The Customer Service Survey
Frustrations and Challenges
Customer Service Nightmare
Thu - April 10, 2008 02:40 PM
American Airlines has cancelled well over 2,000 flights over the past three days, after the FAA discovered that required maintenance had not been performed in a number of the airline's jets. That led to an immediate inspection of a huge fraction of the fleet, forcing many planes to be grounded until maintenance and inspections can be completed.
In this instance (unlike winter storms), the damage inflicted to American is entirely self-inflicted, so there's a limit to how sympathetic one can be to the company's plight. Still, this has to be the very definition of a call center manager's nightmare: hundreds of thousands of angry customers, systemwide disruption, and no way to help most people. American simply doesn't have the capacity to get all those stuck people to their destinations in a timely manner, even if it somehow miraculously got all the planes in the air immediately.
So to anyone working in American's call centers this week, you've got my sympathy. Good luck.
Posted by Peter Leppik
So to anyone working in American's call centers this week, you've got my sympathy. Good luck.
Posted by Peter Leppik
My brilliant moneymaking idea
Mon - April 7, 2008 02:31 PM
I have an idea for a gizmo which will make me millions. It's a variation of those toy voice distorters which can make you sound like Darth Vader, a woman (if a man), or a man (if a woman).
My voice distorter will take any voice, no matter how bored-sounding, and make it sound like the speaker is Excited! and Enthused!
The market is call centers and telemarketers, which seem to have a terrible time training their agents to not sound like they're reading a script while they're reading a script.
It's the worst with telemarketers: I can usually tell within the first two words if a caller is trying to sell me something, just from the tone of voice. From that instant, I'm not hearing anything the telemarketer is saying, just looking for a pause big enough to say, "Sorrynotinterested" and hang up.
Going the other way, when I call customer service it's frustrating greeted by a bored, robotic-sounding agent, especially if he's asking irrelevant questions. It feels impersonal, and sends the message that the company doesn't care what I'm trying to say.
These aren't new problems, but apparently all attempts to train bored, scripted customer service reps to not sound bored and scripted have failed.
Given the usual approach in the customer service business of applying technological band-aids to cover up people problems, my Enthusiasm Machine can't fail to be a commercial success.
Posted! by! Peter! Leppik!
The market is call centers and telemarketers, which seem to have a terrible time training their agents to not sound like they're reading a script while they're reading a script.
It's the worst with telemarketers: I can usually tell within the first two words if a caller is trying to sell me something, just from the tone of voice. From that instant, I'm not hearing anything the telemarketer is saying, just looking for a pause big enough to say, "Sorrynotinterested" and hang up.
Going the other way, when I call customer service it's frustrating greeted by a bored, robotic-sounding agent, especially if he's asking irrelevant questions. It feels impersonal, and sends the message that the company doesn't care what I'm trying to say.
These aren't new problems, but apparently all attempts to train bored, scripted customer service reps to not sound bored and scripted have failed.
Given the usual approach in the customer service business of applying technological band-aids to cover up people problems, my Enthusiasm Machine can't fail to be a commercial success.
Posted! by! Peter! Leppik!
Customer Frustrations
Tue - February 19, 2008 02:07 PM
I've written a lot about things which go into good customer service. The past few days I've also been thinking about factors which go into bad service.
Here's my off-the-cuff list:
I'm sure I've missed a few, but these are the customer service mistakes which seem to factor most prominently in consumer horror stories.
Posted by Peter Leppik
- Inability to help: Customer service representatives don't have the authority to solve the customer's problem.
- Inconsistency: Service which is never the same quality twice.
- Incompetence: Customer service representatives don't have the necessary skills or training.
- Hoops: Pointless steps which the customer is forced to take in order to be served (for example: entering an account number multiple times, answering irrelevant questions in an IVR or from an agent, being forced to go through multiple IVR menus, etc.)
- Unwillingness to Admit Mistakes: Company refuses to acknowledge making an error.
- No History: When a problem requires multiple calls to solve, the customer has to start over from the beginning each time.
- No Follow-Through/Broken Promises: An agent promises to take some action, but doesn't.
- Unwillingness to Escalate: The customer service representative won't escalate the call to a supervisor when asked.
I'm sure I've missed a few, but these are the customer service mistakes which seem to factor most prominently in consumer horror stories.
