"Our Take" - Self Service

(Past Editions by: Date, Title, Topic)

 
About "Our Take" 
"Our Take" is a collection of daily vignettes covering a wide range of CRM topics. It's an attempt to add our own spin to the world of CRM. We will use the column to share our perspectives, opinions, epiphanies, web nuggets, or quite frankly anything that moves us. Get ready to expect the unexpected. And, don't be shy about sharing your thoughts.
 
 
9/6/05 - Forcing Customer to Use Self Service
Last week I asked for stories about good incentives gone wrong. The stories keep coming in but I still want you to send me your "good incentives gone wrong" story.
 
In the meantime, many of the stories follow a common theme - forcing customers to use self service. More specifically, using technology to direct more customer inquiries to the IVR by making it more difficult to reach a live person. One person wrote: "A manager was given a raise by increasing the percent of inbound calls handled via IVR vs. the company agents. How'd she do it? By making it harder to opt out to an agent. Frustrated customers calling back to try and game the system caused the numbers to spike. And of course caller satisfaction went into the toilet, but that wasn't what she was measured on."
 
In general, operational efficiency metrics can be awesome in terms of creating behavior that saves the company money but those operational gains should not be stealthily applied on the back of customer satisfaction. Do you have an IVR story to tell?
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
9/7/05 - IVRs - Don't Force It
Sometimes, I wonder if what I write is just so absolutely obvious that if I listened closely enough I could hear a collective "duh" as tens of thousands of readers read this column. As today’s title suggests, my message is simple - don't create “IVR jail” by making it difficult for callers to opt out.
 
All of us have been callers in our personal life and all of us have a story recanting the frustration of getting a person on the phone that can help us. “IVR hell” is simply that pervasive! But if avoiding frustration that flair the nostrils of our customers is so obvious, why does the IVR as a obstacle remain standard operating procedure for so many organizations?
 
What do you think has to change for an organization to stop shooting itself in the foot by creating IVR processes that become customer dissatisfaction generators? Am I tilting at windmills? Are there best practices that will make the IVR more effective for customer satisfaction?
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
9/8/05 - Bad IVR Trees Create More Calls
To continue our discussion about good incentives gone badly specifically as it relates to IVRs, I'm learning that many of you have strong feelings on the subject. Tell me more!
 
I've heard from many of you saying that a bad IVR implementation creates more calls to the organization that have to be handled by customer service reps. However, by the time the call reaches the CSR, hostilities have made the experience more difficult. The message seems to be that it would be better for the caller to have never had to experience "IVR hell." Amen.
 
I don't want IVR technology to get a bad rap. There are so many good things about creating positive self service experiences. The problem is assuming that the IVR can handle all problems and assuming that all callers should have to go through the entire sequence of options.
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
7/11/06 - Measuring the Customer Experience
It seems readers just can't get enough discussion about metrics that measure the customer experience. One reader wrote:
 
"We encounter the same situation where call centers are measuring call duration, first time resolution, call containment in the IVR, etc. without having any idea what the experience was like for the customers. For example, if a payment transaction was completed in the IVR, but took the average customer 12 steps instead of the intended 5, was that a success? Current call center metrics would say yes, but there is a very good chance that those customers were not happy at the completion of the experience and would not use automation to make a payment again."
 
Being a slave to the metrics without really understanding the quality of the customer experience is an easy trap. It's easy to report and it is easy for management (upper and lower) to think that everything is just fine. Leadership is all about getting behind the numbers.
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
7/12/06 - Measuring the Customer Experience - Part II
Some of our more seasoned subscribers have been writing over the last week about putting metrics in context. I imagine every organization at one time or another has relied on metrics because they were easy to obtain rather than most pertinent to the customer experience. Hey, it’s an easy trap.
 
One reader shared, "Running any business function by looking at a specific set of numbers is destined to end up crashing. You can’t take all human elements out of business and just set up the numbers you want to achieve. They call it leadership because you have to lead people to perform and the numbers are just one of the guides."
 
Adding context to metrics can be a subjective exercise open to critique and doubt. However, metrics in the absence of context should be considered even more suspect. Do you agree?
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
8/2/06 - Branding is About Confidence
Floyd Landis won the Tour de France. Or did he? Tests conducted after his miraculous comeback on stage 17 of the tour lead us to believe his performance was the result of external factors.
 
As an avid spectator of cycling, I sure hope he didn't. Regardless of how the drama plays out, the brand has been tarnished. In fact, three brands (Floyd Landis, Tour de France, and cycling) have been tarnished. Did we see an epic performance? Was the race really a level playing field? Is professional cycling tainted?
 
It's all about confidence. To believe in the brand, we have to have confidence. So in the world of CRM, service has to evoke a sense of confidence to be a brand builder versus a brand detractor. Just the hint of bad service can tarnish the brand. Do you agree?
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
8/3/06 - Branding is About Confidence - Continued
I see we have a few cycling fans in the audience. Yesterday, I shared thoughts about how the controversy regarding Floyd Landis' drug test results in the Tour de France have tainted the brands. With confidences shaken, the brand takes a hit.
 
One reader wrote, "Very interesting way to discuss branding. I once read from an airline source that dirty tray tables in the cabin could lead some to think poor equipment maintenance overall. It's the same thought; that is, we should pay attention to every detail to build and maintain confidence."
 
Customers often make associations we wouldn't expect. Although the maintenance of jet engines and the cleanliness of tray tables are handled by two completely different staffs, the customer sees it as one big jet. The lesson is that even though we see the difference, our customers may not.
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
8/4/06 - Branding is About Confidence - Continued
Creating customer confidence is a blend of providing an exceptional experience on a consistent basis. The secret is the combination. An exceptional experience that happens on occasion is futile if customers can't count on it. But mistakes happen.
 
One reader wrote, "We must also recognize "to err is human". Everyone makes mistakes, including the best organizations. It's what happens after the mistakes are made that truly builds confidence in a brand. Being upfront, honest and proactive to your customers will have tremendous gains. When Tylenol had the contamination scare, they instantly pulled all bottles and went public, even though only a few packages had been tampered with. That move cost them money, but built tremendous respect, which I'm sure has paid off well."
 
So let me modify the first statement I made today: "Creating customer confidence is a blend of providing an exceptional experience on a consistent basis and when mistakes happen, you have the opportunity to create an even higher level of customer confidence." Do you agree?
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
8/7/06 - "All Hands on Deck"
Last week, I wrote that the way a company reacts to a poor service experience can be an important element in building trust, confidence and loyalty. To illustrate the point, I shared the story about Tylenol's reaction to their tampering crisis and how their proactive steps helped regain consumer confidence and avert disaster.
 
That prompted some of you to respond saying that it doesn't have to only be a reactive, "all hands on deck" strategy. There may be those unforeseen instances that test a company's commitment to doing the right thing but how many times does service "break" in the normal course of business and, more importantly, have you institutionalized processes to handle broken service events?
 
One attribute of a well run company is established policies and guidelines to address situations when service breaks. If you are reading this, perhaps you might consider an audit of how your organization handles those situations when service breaks. Are those moments of truth helping or hurting your brand?
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)