Rarely does the sequel meet the payoff of the original. When Hilton Hotels had a good idea not well executed that I wrote about on Wednesday, I didn’t expect a follow-up message.
As Paul Harvey used to say, “Now, the rest of the story.”
The person transporting me to the hotel where I was booked to stay, dropped me at the Airport Hilton instead of the Hilton Garden Inn Airport. An easy mistake to make.
Once the front desk person and I realized what had happened, she called the Garden Inn, explained the situation, canceled my reservation and I rebooked at the Hilton instead of Hilton Garden Inn. It was late and I was grateful for the flexibility.
Here’s the text I received the next day from the Hilton Garden Inn; followed by my response and their response to me:
Once again, I applaud Hilton’s thinking. Amazingly, even in the follow-up, poor execution and ignoring data stymie their efforts at goodwill.
Don’t get me wrong, I am a Hilton fan. I make every effort to stay in one of their properties whenever I travel.
In their latest iteration of a new communications strategy, however, they’re failing. And if no one points it out, how will they know the error of their ways and improve?
Joel,
Are we assuming that both the follow-up texts are more than automation? Am I being a pessimist or a possibilist?
-Jason
Great question, Jason, and I don’t know the answer. If they are or they aren’t, they still miss the mark.
If they are automated, they are well served to improve their systems to use all data available to them. If not, the people sending the texts must be trained and required to follow a system that takes advantage of available data.
As I wrote, in both texts, there was available data that may have served the purpose of turning this tactic into a great way to build a connection with me.
Instead, they sort of look like they’re making a half-hearted effort.