Posted by Peter Leppik
The VocaLabs School of Common Sense
Thu - December 7, 2006 12:39 PM
If you haven't picked up on it just yet, many of our latest blog entries have been discussing survey technique and some of the problems when trying to get to the truth of what people really think. The reason for this current focus is that we are preparing to introduce "Vocalabs U", a seminar service to help improve the quality of user surveys and the underlying interpretations. These blog comments are a result of an ongoing process of trying to define the curriculum.
Some night question whether attending VocaLabs U is needed since we have written so much already about faulty survey methods. Not so. True, we continue to point to problem issues, but we have not given away the store. Identifying the problem is a different focus than fixing it.
As Peter pointed out yesterday with his Home Depot example, manipulating customer satisfaction results can be a lot easier than actually doing something to improve. A few weeks ago I shared some data strongly suggesting that the majority of surveys are written to try and confirm some already held belief rather than discover the truth. And we know that when an uncomfortable truth is discovered, human nature is to first discredit the data rather than change a belief.
So whether people distrust survey results because of a justifiable skepticism, or because the answers might cause a set of beliefs to be upset; the result is the same: The data isn't taken seriously.
Perhaps this is why roughly 20% of the market research firms from a 2006 buyers guide that I've been trying to contact to offer our services are no longer in business. Perhaps this is a reason why those firms that offer cheap surveys seem to be the most active. I don't have those answers. What I do know, and continue to preach, is that well defined surveys, conducted objectively, and which deliver reliable insights; can be done. Vocalabs U will teach you to recognize the difference.
Posted by Rick Rappe'
As Peter pointed out yesterday with his Home Depot example, manipulating customer satisfaction results can be a lot easier than actually doing something to improve. A few weeks ago I shared some data strongly suggesting that the majority of surveys are written to try and confirm some already held belief rather than discover the truth. And we know that when an uncomfortable truth is discovered, human nature is to first discredit the data rather than change a belief.
So whether people distrust survey results because of a justifiable skepticism, or because the answers might cause a set of beliefs to be upset; the result is the same: The data isn't taken seriously.
Perhaps this is why roughly 20% of the market research firms from a 2006 buyers guide that I've been trying to contact to offer our services are no longer in business. Perhaps this is a reason why those firms that offer cheap surveys seem to be the most active. I don't have those answers. What I do know, and continue to preach, is that well defined surveys, conducted objectively, and which deliver reliable insights; can be done. Vocalabs U will teach you to recognize the difference.
Posted by Rick Rappe'
Why is Good Service so Hard to Deliver?
Tue - October 31, 2006 04:02 PM
Each Monday, the Wall St. Journal has a special report section comprised of articles on business leadership issues. This week the topic was customer service. Because WSJ Online is a subscription service, I can't link you to the articles, but I can summarize and comment.
One reporter wrote about self service technology, essentially repeating a VocaLabs mantra based on our experiences in testing such technology. It is not the technology people dislike, but rather poor implementation of it. The article mentions voice recognition systems as having problems with regional accents (a past problem, seen much less today) or trying to use the service in noisy areas (still an issue that "smart" designers recognize and so quickly let the caller opt for touchtone or a human).
Bad Web sites get a jab too. We sense that sloppy design and an abundance of flashy graphics can distract and frustrate users. Web is still more time consuming than picking up the phone and so will not replace the phone for some long time as the primary way consumers communicate with a company. In truth, we see that Web has not reduced telephone traffic, but instead has added a new access channel creating MORE customer contact. And interestingly, we get the sense that Web pages that waste time looking for answers and companies which fail to quickly respond to e-mail inquiries frustrate customers even more than poor phone based services. In the Internet world, savvy users expect instant feedback, and when they don't get it, they are even more frustrated than the phone user who has been conditioned to expect lesser service.
Another article addresses outsourcing of customer care overseas. We see that companies who made the move entirely for economic reasons are realizing their mistake when callers can't understand accents, or when cultural issues interfere. The off shore call centers are getting it though, and are constantly improving.
