Augmented life in the smart lane pdf download

The EV6 offers a modern and eco-friendly cabin with a spacious, flat floor design. Standard and available interior highlights include:. The EV6 also offers a roster of standard and available features that enhance safety and convenience:. Headquartered in Irvine, California, Kia America continues to top quality surveys and is recognized as one of the Best Global Brands.

Kia serves as the "Official Automotive Partner" of the NBA and offers a complete range of vehicles sold through a network of more than dealers in the U. For media information, including photography, visit www. To receive custom email notifications for press releases the moment they are published, subscribe at www. Actual charge time may vary. Targeted range based on expected certification results for at least one available option.

Your mileage will vary and depends on a number of factors, including battery age, ambient temperature, driving habits, options, cargo and others. After certification, results will be available at Fueleconomy. Always drive safely. Failure to pay attention to travel conditions and vehicle operation could result in loss of vehicle control.

Always drive safely and use caution. A Bluetooth enabled device is required to use Bluetooth wireless technology. It will enable many new applications that are not viable today, particularly in urban areas and cities. As thought leaders in this industry, we regularly share knowledge about developments in the deployment of 5G, and what you can expect, particularly if you are involved in the commercial and industrial IoT space. Compared to the consumer space, commercial 5G is traveling a distinctly different but concurrent path.

As 5G rolls out, what new IoT applications will we see? What 5G use cases will be enabled by the higher bandwidth and faster throughput? Will life change as we know it? Yes, life will change with 5G and the anticipated applications it will enable, but not ubiquitously. There will be a growing divide of network connectivity and services between urban and rural areas because it is impractical to deploy 5G everywhere right away. The fundamental idea behind 5G is a single network that is flexible enough to handle a variety of different use cases.

In order to deliver the promise of 5G, mobile network operators MNOs have to build a dense network with a massive amount of network nodes that will form the 5G infrastructure. Each node costs money, and MNOs will invest into 5G through network upgrades and densification first in cities, where they can reach many paying customers and get a faster return on their investment. In rural areas the 5G rollout will happen at a slower pace.

Here, we will see new applications that require response in fractions of a second. Autonomous vehicles are one of the most anticipated 5G applications. Vehicle technology is advancing rapidly to support the autonomous vehicle future.

Onboard computer systems are evolving with levels of compute power previously only seen in data centers. We hear about autonomous vehicles today, and many people wonder what the barriers are to making this future technology a reality. Many different developments in vehicle technology, network speed, data throughput and machine learning must come together for the fully autonomous vehicle future to materialize.

The ultimate goal is a vehicle-to-everything V2X communication network. This will enable vehicles to automatically respond to objects and changes around them almost instantaneously. A vehicle must be able to send and receive messages in milliseconds in order to brake or shift directions in response to road signs, hazards and people crossing the street.

With current 4G latency at around milliseconds, a car would travel about 4 feet or 1. With 5G latency around 10 milliseconds, the vehicle would only have traveled 5 inches or 12 centimeters.

The difference is significant and could mean life or death. Many cities around the world today are deploying intelligent transportation systems ITS , and are planning to support connected vehicle technology. Aspects of these systems are relatively easy to install using current communications systems that support smart traffic management to handle vehicle congestion and route emergency vehicles. Connected vehicle technology will enable bidirectional communications from vehicle to vehicle V2V , and vehicle to infrastructure, V2X to promote safety across transportation systems.

Smart cities are now installing sensors in every intersection to detect movement and cause connected and autonomous vehicles to react as needed.

The communications backbone to support connected vehicle technology can be phased in today, well before 5G is fully deployed, dramatically improving pedestrian and vehicle safety. Note: Digi offers these communications systems, and is now partnering with major U. The U. Cars on the highway, for example, would use short-range radio signals to communicate with each other so every vehicle on the road would be aware of where other nearby vehicles are. The key benefits of 5G in the industrial automation space are wireless flexibility, reduced costs and the viability of applications that are not possible with current wireless technology.

