Domino's' Ingredient to Customer Satisfaction: Admit the Pizza Sucks

Attention, marketers! Senior-level marketers from leading companies can be considered for a complimentary invitation to the Marketing 360 Exchange. This is only for approved, senior-level attendees, but if you make the cut, you're going to be in great company - details here!

Most marketers spend their time convincing television viewers, radio listeners and social media followers of the quality of their products. Domino’s Pizza, however, has accelerated its success by adopting the opposite strategy: admitting its pizza sucked.

Though not the first example of a company using such a marketing tactic, Domino’s’ campaign is notable for the fact that it relied neither on tongue-in-cheek humor nor on the notion that customers who do not like the product simply "don’t get it." While brands like Miracle Whip use the existence of detractors to create a sense of community and pride among its fans—it’s not for everyone—Domino’s’ campaign involved readily admitting it needed to improve the quality of its pizza in order to better satisfy customers.

In essence, the acknowledgement was not that Domino’s "isn’t for everyone." It was that, in its current form, it wasn’t truly-satisfactory for anyone. And it had quotes from unhappy customers to prove it.

Of course, while that sentiment is undoubtedly unconventional and seems risky, astute marketers will question the magnitude of that "risk."

After all, Domino’s is hardly an under-the-radar brand; most consumers exposed to the campaign likely had a preexisting opinion about Domino’s. If they hated the pizza, the campaign played directly into their sentiment, "valuing" their criticism and recommending they try the new and improved recipe. If they loved the pizza, they may not understand why Domino’s felt compelled to change its offering, but they also had little reason not to give a supposedly-better recipe a chance.

And, in a broad sense, the campaign is an attention-grabber, and that, in and of itself, typically yields favorable results for business.

That, however, does not mean no risk existed. Though the campaign positions itself as a pro-customer movement, it also implies that Domino’s had spent the past several years slapping its customers in the face.

It was not as if Domino’s had recently introduced its iteration of "New Coke"—it had been sticking to a certain, tried-and-true pizza format for a while, and if the recipe was so flawed ("cardboard" was an adjective used to describe the taste) and the quality-assurance was so questionable (evidence was shown of the cheese sticking to the box rather than the crust), what took Domino’s so long to make improvements? Surely, the criticism did not erupt out of the blue, so Domino’s had clearly spent a period of time minimizing the importance of customer feedback.

In that sense, the possibility certainly existed that customers would see through the campaign as a publicity stunt rather than as an honest attempt to act on the voice of the customer.

(To Domino’s’ credit, Bloomberg reports that it began making its concern over customer feedback public in May of 2008, roughly a year-and-a-half before it introduced its new recipe in December 2009…but criticism of the pizza undoubtedly dates back much further).

In featuring real, scathing customer reviews about the pizza, the Domino’s campaign also risked turning customers on to the existence of superior competitors. While the idea of Domino’s representing the pinnacle of pizza might be troubling to pizza connoisseurs, especially the particularly-passionate ones from New York, New Haven and Chicago, as a national brand, it definitely had a great, high-profile reputation with many customers.

Through the admission that its pizza was unsatisfactory, Domino’s risked encouraging its loyal customers to more-openly try out local pizzerias, as well as chain rivals Papa John’s and Pizza Hut. Even if they had tried these alternatives before, their mindset would now be different: they wouldknow Domino’s technically stunk, so they would be more curious about and welcoming to the advantages of other pizzamakers.

So, that’s all well and good—but did it work?

Risk or no risk, if the goal was to rejuvenate the pizza brand, the promotional strategy paid off. Since Domino’s introduced its new pizza recipe (and a brutally-honest campaign to justify the change) in December 2009, its market value has increased by well over 200%, compared with gains of roughly 50% for Pizza Hut parent Yum and 40% for Papa John’s.

By the end of Q1 2010, Domino’s’ quarterly same-store-sales were up by 14%, the highest increase on record for the company and a gain significantly better than that of its chain pizza competitors.

And the increase was not a flash-in-the-pan, curiosity-fueled response to the new recipe: it was a lucrative rebirth for the brand.

Sales results for Q3 2011, for instance, grew 3% from the prior year’s numbers, which were up 12% from 2009. The growth is tapering and might seem modest, but compared to Pizza Hut’s 3% loss in the same period, it is very welcome performance and indicative that Domino’s changes are sticking with customers.

Notable about Domino’s honesty promotion is the fact that it was not part of a short-term "shock" campaign but the start of a true, ongoing commitment to the voice of the customer. Soon after debuting its cutting-edge campaign, Domino’s followed up with a website that allowed customers to submit photos of their actual pizza orders. The campaign then progressed to involve visits to the actual farms from which it procures ingredients, a "feedback card" for its chicken recipe (with the chicken chef taking center stage in the promotional campaign) and social media billboards that list real customer reviews.

Many recent ads have featured CEO Patrick Doyle speaking candidly (some critics, of course, might describe the tone as "pandering") to customers, justifying "crazy" offers and discounts with timely lines like "the economy is still tough." While competitors also feature , the Domino’s commercials are unique in that they strive to feature genuine discourse—Doyle doesn’t simply talk about what Domino’s does right but instead reflects on what customers are saying and how Domino’s’ evolution is consistent with those demands.

This "frank" tone even dictates the company’s new product launches; ads for the new $7.99 artisan pizza line, which Domino’s feels will be a big-ticket item, mock the stuffiness of the "artisan" concept, playing up the fact that Domino’s wants its pizza to be defined by quality and price.

But what if your product doesn’t suck? Can’t you still act on the voice of the customer?

Though a successful, intelligent campaign, Domino’s’ commitment to honesty did benefit from a specific scenario: the pizza was indeed unsatisfactory for many customers.

All brands will have their detractors, but the dissatisfaction with other products will often be nowhere near as palpable and relatable as that for Domino’s’ old pizza recipe. If that is the case, a "we know we stink, but we’re trying" will not resonate quite so well.

That, of course, does not mean the principles behind Domino’s’ resurgence cannot apply universally, even to those brands with glowing customer reviews. After all, the real heart of Domino’s’ message was not simply that the product needed improvement, but that the company was willing to throw away its OWN conventions and listen directly to customers.

Too often, brands attribute new services, prices, fees/fee reductions and the like to the "voice of the customer," but there is no sign that the organizations lifted a finger in the process. Nor, meanwhile, is there any risk, whether perceived or genuine, behind the declaration that it responded to customer demand.

Banks, for instance, often waste no time linking online banking and bill pay tools to customer demand. And, in its simplest sense, that link is true—customers do want better online banking experiences.

But can that type of endeavor really be equated to what Domino’s did? Domino’s’ campaign worked because it linked specific customer feedback and complaints to specific shortcomings in its current products and specific changes for its future products. Instead of using customer feedback to justify its strategies, it publicly admitted that it was doing it wrong. The campaign resonated because customers felt the sentiments in the campaign echoed their own reaction to Domino’s Pizza. They, thus, felt valued when Domino’s decided to make the necessary improvements.

Customers want to trace that progression. They want to see the company acknowledge their request for a new feature or for an improvement to a shortcoming. They then want to trace how that feedback materializes into the actual goods and services.

As with the banking example, it is not enough for companies to a pick a broad, obvious strategic initiative, retroactively tie it to "voice of the customer" and act as if they care. They have to show a willingness to shake up their broken system or a clear understanding of why customers think their system is working and implement specific actions based on that understanding.

Otherwise, their "pro-customer" mindset is as hollow as a chocolate Easter bunny.