Doraemon Zodiac: Would you be offended?

Race and Religion are taboo issues even on the Internet, with bloggers previously being charged for it. See here for the article on that issue.

McDonald's in their attempt to be sensitive to their Muslim customers decided to drop a Doraemon Pig toy figure and replace it with a Cupid Doraemon holding a heart. This is perplexing on many levels because having lived in this country for over two decades, I can safely say that as a society, we generally have been mutually tolerant of other races and religions and for McDonald's to make such a decision would seem like an over-reaction.

Indeed as pointed out in the same report in The New Paper, two customers, Madam Roslinda Abu Hassan and Mr Mohammad Ariff did not agree with McDonald's decision to remove an inherent part of the Chinese Zodiac in a series of toys aimed at celebrating the lunar festivities and their replies seem to indicate that McDonald's decision was uncalled for.

click image for bigger text

For McDonald's to unilaterally make the decision based on their desire to be "sensitive", the decision may very well have resulted in a negative effect instead of a positive one where they envisioned being given a pat on the back for it's very sensitive decision. Instead, customers who desire a complete set that "makes sense" rather than a set containing an "alien" like a cupid alongside 11 other zodiac animals, or any one specifically looking to purchase the missing "Doraemon Pig" for the very innocent reasons ranging from cuteness to being born in the years 1959, 1971, 1983 and 2005 would be disappointed. One may even wonder why the Golden Arches deems itself to be an organization with sufficient authority to unilaterally censor and alter the Chinese Zodiac.

At the same time, the very set of customers that McDonald's were trying hard not to offend, may end up having more reason to be offended by the Golden Arches' perceived notion that their Muslim customers would be offended by a series of toys themed after the Zodiac.

After all, as Madam Roslinda rightly points out, it is only a toy. No one should get overly worked up over something so trivial and it was definitely heartening to see that I wasn't the only one surprised by the overly serious manner McDonald's has treated the issue.

We should just remember this as yet another "unintended buzz" alongside Singpost's Mailbox Vandal and everyone should look on the light side and have a good laugh at the expense of McDonald's. Perhaps collectors should collect the full series in commemoration of McDonald's very sensitive 2010 Doraemon 11 animal and 1 cupid series. At $2 per piece with any purchase, they are also very sensitive to your wallet, making sure that they don't burn a hole in it.

Coming Soon: Was McDonald's Always So Sensitive?

Singpost Gets Attention!

Up till last week, my favourite picture that I have come to associate with Singapore Post is this image from their website (which on a recent check has been removed):

I love it for the level of dry humour involved in the above picture and helps me get through occasions where I blame myself for once again succumbing to buying online thus putting myself through the torture of Speedpost or vPost services. When I look at the above image, the happy smiling faces and words like "delight" and "timeliness" seem to be a bad joke.

Unless you live in a place with a porter or a maid who is in 24 / 7, being able to get your parcel delivered is a bit of a lottery as they come whenever they like and delight in dropping off failed delivery slips.

I purchased an item through Creative and paid a delivery fee of $6.00 only to be told by a customer service officer that I paid Creative, not Singpost to do the delivery. So I'm left guessing who promised next day delivery and I'm still naively wondering if Creative were such bad people they didn't pay Singpost a cent to do a delivery. My goodness, somebody has to do something about it! Singapore Post should not work for nothing, it would be unethical!

Singpost were never interested in communicating with their customers and hearing the real feedback. Attempts to make contact were never returned. They left a invitation to contact them on my previous blog:

Dear Hong Jun, we are from SingPost quality feedback team and we chanced upon your blog and are concerned about this service lapse. We appreciate if you could call us at 6845 6430 or email singpost@singpost.com with the item tracking number and your contact for our investigaion.

I took them up on their offer but they never got back to me on occasions I bothered writing to them to tell them lapses in their service. One would think that Singpost is not interested in improving customer service, after all, what can you the consumer do? They are the only postal service provider in Singapore and falling short of using local couriers for everything. (Perhaps I should strive to earn enough to live in a service apartment or employ a maid.)

Yet there is no stopping Singpost from trying to look all hip and "youth oriented" by introducing graffiti to their mail boxes. To give them credit, their previous efforts to beautify the mailboxes by commissioning artists for the job definitely contributed to beautifying the overall urban landscape, something I indeed can appreciate as they are visually appealing. However, the latest attempted viral marketing vandalism...leaves me with a new favourite picture for 2010:

Source:http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20100108-190465.html

You see, the hidden genius in this is that Singpost understands your unhappiness when your parcels don't get sent on time, or worst still if you have to make your way down to Paya Lebar to collect your parcel if they failed to deliver it on the second attempt. Or maybe not...

Possible Reasons Viral Vandal was a good idea at the planning stage:

1) We think young people find graffiti cool! We can show people how cool we are and how young and hip we are.

2) We can generate buzz and conversation online! People may come to notice the mailboxes and look out for them and maybe send more items in the post?