Industrial automation is in use today, and most likely you have seen videos showing synchronized robotics at work in factories and supply chain applications. If the current earnings are not representative because they reflect a down or up cycle, then some average of the past few years might be more appropriate. If the earnings are negative or low due to correctable problems, then an estimate based upon industry norms of profit as a percent of sales might be useful.

The earnings multiplier provides a way to estimate and place a value upon future earnings. For example, a multiplier range for a brand might be 7 to 12 or 16 to 25 depending upon the industry. To determine the actual multiplier value within that range, an estimate of the competitive advantage of the brand is needed.

Will the brand earnings strengthen over time and generally be above the industry average, or will they weaken and be below average? The estimate should be based upon a weighted average of an appraisal of the brand on each of the five dimensions of brand equity. What are the brand-loyalty levels by segment? Are customers satisfied? Why are customers leaving? What is causing dissatisfaction? What do customers say are their problems with buying or using the brand?

What are the marketshare and sales trends? How valuable an asset is brand awareness in this market? What brand awareness level exists as compared to that of competitors? What are the trends? Is the brand being considered?

Is brand awareness the problem? What could be done to improve brand awareness? Perceived Quality. What drives perceived quality? What is important to the customer? What signals quality? Is perceived quality valued—or is the market moving toward a commodity business? Are prices and margins eroding? If so, can the movement be slowed or reversed? How do competitors stack up with respect to preceived quality? Are there any changes? In blind-use tests, what is our brand name worth? Has it changed over time?

Brand Associations. What mental image, if any, does the brand stimulate? Is that image a competitive advantage? Is there a slogan or symbol that is a differentiating asset? How are the brand and its competitors positioned?

What does the brand mean? What are its strongest associations? In fact, several British firms have added brand equity to the balance sheet. Second, reported brand equity can focus attention upon intangible assets and thus make it easier to justify brand building activities that are likely to pay off in the long term. Without such information, shareholders must rely upon short-term financials.

The major difficulty involves a question of whether any valuation of brand equity can be both objective and verifiable. Unless brand valuation can be defended, it will not be helpful and can result in legal liability. It is no coincidence that in England, where brand value has been placed upon the balance sheet, there is a less litigious environment.

Other Brand Assets. Are sustainable competitive advantages attached to the brand name that are not reflected in the other four equity dimensions? Is there a patent or trademark that is important? Are there channel relationships that provide barriers to competitors? The various dimensions of brand equity are not equally important in all markets. The need is to determine their relative value.

Which dimensions represent, or could represent, a sustainable competitive advantage that matters? Do awareness levels explain the relative success of competitors? Or is there awareness parity among the relevant competitors? Perceived quality may be critical in a cleaning product or high-technology device, but in a mature market where it is difficult to convince customers that brands differ, it might be of less consequence.

Another issue is whether a brand asset such as a strong customer base is being, or will be, exploited. A brand asset will have little value if it is not used. Programs are needed to increase satisfaction and switching costs—to make sure that the customer base is protected so that the costs of regaining customers will not have to be incurred. A perceived quality advantage should result in either a price premium or a perceived value advantage.

Programs will be needed to make sure that the market does not become a commodity area that weakens the value of a perceived quality advantage. Finally, the brand asset needs to be protected. The exploitation of perceived quality, for example, may be short-lived if programs are not in place to maintain the perceived quality level. Thus, a relatively high multiplier will be appropriate when there is strength in the more important asset categories, and when that strength is both exploited and protected.

The multiplier will be lower when strength in the key asset areas is lacking, or when strengths are not being either protected or exploited. First, some part of the discounted present value of a business is due to such tangible assets as working capital, inventory, buildings, and equipment.

What portion should be so attributed? One argument is that such assets are book assets that are being depreciated, and their depreciation charge times an earnings multiplier will reflect their asset value. Another tact would be to focus upon cash flow instead of earnings, and provide an estimate of such assets using book value or market value.

This estimate would then be subtracted from the estimate of discounted future earnings. Usually, the value of potential brand extensions will have to be estimated separately. The extension value will depend upon the attractiveness of market area of any proposed extension, its growth and competitive intensity, and the strength of the extension.

