Luch's decision to withdraw from the social media in the UK a courageous decision. It is a step they say is being made to bring them closer to their audience, but their claim that they are "tired of fighting with algorithms" means that it shocks more than a child who complains that the rules of the game are unfair. However, Lush is an existing company, and a decision of this magnitude will not be made if there are no significant benefits and other opportunities that they feel they can explore.
There is no doubt that this step is a gamble. Another noteworthy activity has taken a drastic step away from social networking recently – JD Wetherspoon – and even this is not a similar story, given that Wetherspoon had only 100,000 followers on Facebook and 6,000 on Instagram. By contrast, LushUK boasts 202,000 Twitter followers, 569,000 Instagram followers, and 423,000 followers from their Facebook page. Why should they stay away from this audience?
The party's official line
The hatred of algorithms and the desire to be closer to their customers is what Lush claims to be imposing this move. The former of these reasons gives the feeling that Lush is becoming bored of the game. It's a long-standing feeling among brands, and it's not unique at Lush. However, one brand has taken another step to delete its social accounts.
What are the alternative options?
If social media are very frustrating with Lush, there are (perhaps more logically) alternative options open to them:
Making strategic appointments: Perhaps the easiest thing to do, for a Lush-sized business that is struggling with the algorithmic side of social media, is to hire an experienced couple installed in the management of this field?
Reduce reliance on social: For a brand, social media can be considered as a channel of acquisition and participation such as fatty foods as part of a balanced diet. Too bad – Facebook, Twitter, and Google do not share all the data about how your audience deals with your ads, which may make it seem like you're getting rid of money. What's more, it is important that brands have their own acquisition and e-commerce channels to give them a clearer picture of their customers.
At the same time, presence on social media is necessary for modern brands, and its ability to promote acquisition and brand is unquestionable. The decision to avoid social full is strange, cut spending on these channels, first to monitor the impact of such a decision, it made more sense. A healthy mix, with other channels like TV, OOH, and research, is usually the best answer.
"Dispensing with the mediator"
The other Lush reason for this decision is that they want a more direct relationship with their consumers, leaving the social way to "beat the mediator" and instead helping their customers directly through phone lines, chat technology and e-mail.
However, the fact of this decision is that customer service will become more limited, even if improvements are made to phone, chat and e-mail capabilities. Social (especially Twitter) is a key platform for customers to ask questions about their products, contact brand, and provide feedback. By deleting social media accounts, Lush takes a major customer service platform away from an audience that is largely made up of digital citizens.
But will the "layoff" at least improve customer data sets? Perhaps, but this will depend on a large part of the social Lush followers who seek to interact between brands elsewhere. Unfortunately, the truth is that a large number of these customers will stop interacting with Lush as soon as they do not return to social feed.
Although this will result in Lush gaining stronger data sets for customers who continue to interact with the brand, the number of customers whose data sets are based will be significantly reduced.
Impact knock on sales
Obviously, something that Losh will have analyzed closely before making this decision is how it will affect the final result. Social Shoppable has become huge over the past few years, and Instagram has recently made it easier than ever Buy without leaving the application.
In addition, there will be a large number of Lush followers on social media, who will not interact with the brand anywhere else, but could be persuaded to buy something after seeing an ad on social networking sites. By signing up, free TV, which now serves as the base, is becoming the target audience for Lush, reducing the number of channels through which shoppers can reach, which will hurt sales.
However, while sales will suffer, the impact on the final outcome will remain to be seen. A budget released by stopping social spending can offset the damage to sales that could have resulted from a social declaration.
However, even if the final outcome improves overall, it is difficult to see how Lush will benefit from her social exclusion. Certainly it seems as though it was a choice of hate for social platforms the first idea in their minds, the convenience of the customer ranked second.