Skip to main content

The Zomato nightmare, spurious loyalty, and the limitation of data.

The Zomato no cooking January has turned out to be both an opportunity and a nightmare for me. The opportunity to save a few bucks is always good, never mind the increase in consumption of ordered food. Pray what’s the nightmare? The damn Zomato App gets my delivery location on the map consistently wrong. This then requires me every time I place an order to call the delivery person so we can give out the right location. Plus almost every time I do this I also have to WhatsApp the right location to the delivery person. Do this one too many times, and you’ll know what an actual nightmare is!

Now here’s what’s to learn from the Zomato experience. One, my multiple orders this month shouldn’t be seen as any exhibition of loyalty to Zomato. In fact the order frequency and the number of orders say nothing about my loyalty. Once the month ends, I will shop for the best deals from all the ordering Apps on my phone. Now this is a classic exhibition of what is termed as spurious loyalty. Here are some more lessons on the issue of spurious loyalty.

Another lesson is the limitation of what quantitative data can tell you. Assuming any loyalty from the numerical data I have generated, including number, frequency and average check of this month’s orders is flawed. To really know what my state of relationship as a buyer with Zomato is, you have to look at qualitative data. Go read my multiple chats with the Zomato service people and you will know how frustrated I am. Do a content analysis of my chats and you will see someone waiting to bolt from Zomato once the month is over. In fact here’s a good read on the risks of quantitative studies.

Don’t get me wrong. It's not like I won’t order from Zomato again. If the guys at Z can fix the App problem, I’ll go back. Oh and if they can get me the best rates for food, I’ll stay. For their sake, I hope that happens. For now, I guess the nightmare continues till the end of the month, eh? 

Fingers crossed, I hope I don't tear my hair out at the next order from Z. Wish me luck, folks!


Popular posts from this blog

Situational Involvement of Consumers

There are two types of involvement that consumers have with products and services, Situational and Enduring. Situational involvement as the term suggests, occurs only in specificsituations whereas Enduring involvement is continuous and is more permanent in nature.

Decisions to buy umbrellas in India are driven by the onset of Indian monsoon. Monsoon rains arrived in India over the South Andaman Sea on May 10 and over the Kerala coast on May 28, three days ahead of schedule. But then, after a few days of rain, South India is witnessing a spate of dry weather. Temperatures are soaring in the north of India. The Umbrella companies in the state of Kerala are wishing for the skies to open up. So is the farming community and manufacturers of rural consumer products whose product sales depend totally on the farming community. The Met. department has deemed this dry spell as 'not unusual'.

India's monsoon rains have been static over the southern coast since last Tuesday because of a…

Prior Hypothesis Bias

Prior Hypothesis bias refers to the fact that decision makers who have strong prior beliefs about the relationship between two variables tend to make decisions on the basis of those beliefs, even when presented with the evidence that their beliefs are wrong. Moreover, they tend to use and seek information that is consistent with their prior beliefs, while ignoring information that contradicts these beliefs.

From a strategic perspective, a CEO who has a strong prior belief that a certain strategy makes sense might continue to pursue that strategy, despite evidence that it is inappropriate or failing.

Ref : Strategic Management : An Integrated Approach, 6e, Charles W L Hill, Gareth R Jones

Consumer Spending

Carpe Diem Blog: From Visual Economics, a graphical representation appears above (click to enlarge) of Consumer Expenditures in 2007, using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Note that total spending on food ($6,133), clothing ($1,881) and housing ($16,920) represented 50% of consumer expenditures and 30% of income before taxes in 2007. In 1997 by comparison, 51.1% of consumer expenditures were spent on food, clothing and housing, and 44.6% of income before taxes was spent on food, clothing and housing (data here).