The extension strength will be a function of the relevance of the brand association and perceived quality, the extent to which it could translate into a sustainable competitive advantage, and the extent to which the brand will fit the extension.

Chapter 9 will elaborate. An overview of some of these issues will set the stage for the following chapters. The bases of brand equity: On what should the brand equity be based? What associations should form the basis of the positioning? How important is awareness? Among which segments? Can barriers be created to make it more difficult for competitors to dislodge loyal customers? Creating brand equity: How is brand equity created? What are the driving determinants?

As a practical matter, decisions on such elements need to be made as brand equity is created or changed. Managing brand equity: How should a brand be managed over time? What actions will meaningfully affect the elements of equity—in particular the associations and perceived loyalty? Often a reduction of advertising results in no detectable drop in sales. Is there damage to the equity if a reduction is prolonged?

How can the impact of a promotion or another marketing program be determined? Forcasting the erosion of equity: How can erosion of brand equity, and other future problems, be forecast?

The danger is that by the time that damage to the brand is recognized, it is too late. The cost of correcting a problem can be extremely high relative to the cost of maintaining equity. The forecasting issue is especially crucial in durables like automobiles, where the time needed to replace a product can be as long as five years.

A disaster such as the Tylenol tampering case has the advantage that the threat to brand equity, and the need to take action, are both obvious. More commonly, a brand is eroded so slowly that it is difficult to generate a sense of urgency.

The extension decision: To what products should the brand be extended? How far can the brand be extended before brand equity is affected? Of particular concern is the vertical brand extension: Can an upscale version of the brand be marketed? If so, will there be spillover impact upon the brand name? Do the Earnest and Julio Gallo varietals help the basic Gallo line? What about the temptation to exploit the brand by putting the name on a downscale product? How can the extent of damage to brand equity be predicted?

Will the new associations of an extension be helpful or harmful? Creating new names: The investment in a new brand name an alternative to a brand extension will generate a name with a new set of associations which can provide a platform for another growth stream.

What are the trade-offs between these alternatives? Under what circumstances should the one be preferred over the other? How many brand names can a business support?

Complex families of names and subnames: How should different levels of brand-name families be managed? Should the recruiting effort of the U. Brand-equity measurement: A basic question which underlies all these issues is how to measure brand equity and the assets on which it is based. If it can be conceptualized in a given context precisely enough to measure and monitor it, the other problems become manageable. Clearly, there are several approaches to brand equity and its measurement.

Evaluating brand equity and its component assets: A pressing related issue is how to value a brand.

Given that there is a market for brands, it is of enormous practical value to actually provide methods to estimate that value. Of even more importance is to place a value upon the underlying assets such as awareness and perceived quality. The key to justifying investment in building such assets is to be able to estimate the value of such activities.

Although some progress has been made, this area remains a signficant challenge for marketing professionals. One is to define and illustrate brand equity, providing a structure which will help managers see more clearly how brand equity provides value.

Another is to document research findings and illustrative examples that demonstrate that value has emerged or has been lost from marketing decisions or environmental events that have enhanced or damaged the brand. A third objective is to discuss how brand equity should be managed.

How should it be created, maintained, and protected? The next chapter will discuss the brand loyalty of the customer base and its link to brand equity. Chapters 3 and 4 cover brand awareness and perceived quality. Clearly the management of associations, covering three chapters, is both important and complex. Brand extensions—the good, the bad, and the ugly —is the topic of Chapter 9.

Chapter 10 presents methods to revitalize a tired brand, to breathe new life into it and its context; and the end game—how to allow a brand a graceful decline and, if needed, death. I have lost my reputation. I have lost the immortal part of myself and what remains is bestial. With a clever use of pairs of keystrokes, a touch typist could do a wide variety of word- processing tasks extremely quickly. However, in doing so they did not really utilize the 10 function keys that were a main attribute of the new computer, choosing instead to retain the use of their multi-keystroke command structure.

A true touch typist had little interest in the new function keys, but then the emerging business user often was not a skilled touch typist anyway, and was attracted to the power of the function keys. Both offered several advances, including the full use of function keys. MicroPro responded with WordStar Release 3.