Speech analytics is mentioned, and we will see more and more interest in this "solution". Many companies invested money in call recording technology only to find that it is very resource intense and expensive to have someone monitoring even a small percent of calls. A result is that much of this recording technology is unused. There are now several entities marketing technology in which the recordings are listened to by a machine looking for angry voice tones and key words like "cancel my account" in order to drill down to specific problem call recordings. Time will tell if this is an effective solution, or if there aren't more cost effective ways than paying for recording technology that didn't fix the problem, and then paying for more technology to fix the fix.
One article lists pet peeves of consumers such as "Why, when you call and punch in your account information, do we have to give it again when we get to a live operator?" Two reasons: poor or dated technology that doesn't allow the passing of such information from system to system inside a company, AND surprisingly because much of it is necessary by law for privacy and security issues.
Another article points to the dangers of corporate dictates on how to treat customers that are issued by MBAs with no real face to face experience with those same consumers.
Still another article writes of the constant battle between controlling costs and creating a repeat customer. The story reaches no conclusions other than it is a balancing act that can hurt a company if they guess wrong.
From our perspective, we have mixed emotions about all this. On the one hand, that more companies recognize they can give better service is a good thing, and good for our business. OTOH, it is depressing when we wonder how companies could have been so blind as to dig holes regarding service quality that they now have to climb out of.
Posted by Rick Rappe
Bad Web sites get a jab too. We sense that sloppy design and an abundance of flashy graphics can distract and frustrate users. Web is still more time consuming than picking up the phone and so will not replace the phone for some long time as the primary way consumers communicate with a company. In truth, we see that Web has not reduced telephone traffic, but instead has added a new access channel creating MORE customer contact. And interestingly, we get the sense that Web pages that waste time looking for answers and companies which fail to quickly respond to e-mail inquiries frustrate customers even more than poor phone based services. In the Internet world, savvy users expect instant feedback, and when they don't get it, they are even more frustrated than the phone user who has been conditioned to expect lesser service.
Another article addresses outsourcing of customer care overseas. We see that companies who made the move entirely for economic reasons are realizing their mistake when callers can't understand accents, or when cultural issues interfere. The off shore call centers are getting it though, and are constantly improving.
Speech analytics is mentioned, and we will see more and more interest in this "solution". Many companies invested money in call recording technology only to find that it is very resource intense and expensive to have someone monitoring even a small percent of calls. A result is that much of this recording technology is unused. There are now several entities marketing technology in which the recordings are listened to by a machine looking for angry voice tones and key words like "cancel my account" in order to drill down to specific problem call recordings. Time will tell if this is an effective solution, or if there aren't more cost effective ways than paying for recording technology that didn't fix the problem, and then paying for more technology to fix the fix.
One article lists pet peeves of consumers such as "Why, when you call and punch in your account information, do we have to give it again when we get to a live operator?" Two reasons: poor or dated technology that doesn't allow the passing of such information from system to system inside a company, AND surprisingly because much of it is necessary by law for privacy and security issues.
Another article points to the dangers of corporate dictates on how to treat customers that are issued by MBAs with no real face to face experience with those same consumers.
Still another article writes of the constant battle between controlling costs and creating a repeat customer. The story reaches no conclusions other than it is a balancing act that can hurt a company if they guess wrong.
From our perspective, we have mixed emotions about all this. On the one hand, that more companies recognize they can give better service is a good thing, and good for our business. OTOH, it is depressing when we wonder how companies could have been so blind as to dig holes regarding service quality that they now have to climb out of.
Posted by Rick Rappe
Excuses, Excuses
Wed - June 7, 2006 12:43 PM
Just about when I begin to feel upbeat that businesses are realizing the value of customer care and think progress is being made, reality steps in. As a sales person, I periodically review proposals and inquiries that never turned into business. I simply ask my contacts what happened. Here is the latest group of answers:
- "IT won't cooperate."
- "IT says it is not a priority to set up the study."
- "Security is concerned about privacy and killed the project." (Aside, security never talked to anyone, particularly us, about the built in privacy controls.)
- "IT says they're too busy."
- "We hired some Mexicans to see if the Spanish translations made sense." (I'm not making that up, honest.)
- "I really don't know. We re-organized again."
- "It would take work to set it up."
Yes, if you're picking up on a theme that IT is making a bunch of customer care decisions these days, so am I. Probably a consequence of the computerization of telephony, but if any group of individuals are less trained and inclined to make decisions from the perspective of the customer than the IT folks, I can't think who it might be.