I do not think that there is a need for Singpost to try and pretend to be cool or attempt to appear "cool" while it is commendable that they attempt to bring art to the community and their desire to be more in touch with the consumers, there are better ways to allocate the resources they have and more importantly, do something that is sincere and honest rather than gimmicky and pointless.

On a side note on delivery, I still think that Singpost needs to do more to refine their delivery process and if anyone in Singpost is willing to listen, I'm willing to share. If your CSOs are irritable because they are overworked and swamped with irate customer calls everyday, is there any thing you can do to change that?

I do look forward to the day I can be delighted with receiving my parcel and I can enjoy online shopping with a peace of mind. Without having to worry about having to stay home just to wait for my package.

OCBC Got Cake?

September 2009 when the OCBC advertisements first caught my attention on TV, I thought "well, that's a tad misleading" I posted a simple question on Facebook which didn't receive much interest (perhaps my friends were too cool to ask for a cake and have too many to finish as it is)

Turns out, I wasn't the only one who had that thought and it has now turned into a bit of a cakey mess as a particular kitchen tigress decided to get her cake off OCBC. (see her blog for the full story)

And a simple OCBC Cake search on trusty Google turns up the following top hits:

1. Fight for your rights - OCBC Birthday Cake - Talkback
   Outing: OCBC ask for bird day cake - www.hardwarezone.com.sg
   How to claim a free birthday cake from OCBC - www.hardwarezone.com.sg
   LOL! Remember the OCBC Bank's birthday cake TV ad?? - VRForums ...
   mrbrown: L'infantile terrible of Singapore: kitchen tigress ...
   SgForums :: Singapore's Online Community - OCBC doesn't do free ...
   
   
2. Of course, not everyone agrees with the blogger's action, while there were those who were quick to give her a pat on the back for standing up for her rights as a consumer in the face of what can easily perceived as a promise by OCBC to provide such personable level of service - including surprising customers on their birthdays, there were plenty who were quick to condemn her for what they perceived to be a deliberate attempt at making things difficult for the frontline staff who served her and for not being thankful or appreciative when she was eventually being presented with a cake by the manager.

No doubt, OCBC is definitely looking into the issue and may even view this as a reason to review the agency in question which came up with that particular advertisement.

This is kind of a mini crisis given the nature in which information gets shared at such amazing speeds that it borders on being a PR nightmare at times. Previously, when someone pulls a stunt like this, it just ends up as a cool story told to a handful of friends for a good laugh. Today, it's shared with the whole world and brings the brand to the forefront of a jury of keyboard warriors, and efforts like these would probably inspire similar copy cat attempts to get a birthday cake from OCBC.

As at time of this posting, no official word has been heard from OCBC but it has definitely caused some pretty serious debates on the internet.

Aside from the obvious that this is a "mini crisis", I see an opportunity for OCBC to take this chance to connect with their customers and perhaps use this as the launch pad for their customer incentive program. If I were to handle it, I think a little self effacing humour and honesty would go a long way in cementing OCBC's sincerity in serving customers if they are honest about keeping true to the level of personable service desired.

I have communicated with their Head Group Corporate Communications via email and offered my thoughts on how it may be handled, with one suggestion being acknowledged as: "That is indeed a good idea. Thanks for the idea." We shall wait and see what OCBC does officially and I will update this space accordingly.

McDonald's Monopoly Promotion 2009

This is the part I just talk.....

The McDonald's Monopoly promotion ended last year in December, I had fun participating as a consumer, having stayed away from junk food as much as possible for the few months prior to that, but admittedly succu

mbed to the Monopoly promotion and contributed to the booming sales that McDonald's enjoyed during the duration of the promotion. Blame it on the part of me that likes feeling lucky. See, humans are such honeybees when it comes to games of chance, if we weren't, lucky draws would have failed, you would not spend another $20 on something just to qualify for a chance to win that Chevrolet prize during Christmas shopping at malls, and you will see Singapore Pools having trouble continuing their support of sports in Singapore and other worthy causes.

Introduction

For the uninitiated, the campaign involved elements of Monopoly being heavily infused into the typical McDonald's experience, from gameboard playmats, monopoly themed uniforms for the staff and highly visible marketing collateral dangling overhead and plenty of TV air time to boot, the grand prize of S$50,000 and other attractive electronic and holiday prizes, backed up by hundreds of thousands of free food items from McDonald's menu, it definitely got the HOOK part of the campaign right. Even I'm hooked to give it a try.

What Went Wrong

It may have been a mistake restricted to this particular branch, I won't know for sure since the golden arches do not pay me to visit every branch as a mystery shopper ( a job which would probably require high intensity running from branch to branch in order to work off some of the food one has to consume as a McDonald's mystery shopper).

1) Misinformed front line staff in the first incident tells my friend that in order to claim the instant win Apple Pie, he had to purchase another item. My friend ended up buying a sundae. Not a big deal since it really is just a less than $2 purchase. No big deal to the customer financially and there is definitely no sinister profit maximizing conspiracy behind the request.