However, it was to be the last release for four years in a field which saw continuous refinement of programs in response to competitive software innovations and hardware improvement. Much more importantly, market share fell precipitously to Of course, literally hundreds of other word-processing firms did not survive, largely because they could not get off the ground; they could not get enough distribution and sales to be viable.

However, they also never had the installed base that WordStar enjoyed. WordStar lost position in large part because it turned its back upon its installed base. First, it failed to adequately provide support for existing customers. Second, the major follow-on product was not backward-compatible with the original WordStar, and in fact competed with it.

As late as , MicroPro was deservedly known as being indifferent to customers, who would call with problems and not be able to get through.

Worse, when customers did get through, they often were referred to their dealer—even though the dealer might be either unwilling or unable to help. Understandably, the customer frustration level was high. By contrast, WordPerfect developed an unlimited-access, toll-free, phone-in advisory service which became an important point of distinction in part because of the MicroPro legacy. In November of , MicroPro started to ship WordStar , which was eagerly awaited by WordStar users who wanted to upgrade the program they loved.

Worse, it was not backward-compatible with the prior version: It involved learning a new set of instructions. Further, WordStar touch typists now were forced to use the function keys set apart from the keyboard. In fact, WordStar proved to be the product that launched WordPerfect, in that it virtually endorsed the kind of function-key processing that WordPerfect and Microsoft Word had touted. More importantly, WordStar users now knew that to have the most advanced features, they would have to learn a new program.

At long last Wordstar users had an update—but it was years late. It was followed in August of by WordStar Professional Release 5, which got favorable reviews in the trade press, and by Release 5.

First, they competed with each other: Both basically were after the same market, with similar features. Which one should a customer select? There was no obvious answer. The confusion between the two was not helped by the advertising. However, the campaign broke just after WordStar Release 3 was introduced!

In , MicroPro made a belated effort to turn it all around. WordStar was de- emphasized in favor of WordStar Professional—the program that was backward-compatible with the installed base of 1. The WordStar Professional was positioned as a productivity tool for touch typists who could exploit the unique control-key commands.

WordStar graphics were sharpened up. And hardly the least important a direct sales force, bypassing the national distributors who might have helped them stay removed from their customers, was developed. It appears that WordStar will survive, but as a bit player in a market they once commanded. And that WordStar, by inadequately supporting its product and going to the WordStar , turned its back on this asset—the result being an incredible opportunity that competitors the makers of WordPerfect and Microsoft Word exploited.

It is not impossible to create a new model that obsoletes the old one, particularly if an established name can be used. In the mids, IBM came out with the System , a completely new line that entirely replaced the old one. If customers are indifferent to the brand and, in fact, buy with respect to features, price, and convenience with little concern to the brand name, there is likely little equity.

If, on the other hand, they continue to purchase the brand even in the face of competitors with superior features, price, and convenience, substantial value exists in the brand and perhaps in its symbol and slogans. Brand loyalty, long a central construct in marketing, is a measure of the attachment that a customer has to a brand. As brand loyalty increases, the vulnerability of the customer base to competitive action is reduced. It is one indicator of brand equity which is demonstrably linked to future profits, since brand loyalty directly translates into future sales.

Each level represents a different marketing challenge and a different type of asset to manage and exploit. All may not be represented in a specific product class or market. The bottom loyalty level is the nonloyal buyer who is completely indifferent to the brand— each brand is perceived to be adequate and the brand name plays little role in the purchase decision.

Whatever is on sale or convenient is preferred. This buyer might be termed a switcher or price buyer. Basically, there is no dimension of dissatisfaction that is sufficient to stimulate a change especially if that change involves effort. These buyers might be termed habitual buyers. Such segments can be vulnerable to competitors that can create a visible benefit to switching. However, they can be difficult to reach since there is no reason for them to be on the lookout for alternatives.

The third level consists of those who are also satisfied and, in addition, have switching costs— costs in time, money, or performance risk associated with switching.

