R:\Bau\Blog >_
Bringing down the house • 3
Theatre as a metaphor in services marketing and service design
Photo by Nikola Bikar on Unsplash
Theater has been used for decades as a metaphor to highlight the differences between services marketing and product marketing. Standing on the shoulders of giants, I am using my version of the 7P framework to draw parallels between theater productions and service experiences.
(Product, Place, Physical Evidence, People, and Process were covered in previous blog posts.)
Promotion: Integrated marketing, sales, customer education, etc.
For theater productions, this means attracting sponsors, selling tickets, balancing demand and capacity, building loyalty, educating the audience (for example through podcasts and talkbacks), etc. For service providers, the equivalent would be carrying out integrated marketing activities before, during, and after the delivery of the service to attract, retain, and grow the right customers. To balance demand and capacity, service providers can either adjust capacity to demand or shape demand patterns (e.g., by shrinking or stimulating demand through innovative pricing strategies) (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016).
Price: Revenue streams, pricing strategies, etc.
For for-profit theaters, the main revenue streams are corporate sponsorships, membership fees, ticket sales, concessions, merchandise, corporate events, etc. An effective pricing strategy for tickets must do two things: attract the right audience(s) to the show and raise sufficient income to make a profit; the difficulty is that these two aims are often at odds. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the theater typically attracts multiple audiences, which may require multiple pricing strategies. (Caird, 2012). Service providers can utilize a wide range of business models, from freemium services to multi-sided platforms. Just like theaters, service providers need to determine the right pricing strategy (or strategies) based on costs, perceived value, and the competition (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016).
Work is theater
Taking the theater metaphor one step further, Joseph Pine and James Gilmore published the influential book Welcome to the Experience Economy: Work is theatre & every business a stage in 1999. To them, theater is not a metaphor (‘work as theater’), it is a model (‘work is theater’). Workers are on stage and must be directed to act accordingly.
The authors argue that companies compete not by making better products or by delivering better services but by staging better experiences. A ‘good’ experience is perceived to be meaningful, memorable, and ultimately transformative (creating a better version of ourselves).
Pine and Gilmore (1999) identified four forms of theater: platform theater, street theater, matching theater, and improv theater. For example, platform theater is the traditional theater where the script does not vary, the performance takes place in front of the audience, and the audience has little to no input into the performance. In improv theater, the actors think on their feet, responding to new and changing demands from the onlookers. According to the authors, all four types of theater have their place in the business world.
Pros and cons
Just like any metaphor, theater puts the spotlight on certain aspects of the production and delivery of services (and neglects or downplays others).
Advantages
Highlights the three-act structure of service experiences (acts and scenes)
Highlights the importance of roles and scripts to plan, manage, and control behaviors
Highlights the importance of place and physical evidence to manage expectations and determine service quality
Highlights the contribution of backstage/invisible aspects to the effective delivery of services
Highlights the need for a visionary and creative artistic director to set the vision and bring all of the elements together
Highlights the importance of cross-capability collaboration to plan, design, stage, and support live performances
Highlights the importance of enabling processes to attract, retain, and grow the right talent (casting and rehearsals)
Highlights the importance of customer education (to understand and enjoy the experience)
Highlights the need to balance demand and capacity (e.g., through innovative pricing strategies)
Disadvantages
Does not work as well for services that are highly personalized and customized (which require customers to become co-creators)
Does not work as well for services based on automation and self-service
The audience typically plays a more passive role in theater performances than in high-contact service experiences
Most service providers do not have the equivalent of the artistic director
References
Caird, J. (2012). Theatre tickets: When is the price right? The Guardian.
Pine, J. & Gilmore, J. (1999). Welcome to the Experience Economy: Work is theatre & every business a stage. Harvard Business School Press.
Wirtz, J. & Lovelock, C. (2016). Services Marketing: People, technology, strategy (8th ed.). World Scientific Publishing.
3/3
Bringing down the house • 2
Theatre as a metaphor in services marketing and service design
Photo by Nikola Bikar on Unsplash
Theater has been used for decades as a metaphor to highlight the differences between services marketing and product marketing. Standing on the shoulders of giants, I am using my version of the 7P framework to draw parallels between theater productions and service experiences.
(Product, Place, and Physical Evidence were covered in the previous blog post.)
People: Customers, frontline employees, backstage teams
The audience. For service experiences, the equivalent would be customers and other participants. Far from playing a passive role, customers are often (heavily) engaged in the co-production and co-delivery of the service; in essence, customers become partial employees (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016).
Actors/performers. For service experiences, the equivalent would be frontline employees interacting with customers to co-produce and co-deliver the service over time. Needless to say, frontline employees are extremely important for the overall perception and performance of the service (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016).
The artistic director. In the world of theater, the director interprets the playwright’s script; sets the creative vision for the production; hires the right artistic and technical talent; plans the production together with dramaturgs, choreographers, designers, and technicians; runs rehearsals and provides critique; and ultimately coordinates all elements into the finished production. In service organizations, the equivalent is arguably hard to find – perhaps the visionary, people-centered CX leader, CMO, or CEO?
