The beauty isle at the grocery store: John Frieda new line of hair care. The price was just a little spicy but I already liked John Frieda and the packaging was so pretty. Plus I had a coupon - which means "good deal" in my eyes.
The shampoo dried and tangled my hair like no other shampoo has before and did not smell (or feel) like it contained any eucaliptus as the package boasted.
The conditioner, while it smelled good, leaved my hair tangled and unmanageable.
This is where the good marketing came in: this particular hair care line includes a detangling spray. This product is supposed to finish the job and actually make your hair manageable. Usually I spend about $2 on a great conditioner that does the job well. This time, though, I actually walked into the store, used another coupon and paid a whole bunch more money for the detangling spray.
Should I say I am not impressed with the results? Should I mention the whole bunch of money I parted with? The marketing methods that lured me into buying 3 products I really did not need? Or maybe the bad feeling this experience left me with.
No matter how good the marketing is, the product should always satisfy the customer, as this is the only way they become a repeat customer. I think this is more important than immediate sales.
That's true. If the customer isn't satisfied it can lead to negative word-of-mouth, which is worse than having none.
ReplyDelete