Perhaps they have invested in learning a system associated with a brand, as in the MicroPro case. To attract these buyers, competitors need to overcome the switching costs by offering an inducement to switch or by offering a benefit large enough to compensate. This group might be called switching-cost loyal. On the fourth level we find those that truly like the brand. Their preference may be based upon an association such as a symbol, a set of use experiences, or a high perceived quality.

However, liking is often a general feeling that cannot be closely traced to anything specific; it has a life of its own. People are not always able to identify why they like something or someone , especially if the relationship has been a long one.

Sometimes just the fact that there has been a long-term relationship can create a powerful affect even in the absence of a friendly symbol or other identifiable contributor to liking. The top level are committed customers. The brand is very important to them either functionally or as an expression of who they are. Their confidence is such that they will recommend the brand to others.

The value of the committed customer is not so much the business he or she generates but, rather, the impact upon others and upon the market itself. The ultimate committed customer is the Harley Davidson rider who wears the Harley symbol as a tattoo, the Macintosh user who attends shows and will spend considerable effort to insure that an acquaintance does not buy IBM and forego the pleasure of the user-friendly Macintosh, or the Beetle owner of the s who flaunted the funkiness of the car.

A brand that has a substantial group of extremely involved and committed customers might be termed a charismatic brand. Not all brands should aspire to be charismatic, of course, but when a Macintosh, NEXT, Beetle, or Harley does achieve that aura, there can be a big payoff. These five levels are stylized; they do not always appear in the pure form and others could be conceptualized.

For example, there will be customers who will appear to have some combination of these levels—i. Others may have profiles somewhat different from those represented—i. These five levels do, however, provide a feeling for the variety of forms that loyalty can take and how it impacts upon brand equity.

The attrition rate for those with stronger levels of loyalty will be lower, causing their value to be higher. If a relationship between loyalty and the frequency of buying a brand can be estimated, the value of a change in brand loyalty can be estimated. A conceptual approach to providing such an estimate is discussed at the close of the chapter. Brand loyalty is qualitatively different from the other major dimensions of brand equity in that it is tied more closely to the use experience.

Brand loyalty cannot exist without prior purchase and use experience. In contrast, awareness, associations, and perceived quality are characteristics of many brands that a person has never used. Brand loyalty is a basis of brand equity that is created by many factors, chief among them being the use experience.

However, loyalty is influenced in part by the other major dimensions of brand equity, awareness, associations, and perceived quality. However, it is not always explained by these three factors. In many instances it occurs quite independent of them and, in others, the nature of the relationship is unclear. It is very possible to like and be loyal to something with low perceived quality e.

Thus, brand loyalty provides an important basis of equity that is sufficiently distinct from the other dimensions. For many, Perrier was bottled water. In February of , Perrier recalled its product worldwide after it was found to be contaminated by traces of benzene, a suspected carcinogen. However, the biggest factor was that the habit of ordering Perrier had been broken. A large part of the Perrier success was the loyalty of its installed base.

Many customers simply always ordered Perrier—never just bottled water Perrier was like Kleenex—it represented the product to many. When the supply was interrupted, by necessity customers had to sample other brands.

They found that they were as good or better than Perrier. Because Perrier had little real product advantages, such a break in supply disrupted its customer base. The bubble had burst. Perrier may never bounce back. In fact, all the brand equity dimensions have causal interrelationships. Perceived quality, for example, will in part be based upon associations and even awareness a visible brand might be considered more able to provide quality.

An association with a symbol, for example, might affect awareness. Thus, there is no claim that the four major dimensions of brand equity are independent. A key premise is that the loyalty is to the brand—that it is not possible to transfer it to another name and symbol without spending substantial amounts of money and forgoing significant sales and profits.

If the loyalty is to a product rather than the brand, equity would not exist. Buying a commodity like oil or wheat rarely involves loyalty to the product itself, although the surrounding service may be attached to a brand and it could engender considerable loyalty. A customer base can too easily be taken for granted when the interest is in short-term sales rather than in building and maintaining equity. The focus is often upon faceless sales statistics to be analyzed and controlled rather than on the people and organizations who are the customers.

