Rory Sutherland

It's because it delivers measurable results faster. So I'll give you a fundamental problem. The FT wrote a very, very good article specifically about the UK, but I think it applies more widely, which is how did customer service get so bad? Now, the point is,

It's because it delivers measurable results faster. So I'll give you a fundamental problem. The FT wrote a very, very good article specifically about the UK, but I think it applies more widely, which is how did customer service get so bad? Now, the point is,

It's because it delivers measurable results faster. So I'll give you a fundamental problem. The FT wrote a very, very good article specifically about the UK, but I think it applies more widely, which is how did customer service get so bad? Now, the point is,

I felt like writing an article to the FT saying, well, if you occasionally acknowledged there was something interesting about business other than their quarterly financial forecasts, maybe the problem wouldn't have happened.

I felt like writing an article to the FT saying, well, if you occasionally acknowledged there was something interesting about business other than their quarterly financial forecasts, maybe the problem wouldn't have happened.

I felt like writing an article to the FT saying, well, if you occasionally acknowledged there was something interesting about business other than their quarterly financial forecasts, maybe the problem wouldn't have happened.

If you actually discussed marketing occasionally or customer experience or the value of repeat business, if you looked at business from the point of view of what you might call a competition for customers rather than the competition for operational efficiencies and cost cutting, maybe we wouldn't have gone into this total shitstorm. OK, but parking that rant for a moment. What seems obvious?

If you actually discussed marketing occasionally or customer experience or the value of repeat business, if you looked at business from the point of view of what you might call a competition for customers rather than the competition for operational efficiencies and cost cutting, maybe we wouldn't have gone into this total shitstorm. OK, but parking that rant for a moment. What seems obvious?

If you actually discussed marketing occasionally or customer experience or the value of repeat business, if you looked at business from the point of view of what you might call a competition for customers rather than the competition for operational efficiencies and cost cutting, maybe we wouldn't have gone into this total shitstorm. OK, but parking that rant for a moment. What seems obvious?

OK, if you spend some money on acquiring customers, you can see whether it's working very quickly and you can say very confidently we spend X and the value of the acquired customers was Y.

OK, if you spend some money on acquiring customers, you can see whether it's working very quickly and you can say very confidently we spend X and the value of the acquired customers was Y.

OK, if you spend some money on acquiring customers, you can see whether it's working very quickly and you can say very confidently we spend X and the value of the acquired customers was Y.

Let's say you want to make a corresponding investment in customer loyalty or customer experience, in other words, ensuring your existing customers have a great experience and so they come back, or dealing with problems very well so that your customers don't leave. Generally, you could perfectly well prove that that was cost-effective.

Let's say you want to make a corresponding investment in customer loyalty or customer experience, in other words, ensuring your existing customers have a great experience and so they come back, or dealing with problems very well so that your customers don't leave. Generally, you could perfectly well prove that that was cost-effective.

Let's say you want to make a corresponding investment in customer loyalty or customer experience, in other words, ensuring your existing customers have a great experience and so they come back, or dealing with problems very well so that your customers don't leave. Generally, you could perfectly well prove that that was cost-effective.

And indeed, my hunch would be that money spent there would be more cost effective in many cases than money spent on acquisition. However, it might take you five years to prove the efficacy of what you do. Because it's slower. There are businesses which are fast. There are businesses which are slow. There are fast feedback businesses which you learn very quickly.

And indeed, my hunch would be that money spent there would be more cost effective in many cases than money spent on acquisition. However, it might take you five years to prove the efficacy of what you do. Because it's slower. There are businesses which are fast. There are businesses which are slow. There are fast feedback businesses which you learn very quickly.

And indeed, my hunch would be that money spent there would be more cost effective in many cases than money spent on acquisition. However, it might take you five years to prove the efficacy of what you do. Because it's slower. There are businesses which are fast. There are businesses which are slow. There are fast feedback businesses which you learn very quickly.

An example, by the way, of very fast feedback business is comedy. You have an instant feedback mechanism from the audience, which basically tells you whether or not a joke is any good and whether you've landed it. And so apparently if you go to small comedy clubs, you'll occasionally be surprised because you're sitting there and there are only sort of 20 tables and Chris Rock will come in.

An example, by the way, of very fast feedback business is comedy. You have an instant feedback mechanism from the audience, which basically tells you whether or not a joke is any good and whether you've landed it. And so apparently if you go to small comedy clubs, you'll occasionally be surprised because you're sitting there and there are only sort of 20 tables and Chris Rock will come in.