Posted by Rick Rappe
We Found the Problem. It's You.
Mon - June 5, 2006 03:10 PM
While Peter is correct that entities like computer makers. wireless phone companies and banks aren't so hot at delivering good service, there is another side to the story. Often our expectations of these institutions are unreasonably high because they perform services critical to our modern lives.
Our knowledge base is in those hard drives far more today than in some filing cabinet. Without our computer, most of us would have a much harder time earning a living. And when we do get paid for something of which a computer is an integral part; banks have our money; the stuff that buys groceries and makes the mortgage payment. And heaven forbid that we could actually go grocery shopping without a cell phone to call home and see if we need peanut butter, or be in constant touch while we sit in an airport (another industry we love to hate).
So we demand that our computers be ever faster and still cost less. We get annoyed at the bank when our account gets overdrawn, but go elsewhere for our car loans and mortgages. We take a wireless phone into the basement, or inside a metal bodied car and go 60 miles an hour talking for hours and complain about the bill or when we lose a signal.
Face it folks. These entities exist to make a profit. And when we make earning a return more difficult by demanding more for less, the squeeze we put on these entities HAS to show up somewhere. Maybe it is a shoddier product, or no more free airline meals. But just maybe it ends up showing in the quality of service we receive.
Yes, sure, we've all said we'd pay more for better service. But we don't. Face it. Even if our relatives owned the local auto service station and have been taking care of our car for years, we go elsewhere because gas is $.02 cheaper across the road.
There is a saying that in a democracy, we get the laws and politicians we deserve. Maybe that's true in customer service as well.
Posted by Rick Rappe
So we demand that our computers be ever faster and still cost less. We get annoyed at the bank when our account gets overdrawn, but go elsewhere for our car loans and mortgages. We take a wireless phone into the basement, or inside a metal bodied car and go 60 miles an hour talking for hours and complain about the bill or when we lose a signal.
Face it folks. These entities exist to make a profit. And when we make earning a return more difficult by demanding more for less, the squeeze we put on these entities HAS to show up somewhere. Maybe it is a shoddier product, or no more free airline meals. But just maybe it ends up showing in the quality of service we receive.
Yes, sure, we've all said we'd pay more for better service. But we don't. Face it. Even if our relatives owned the local auto service station and have been taking care of our car for years, we go elsewhere because gas is $.02 cheaper across the road.
There is a saying that in a democracy, we get the laws and politicians we deserve. Maybe that's true in customer service as well.
Posted by Rick Rappe
"Which crappy software are you referring to?"
Wed - May 24, 2006 10:41 AM
For every customer horror story, there's a corresponding tale from an call center agent about the customer from hell.
Today's submission comes from the blog And Another Thing, about a late night call to a technical support call center.
I've never quite understood why customers think they can be abusive but still get good service.
Posted by Peter Leppik
I've never quite understood why customers think they can be abusive but still get good service.
Posted by Peter Leppik
Getting the Little Stuff Right
Mon - May 22, 2006 02:28 PM
I think it is an immutable law of nature that in any organization it's easier to do big projects than it is to get the little stuff right. Everyone wants to be involved in the big sexy CRM project, but nobody wants to spend time making sure phone sales reps have ready access to marketing literature.
I've seen some of the most sophisticated call centers do some head-slappingly stupid things. The marketing department failing to tell the call center and warehouse about upcoming promotions is almost a cliche.
I've also heard about things like commissioned sales agents not being given direct extensions (forcing them to hand out personal cell phone numbers if a customer wants to keep working with the same salesperson), and software companies which switch to product activation schemes without budgeting for the additional support time required.
IVR systems which don't allow a caller to "back up" are distressingly common, as are "single phone number" schemes which force customers to go through an agent on the other side of the planet in order to talk to someone at a branch location two blocks away.
And don't forget the reorganizations and mergers which leave customers confused about who to call for service--or worse, without anyonein the company who is trained and authorized to service their accounts.
Many of these kinds of problems are cheap and easy to fix if someone at a high enough level discovers the issue and takes an interest in correcting it. The root causes are usually apathy, confusion, organizational indifference, risk aversion, and the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. And often the problems are well known (to those in the trenches), or can be easily discovered just by taking a fresh look at how things do or don't work.