As a result, brand loyalty often is treated with benign neglect, and is neither nurtured nor exploited. Considering brand loyalty is a key, core bases of brand equity should help a firm treat customers as the brand assets that they are. A consideration of several measurement tacks will provide additional insights into its scope and nuances as well as provide a practical tool in using the construct and linking it to profitability.

One approach is to consider actual behavior. Other approaches are based upon the loyalty constructs of switching costs, satisfaction, liking, and commitment. Among the measures that can be used are: Repurchase rates: What percent of Oldsmobile owners purchase an Oldsmobile on their next car purchase?

Percent of purchases: Of the last five purchases made by a customer, what percent went to each brand purchased? Number of brands purchased: What percent of coffee buyers bought only a single brand?

Two brands? Three brands? The loyalty of customers can vary widely among some product classes, depending upon the number of competing brands and the nature of the product.

It may be inconvenient or expensive to obtain, and provides only limited diagnostics about the future. Further, using behavior data, it can be difficult to discriminate between or among those who actually switched brands and the purchases of multiple brands by different members of a family or by different units in an organization.

If it is very expensive or risky for a firm or a consumer to change suppliers, then the attribution rate from the customer base will be lower. The most obvious type of switching cost is an investment in a product or system.

When a firm buys a computer system, the hardware investment is only part of the investment involved. They have to also invest in software, and in training people. The firm would have to reinvest in software and training, a process which would cost in time and productivity as well as money.

Another type of switching cost is the risk of change. If the current system works, even if there are problems, there is always the risk that a new system will be worse. A consumer who has a relationship with a particular hospital and doctor may be reluctant, even when unhappy, to try unknowns. There is a reluctance to fix something that is not demonstrably broken.

Operationally, customers might be queried to see what risks are associated with change. A business should value the switching costs that it enjoys. WordStar, of course, did not follow that maxim. Further, it should work to increase the dependence of the customer upon its product or service. What problems are customers having?

What are the sources of irritation? Why are some customers switching? What are the precipitating reasons? A key premise of the second and third levels of loyalty is that the dissatisfaction is absent or low enough to avoid precipitating a decision to switch. It is important that any measure of satisfaction be current, representative, and sensitive. Asking users of a service to return cards on which they can check whether the service such as courtesy on the phone is usually satisfactory is neither representative nor sensitive.

Clearly, there was an enormous level of resentment and frustration among customers which was not reflected in the surveyed measures of satisfaction that were used. Are there feelings of respect or friendship toward the firm or brand?

Is there a feeling of warmth toward the brand? A positive affect can result in resistance to competitive entries. It can be much harder to compete against a general feeling of liking rather than a specific feature. General overall liking can be scaled in a variety of ways, such as: Liking Respect Friendship Trust The concept is that there is a general liking or affect which is distinct from specific attributes that underlie it.

It is rather reflected by general statements of liking, such as those listed above. The concept of reliability may, in some cases, represent a specific attribute. However, it also is often highly correlated with general affect. Another measure of liking is reflected in the additional price that customers would be willing to pay to obtain their brand and the price advantage that competitors would have to generate before they could attract a loyal buyer.

Several approaches to estimating the price premium that the brand name can support were discussed in Chapter 1. The simplest, the dollarmetric, asks how much a customer would pay to get his or her preferred brand. When a substantial commitment level exists, it can be relatively easy to detect because it usually manifests itself in many ways. One key indicator is the amount of interaction and communication that is involved with the product. Does he or she not only recommend the product but tell others why they should buy it?

Another is the extent to which the brand is important to a person in terms of his or her activities and personality. Is it particularly useful or enjoyable to use? It is simply much less costly to retain customers than to get new ones. Because potential new customers usually lack motivation to change from their current brands, they will be expensive to contact, in part because they are not making an effort to locate brand alternatives.

Even when they are exposed to alternatives, they will often need a substantial reason to risk buying and using another brand. A common mistake—attempting to grow by attracting new customers while neglecting existing ones—will be discussed at the close of this chapter. The familiar is comfortable and reassuring. It is usually far less costly to keep existing customers happy, to reduce the reasons to change, than to find new ones. Of course, the higher the loyalty, the easier it is to keep customers happy.