Many other people are involved in planning, designing, staging, and supporting live performances – such as the producer, the production manager, the stage manager, the music director, the choreographer, the dramaturg, the costume designer, the lighting designer, the set designer, the sound designer, the technical director, the master electrician, the master carpenter, the sound engineer, the props master, the build crew, and the run crew. In service organizations, the equivalent would be multidisciplinary innovation & design teams (for envisioning, designing, and piloting new or revamped services), cross-functional technology teams (for building digital products and digitally-enabled services), and cross-functional service delivery teams (for co-producing and co-delivering services with the customers).
Process: Enabling and core processes for service production & delivery
Production and delivery processes. From the customer’s perspective, live performances and services are experiences. From the provider’s perspective, theatrical productions and services are processes that need to be designed and managed to deliver the desired customer experience. (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016) These co-production and co-delivery processes can be designed (or redesigned) using techniques/tools such as value stream mapping, flowcharting, service blueprinting, and process mapping. Identifying potential fail points at the design stage and designing ‘fail-proof’ services can greatly reduce the frequency and severity of service failures (Shostack, 1984).
Onstage/visible and backstage/invisible components. Back in 1982, Lynn Shostack (1984) introduced the service blueprint, emphasizing the need to include the invisible or hidden aspects of the service delivery which may impact the overall performance (in terms of service productivity and quality). While she did not explicitly use the theater metaphor, the blueprint was split into two sections divided by the ‘line of visibility.’ In 2007, Mary Jo Bitner showed the evolution of Shostack’s original service blueprint into five interconnected components (imagine layers, stacks, or swimlanes): Physical Evidence, Customer Actions, Onstage Contact Employee Actions, Backstage Contact Employee Actions, and Support Processes (Bitner et al., 2007).
Roles and scripts. Taking a leaf from theater production and performers, employees and customers take on specific roles, act out their parts, and stay in character following scripts, conventions, social norms, unwritten rules, etc. (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016). Service scripts determine the sequences of behavior employees (and customers) are expected to learn and follow during service production and delivery. To reduce variability and ensure uniform quality, many service dramas are tightly scripted. Highly customizable services typically require heavy customer involvement and more flexible scripts. (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016) On the flip side, scripts might (a) encourage ‘mindless’ and ‘habitual’ behaviors, and/or (b) make employees less attentive to non-verbal cues from customers (Harris et al., 2003).
Since high-contact services and experiences are so dependent on face-to-face interactions between customers and employees, two enabling processes worth highlighting are casting and rehearsals.
Casting. The artistic director works with the casting director to find the right people for the roles. They pay attention to training, experience, and past accomplishments; physical characteristics and vocal technique; personality traits, personal liveliness, and stage presence; ability to understand the play; suitability for the style of play; and general attitude, cooperativeness, and ‘directability.’ In service organizations, the equivalent to casting would be attracting, recruiting, and onboarding the right talent as well as staffing the service delivery teams with the right people across the organization.
Rehearsals. In rehearsals, actors interpret the script, rehearse their parts, memorize lines, discover new avenues of interpretation, etc. In service organizations, the equivalent to rehearsals would be team building, training, feedback, recognition, incentives, etc., to motivate and engage employees.
(To be continued)
References
Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L., & Morgan F.N. (2007). Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation. Center for Services Leadership, Arizona State University.
Harris R., Harris K. & Baron S. (2003). Theatrical service experiences: Dramatic script development with employees. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14, 184–99.
Shostack, L. (1984). Designing services that deliver. Harvard Business Review.
Wirtz, J. & Lovelock, C. (2016). Services Marketing: People, technology, strategy (8th ed.). World Scientific Publishing.
2/3
The 7 roles
The critical roles service designers play on innovation projects
Based on my consulting and teaching experience, service designers perform seven critical roles on complex, multi-faceted innovation projects: The Empathizer, The Sensemaker, The Creator, The Maker, The Navigator, The Storyteller, and The Servant Leader (Bau, 2013, 2020).
Generally speaking, service design teams will need to perform all seven roles throughout the innovation and design process in order to achieve desired outcomes. On an individual level, some service designers will want to ‘jump back and forth’ between multiple roles, and some may prefer to specialize in two or three. Few designers, if any, can arguably perform all seven roles to a high professional standard.
For the sake of brevity, each role will be explained with the help of three capabilities. For each capability, the service designer carries out specific activities, applies specific methods and tools, and produces specific deliverables/assets. For example, The Empathizer will use specific research tools, techniques and prompts to uncover the hidden motivations behind consumer behavior in a certain context.
We can easily map these seven roles to Kumar’s model of the design innovation process (2012), IDEO’s Hear-Create-Deliver process (2009), and Design Council UK’s framework for innovation (2019). These models and frameworks show that innovation projects jump back and forth between modes of activity in a non-linear and iterative fashion, and that the innovation team should constantly switch between thinking in abstract ways and making something concrete and tangible.
The seven roles will be described in more detail in subsequent blog posts. In addition, I will compare and contrast my roles with similar descriptions in the innovation and design space.
References
Bau, R. (2013, October). What it takes to become a superb service designer. SX 2013 [Adaptive Path’s Service Experience conference], San Francisco, CA.
Bau, R. (2020). Service design to the rescue. The critical roles service designers play in organizational change. Touchpoint, 11(3), 74–79.
Design Council UK. (2019). What is the framework for innovation? Design Council’s evolved Double Diamond.
Kumar, V. (2012). 101 design methods: A structured approach for driving innovation in your organization. Wiley.
IDEO. (2009). Human-centered design toolkit. IDEO.
1/10