Unfortunately, making lots of small changes to correct organizational stupidity isn't usually seen as the best way to advance a career. The thinking goes that you want to be on the big project with the big budget in order to be on the path to glory.
That's too bad. It's usually best to make sure you're doing the little stuff right before spending time and money on giant expensive projects.
Posted by Peter Leppik
I've also heard about things like commissioned sales agents not being given direct extensions (forcing them to hand out personal cell phone numbers if a customer wants to keep working with the same salesperson), and software companies which switch to product activation schemes without budgeting for the additional support time required.
IVR systems which don't allow a caller to "back up" are distressingly common, as are "single phone number" schemes which force customers to go through an agent on the other side of the planet in order to talk to someone at a branch location two blocks away.
And don't forget the reorganizations and mergers which leave customers confused about who to call for service--or worse, without anyonein the company who is trained and authorized to service their accounts.
Many of these kinds of problems are cheap and easy to fix if someone at a high enough level discovers the issue and takes an interest in correcting it. The root causes are usually apathy, confusion, organizational indifference, risk aversion, and the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. And often the problems are well known (to those in the trenches), or can be easily discovered just by taking a fresh look at how things do or don't work.
Unfortunately, making lots of small changes to correct organizational stupidity isn't usually seen as the best way to advance a career. The thinking goes that you want to be on the big project with the big budget in order to be on the path to glory.
That's too bad. It's usually best to make sure you're doing the little stuff right before spending time and money on giant expensive projects.
Posted by Peter Leppik
The Customer Service Oath
Tue - May 2, 2006 01:53 PM
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won loyalty of my customers, and seek to provide them with quality service such that their loyalty may increase.
I will apply, for the benefit of the disgruntled, all measures that are required, avoiding those twin traps of ignoring other customers and meeting anger with anger.
I will remember that there is art to service as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh giving in to the customer's every demand.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my supervisor when the skills of another are needed to resolve a customer's problem.
I will remember that I do not serve a bank account, a mobile phone, but a human being, whose annoyance may affect the person's happiness and my company's economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the customer.
I will prevent service problems whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and my job, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of customer service and may I long experience the joy of helping those who seek my help.
(Based on the modern Hippocratic Oath)
Posted by Peter Leppik
I will apply, for the benefit of the disgruntled, all measures that are required, avoiding those twin traps of ignoring other customers and meeting anger with anger.
I will remember that there is art to service as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh giving in to the customer's every demand.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my supervisor when the skills of another are needed to resolve a customer's problem.
I will remember that I do not serve a bank account, a mobile phone, but a human being, whose annoyance may affect the person's happiness and my company's economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the customer.
I will prevent service problems whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and my job, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of customer service and may I long experience the joy of helping those who seek my help.
(Based on the modern Hippocratic Oath)
Posted by Peter Leppik
They Start out Angry
Wed - April 5, 2006 03:41 PM
It's no secret that there are certain types of businesses we all love to hate. The cell phone company, the cable TV provider etc. As many of you know, VocaLabs periodically releases studies on how some of these institutions fare regarding customer care, and in general, the answer is "not very well".
But to be fair, we need to look deeper. Take banks for example. With the proliferation of electronic banking, an increasing percent of callers only need to call if there is a problem. And the problems are increasingly complex.
How do you get an IVR to tell you the money missing from your account were overdraft charges because some payroll clerk at the office was a few hours late this month in submitting the transfer data, while the credit card company wasn't in pulling the automatic withdrawal? You can't reason with a computer. And since just about everybody gets paid at the same time, the system is overloaded with callers needing to vent and ask for help from a live agent.
There is plenty of blame in this example to spread around. But designing a customer care application, whether automated or agent, that would resolve an issue like this and take a caller from panic to delight is near impossible. No one should be surprised that under such conditions, the banking industry gets such a poor grade in customer satisfaction.
In a classic example of "If the world gives you lemons, make lemonade." I saw a commercial on cable TV last night touting that Washington Mutual is automatically forgiving their customers one overdraft charge every year, no questions asked. That's a pretty good indication of out-of-box thinking and why WAMU consistently scores among the highest in customer satisfaction and loyalty of ALL companies in our database.