Yet, customers will leave, especially if their problems and concerns are not addressed. The challenge is to reduce this flow. Loyalty of existing customers represents a substantial entry barrier to competitors. Entering a market in which existing customers are loyal or even satisfied with an established brand, and must be enticed to switch, can require excessive resources. The profit potential for the entrant is thus reduced. For the barrier to be effective, potential competitors must know about it; they cannot be allowed to entertain the delusion that customers are vulnerable.

Thus, signals of strong customer loyalty which can be sent to competitors, such as advertisements about documented customer loyalty or product quality, can be useful. Strong loyalty toward brands like Nabisco Premium Saltines, Cheerios, or Tide will ensure preferred shelf space because stores know that customers will have such brands on their shopping list. At the extreme, brand loyalty may dominate store choice decisions.

Trade leverage is particularly important when introducing new sizes, new varieties, variations, or brand extensions. A purchase will thus not represent an adventuresome thrust away from the crowd. Especially in product areas that are new or otherwise risky, the acceptance of the brand by a group of existing customers can be an effective message, a way to exploit the installed base.

Using existing customers to sell new customers rarely happens automatically; it usually takes an explicit program. A relatively large satisfied customer base provides an image of the brand as an accepted, successful product which will be around and will be able to afford service backup and product improvements. In many businesses where follow-on service and product support are important, such as computers and automobiles, two of the main concerns often are whether the firm is healthy and committed enough to be around when it is needed, and whether its products are accepted.

Brand awareness can also be generated from the customer base. Existing customers and dealers will enhance recognition merely by being there. Friends and colleagues of users will become aware of the product just by seeing it.

Seeing a product being used by a friend will generate the kind of memory links to the use context and the user that any advertisement would have great difficulty in doing. Brand recall thus would be stronger. In selecting target markets, one consideration should be their potential to create visibility and awareness for the brand.

If a competitor develops a superior product, a loyal following will allow the firm time needed for the product improvements to be matched or neutralized. For example, some newly developed high-tech markets have some customers who are attracted by the most advanced product of the moment; there is little brand loyalty in this group.

In contrast, loyal, satisfied customers will not be looking for new products, and thus may not learn of an advancement.

Further, they will have little incentive to change even if exposed to the new product. With a high level of brand loyalty, a firm can allow itself the luxury of pursuing a less risky follower strategy.

You literally have to work at it. For perhaps two decades General Motors had, by many objective measures, inferior cars. Logically its share of the U. The fact is that customers do not like to change; you almost have to beat some of them off with a baseball bat. Incredibly, some firms such as MicroPro have done just about that.

Changing brands requires effort, especially if the decision involves substantial investment or risk. Further, positive attitudes toward an incumbent brand are likely to develop which will not only justify but enhance prior decisions. People do not like to admit that they were wrong—it is much easier to rationalize prior decisions. In truth an enormous inertia exists in consumer choice. And they ultimately carried the day: The withdrawn original Coke formula reappeared—although this time it was forced to bear the dubiously distinctive name Coke Classic.

The bottom line is that it should be easy to keep customers merely by following some basic rules, as Figure suggests. Hardly an unbelievable concept. The point is that a product or service that works—that functions as expected—provides a basis for loyalty, a reason not to switch. Again, customers need reasons to change. The key to keeping them often is simply to avoid driving them away. It should not be difficult to avoid such behavior, yet customers experience it all the time.

The goal, of course, is to have the interaction be positive—to treat the customer as any person would like to be treated: with respect. In Japan, where a negative customer interaction is rare, the training is intense and detailed, and the customer culture usually is very strong. A bank teller will spend weeks learning and practicing exactly how to respond to various customer contacts. Even the top executives at IBM, for example, have account contact and responsibility.

Worthington Steel sends its production people to meet customers who are using the product, so they realize that real people with real concerns are depending upon the quality. Focus groups can be used to see and hear real customers voice concerns.

Just the act of encouraging customer contact can help send signals to both the organization and the customers that the customer is valued. These surveys need to be timely, sensitive, and comprehensive, so that the firm can learn why overall satisfaction is changing.