Plain and simple, the front line staff failed to be adequately educated about the mechanisms of the game and mistakenly introduces a rule of her own (for reasons that cannot be reasonably fathomed as the terms and conditions in the Terms and Conditions clearly rubbishes her rule.)

If I may make an observation, my gut feel is that this customer walked away with an unpleasant experience and inexplicably felt a little cheated and a little more distrusting of the golden arches brand because the prize he had won didn't seem much of a prize if he had to pay a price for it.

2) What's the point of a term, if you do not really intend to enforce it? A term would definitely have been thought out and reasoned before warranting inclusion in the official terms and conditions governing the conduct of the event. In the second incident, one person tried to claim 4 instant win coupons on behalf of four individuals (typical lazy people right? Why displace four people from their comfortable seats when one is enough?) but was told that one person can only claim one item.

Troublesome since we have to walk there and there's a long queue (cue more lazy jabs from readers and perhaps some speculation of our sizes, but queuing up is no fun but the queue reflects the success of the campaign and perhaps contributed to the underpaid frontline staff more irritable). We tried again to see if it was policy for one claim a person by having one person hand over the coupons, sure enough we were told of the policy. No problem, we indicated to the presence of three people to three coupons. She looked irritated and then said, "You all have to claim one at a time" and refused to take all three coupons at the same time and we had to hand them over ONE by ONE. I'm sure you're like me, thinking, "Is there a difference?" The answer is no. She keyed everything into the same order in a slightly begrudging manner. Now I feel so cheap claiming my prize.

I definitely do not fault the front line staff for making such weird requests and can empathize with the fact that 1) she probably have had lots of requests like these and have repeated the same thing a thousand times over 2) she has no choice as she was acting under direct instruction of her supervisor / manager who is of course adhering to the terms and conditions spelt out by the management.

As we reference the handy terms and conditions again, it is clear that there was this exact term:

Only one food prize can be redeemed per person per visit (where a visit shall mean a consecutive 4 hour period

Here's where Brand Myopia struck as the management failed to see these points when introducing that particular term.

1) People who are able to claim instant win prizes are most likely loyal customers of McDonald's or have participated actively in the campaign. These are the same people who contribute to the improved sales during this promotion period, having won something is akin to feeling rewarded and it should be a happy thing.

2) From the consumers perspective, if you are offering these food items as prizes and incentives, you ought to be sincere about giving out all the prizes that you have promised to give. By imposing restrictions just does not convey that. Are your staff really going to tell your customers to come back 4 hours later and claim an item again? I think not.

3) Stopping short of requesting for an I/C verification, keying that information into a centralized database upon every instant win claim, there is no way you can ensure that the term is met. Why try to enforce the term when you know customers are just going to queue again (and not being too happy about doing so) at a different counter at the same outlet and definitely not after 4 hours to claim what they intend to claim. Why make it so difficult for the customer if all he or she feels like at the moment is to have a nice snack of fries and apple pie before getting a meal?

4) Why create unpleasant interactions between your staff and customers? As mentioned above, dining at and being a customer of McDonald's ought to be a pleasant experience, yet by creating opportunities as experienced personally where unpleasant interactions arise between consumers and staff due to such restrictions where the customer's demand is not met and left greatly inconvenienced, don't you think that the merits of the campaign has been tainted in the minds of consumers? If I am going through so much trouble just to claim an easy instant win prize, it unwittingly causes one to wonder about the sincerity of the campaign and how many more hoops and hassle would one need to go through before claiming a major prize (a concern that you may say is uncalled for, but fact of the matter is, these things leave an impression on the consumer).

5) Would having the term result in a happy, satisfied customer who would continue supporting the campaign? Or not? I would not be surprised that the rigid application of the above term leaves a deeper impression compared to the rewards or the joy of participating in the campaign. While it would not be serious enough to result in a total boycott of the brand, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth to a certain extent.

Conclusion

The campaign is certainly one to be commended, with a highly visible amount of intent that can be perceived by the consumers in terms of providing consumers the chance to be rewarded for their purchase and participation. Not an original campaign as other versions have taken place in UK and US. It was on the whole well executed, but while incidents like the above do not jeopardize the campaign or dramatically diminish the brand value and good will of the campaign, it definitely leaves a not too nice impression on affected customers and as brand and marketing managers, incidents and oversights like these ought to be taken into account during the post campaign analysis.

McDonald's responded to my feedback email to them via phone call, through a gentleman by the name of Raymond. We spoke on the phone and he was in agreement that there were points of failure in the execution and communication with the front line staff despite having called in all the branch managers in for the briefing. He apologized verbally for the unpleasant experience and acknowledged that more could be done and he has conveyed the feedback to the marketing manager. I do hope that such insights do not get lost in communication as it would be a real pity to have a wonderful campaign marred by poor policy and communication.