Posted by Rick Rappe
How do you get an IVR to tell you the money missing from your account were overdraft charges because some payroll clerk at the office was a few hours late this month in submitting the transfer data, while the credit card company wasn't in pulling the automatic withdrawal? You can't reason with a computer. And since just about everybody gets paid at the same time, the system is overloaded with callers needing to vent and ask for help from a live agent.
There is plenty of blame in this example to spread around. But designing a customer care application, whether automated or agent, that would resolve an issue like this and take a caller from panic to delight is near impossible. No one should be surprised that under such conditions, the banking industry gets such a poor grade in customer satisfaction.
In a classic example of "If the world gives you lemons, make lemonade." I saw a commercial on cable TV last night touting that Washington Mutual is automatically forgiving their customers one overdraft charge every year, no questions asked. That's a pretty good indication of out-of-box thinking and why WAMU consistently scores among the highest in customer satisfaction and loyalty of ALL companies in our database.
Posted by Rick Rappe
Let's Outlaw Acronyms (LOA)
Thu - March 16, 2006 02:43 PM
Many years ago I discovered that if one could speak in acronyms, one could often get by without actually knowing anything about the subject. First came the TLA (three letter acronym). IBM, AT&T, that wasn't too bad. But soon we had the ETLA (extended three letter acronym) and the DETLA (doubly extended three letter acronym).
Just out of college, I was selling database marketing services for Dunn & Bradstreet (D&B), and found that in those pre-desktop computer days dropping DETLAs such as EPSIDIC, COBAL, FORTRAN could buffalo most anyone.
Later when employed by Ma Bell, I found myself commenting that TLAs were not so much industry shorthand as they were a way to keep up profit margins. "If people know what it means, we can't charge as much for it."
This morning I was reading the daily blizzard of e-mails (a semi DETLA) inviting my company to participate in so many conferences and trade shows that if accepted meant my next night's sleep in my own bed would come in early 2007. I was trying to prioritize these events in order of relevance. It struck me that every single event promoter identifies themselves with acronyms, and that differentiating ICCM from ICMI from IQPC from ACCE from SOCAP, from INNUA, etc. was becoming impossible.
Then the mail arrived including a sponsorship invitation by TMC for IMS Expo. Now I know who TMC is, but am not 100% sure what TMC stands for, and I honestly drew a blank on IMS. So I reviewed the cover page to see if the answer was there. On a single page with just a few lines of copy were the following in order of appearance: TMC, IMS, ILECs, CLECs, ISPs, PTTs, VoIPs, IP, SIP, TMC and IMS again. And they missed a couple, actually spelling out the names for WSPs and CATVs.
It wasn't until page two that there was a definition of IMS as: IP Multimedia Subsystems, but since that didn't really help me any, I ain't going.
Posted by Rick Rappe'
Later when employed by Ma Bell, I found myself commenting that TLAs were not so much industry shorthand as they were a way to keep up profit margins. "If people know what it means, we can't charge as much for it."
This morning I was reading the daily blizzard of e-mails (a semi DETLA) inviting my company to participate in so many conferences and trade shows that if accepted meant my next night's sleep in my own bed would come in early 2007. I was trying to prioritize these events in order of relevance. It struck me that every single event promoter identifies themselves with acronyms, and that differentiating ICCM from ICMI from IQPC from ACCE from SOCAP, from INNUA, etc. was becoming impossible.
Then the mail arrived including a sponsorship invitation by TMC for IMS Expo. Now I know who TMC is, but am not 100% sure what TMC stands for, and I honestly drew a blank on IMS. So I reviewed the cover page to see if the answer was there. On a single page with just a few lines of copy were the following in order of appearance: TMC, IMS, ILECs, CLECs, ISPs, PTTs, VoIPs, IP, SIP, TMC and IMS again. And they missed a couple, actually spelling out the names for WSPs and CATVs.
It wasn't until page two that there was a definition of IMS as: IP Multimedia Subsystems, but since that didn't really help me any, I ain't going.
Posted by Rick Rappe'
It Matters Who You Hire, not Where You Hire Them
Tue - October 18, 2005 12:51 PM
The magic of fiber-optic communications has created a global market for talent in the customer service business. In a very real way, we're all still adjusting--economically and culturally--to this new reality.
