the quality, and the size. On the other hand, for people who had touched the glasses (via home trial), these practical concerns evaporated. And it wasn’t just buyer’s confirmation; even those who had tried-on glasses at home and still decided not purchase did not cite the practical (physical) concerns as the reason.

So what does this mean for online retailing?

The story is not all doom and gloom. Around 47% of offline sales started online (Roy Morgan NZ & Gov Stats 2013), which goes to demonstrate that online and offline continue to work in tandem. And it’s this combination approach that will see retailers continue to succeed.

Reviews and ratings are one such method that many online retailers already use as a way to combat lack of trial. It’s long been known word-of-mouth is one of the most powerful sales tools, and research show that customers put a lot of stock in online reviews. This could be further amplified through a friend-get-friend approach. Not only do customers get the recommendation of a trusted friend, but in many cases can view the product first hand at the friend’s house.

Another approach retailers could consider is to allow customers to experience via home trial. It’s interesting to note that in recent times infomercials on TV have started offering customers a chance to try products for 30 days for $1. The idea being that once the customer has the product in their hands, they are more likely to follow through with the purchase. 

And, of course, nothing beats stores-with-door. Online retailers benefit from the lack of overheads that accompany bricks and mortar retail outlets. However there are low-cost temporary solutions, such as pop-up showrooms, where customers can experience their products first hand and share their experiences with others.

As technology gets more intuitive, we need to remember that at the heart of every purchase is a human being who operates under basic psychological principles. There is no doubt that online retailing will continue to grow, and technology will continue to offer new and exciting ways for retailers to get customers into the sales funnel. The key, however, is to ensure that as things move forward we still retain a grounding in reality.

Content is king… but there’s a catch.

It’s been the mantra of digital strategists for the past couple of years: “Content is king”. But simply posting content isn’t enough to engage with customers. In fact, bad content can actually be more detrimental to a brand than posting nothing at all. It appears that in 2014 the mantra needs to be re-written: “Content is king, as long as it’s relevant.”

Content Marketing is defined by Wikipedia as “any marketing format that involves the creation and sharing of media and publishing content in order to acquire customers”. But, author and SEO specialist Jeff Cannon better describes it as “content [that is] created to provide consumers with the information they seek.” There is subtle but incredibly important difference. Successful Content Marketing is providing customers with information that they actually want.

Too often brands get caught in the trap of producing irrelevant content for their emails, websites, blogs or social networks simply because they need to fill a gap in their content calendar. But irrelevant content is by definition unwanted content. It’s noise; it’s unwelcome; it’s spam. With so many brands out there fighting for customers’ attention, brands simply cannot afford to be seen as spamming even once. In the digital age, there are no second chances.  

Last week, web-based food-ordering service Eat24 posted a humorous open letter to Facebook ending their relationship and closing down their Facebook account. What was interesting, however, was Facebook’s reply to this post. Facebook’s Director of Communications, Brandon McCormick responded to their letter with this: 

 

What McCormick is saying here is that Facebook users are more interested in connected with their friends, than with humorous brand posts. A ballsy move for company that relies on brands sponsoring posts in order to make a profit, but was he right? When you log into Facebook do you do so with the anticipation of seeing a witty post from your local pet shop, or a photo of your best friend’s new baby?

That’s not to say that customers don’t want to see content from brands. At some point they have actively opted in to receiving that content – either via email, hitting follow, or hitting like. But this content needs to be relevant to what that brand is to the customer. As consumers ourselves, we need to constantly ask, “is this relevant to my brand?” And perhaps, more importantly, “is this worth interrupting my customers day with?”

You would have all seen those “bet you can’t name a band that starts with S” posts. These are designed to generate conversation and drive artificial engagement. But for every user who comments with “Soundgarden” you will get 5 more than press “hide posts from.” Especially if the brand in question is a pet store, who would it not be better to post a “how to change the water in your fish tank” video.

And that’s the point. Whether it’s a Facebook post, a tweet, an email or even a YouTube video – content only becomes information once a customer views it. Otherwise it remains noise, or worse still, spam. But good, relevant content will indeed create a deeping, richer relationship with customers.

In 2014 content is very much still king, but the real trick is making sure your content is actually [wor]king.