Information Week published an editorial last week that captures this adjustment possibly in more depth than intended. On the one hand, we have British Telecom's Chief Procurement Officer calling BT's customers "bigots" for complaining about being sent to an Indian call center. On the other hand, we have the author of the editorial responding that no, the real problem is bad customer service and poorly-trained agents.
The truth is that both sides are right.
On the one hand, there are clearly some consumers who have become so sensitized to offshore customer service that they get upset at any hint of a foreign accent in a customer service agent. This happens, by the way, even if the agent is a U.S. citizen sitting in a call center in New Mexico.
On the other hand, no company offshores its customer service because they think it will provide better-quality service. The decision is alwaysbased on saving money. To the extent that quality is a consideration, it is to try to make sure the service quality doesn't degrade too much.
On the other other hand, it can be just as hard to find quality customer service agents in a domestic call center as it is to find them overseas. In a country like India, you probably have a better chance of attracting motivated and intelligent people to those jobs.
On the other other other hand, if companies placed a higher priority on customer service rather than treating it as a dead-end entry-level job to be escaped as fast as possible, then maybe it would be easier to attract better people.
I think I've about run out of hands.
But offshore customer service is here to stay, just like manufacturing is now a global industry. I expect that over time quality will improve as companies pay more attention to hiring the best people wherever they may be located. But even as the quality of the service improves, it will take a long time for consumers to get used to the idea that offshore service can be quality service.
Posted by Peter Leppik
The truth is that both sides are right.
On the one hand, there are clearly some consumers who have become so sensitized to offshore customer service that they get upset at any hint of a foreign accent in a customer service agent. This happens, by the way, even if the agent is a U.S. citizen sitting in a call center in New Mexico.
On the other hand, no company offshores its customer service because they think it will provide better-quality service. The decision is alwaysbased on saving money. To the extent that quality is a consideration, it is to try to make sure the service quality doesn't degrade too much.
On the other other hand, it can be just as hard to find quality customer service agents in a domestic call center as it is to find them overseas. In a country like India, you probably have a better chance of attracting motivated and intelligent people to those jobs.
On the other other other hand, if companies placed a higher priority on customer service rather than treating it as a dead-end entry-level job to be escaped as fast as possible, then maybe it would be easier to attract better people.
I think I've about run out of hands.
But offshore customer service is here to stay, just like manufacturing is now a global industry. I expect that over time quality will improve as companies pay more attention to hiring the best people wherever they may be located. But even as the quality of the service improves, it will take a long time for consumers to get used to the idea that offshore service can be quality service.
Posted by Peter Leppik
Who's Responsible?
Mon - October 10, 2005 04:03 PM
I've discovered that every company has a different idea about who is responsible for making sure that customers receive consistently satisfactory treatment.
In some companies, especially smaller ones, a call center supervisor may bear the triple duty of measuring agent performance, coaching agents, and making sure the phones get answered in a reasonable amount of time. These three duties can sometimes be mutually exclusive: for example, when a poorly-performing agent needs to be taken off the phones despite a surge in call volume.
Other companies divide up duties. For example, dedicated trainers or coaches who do nothing but work on the skills of individual agents, and operations managers who make tactical decisions to keep calls flowing smoothly and make sure the technology is working properly.
Some large companies have entire departments dedicated to nothing but quality assurance for customer interactions. They may do customer surveys, hire mystery shoppers, and devise entire incentive programs around trying to improve the customer experience. In a surprising example of corporate wisdom, some of these departments even report up through marketing rather than operations.
But no matter the formal structure, delivering a quality customer service experience always comes down to the front-line employee. And front-line employees are usually pretty good at figuring out a company's true priorities. If making a new sale is more important than keeping an existing customer happy, then the new customer will get more time and attention, even if it costs the loyalty of an existing customer in the process. Similarly, if keeping existing customers is the highest priority above all else, then strange things can happen when this priority gets translated into incentives at the front line.
There is no standard way to manage the customer experience in the same way most organizations consistently divide responsibility for things like finance, sales, IT, and marketing.
In the absence of proven management methods for ensuring customers have a satisfactory experience, a lot comes down to the priorities set by senior management. If they care about customer service, then customer service will be delivered. But if the executives have other things on their minds, then odds are the level of service will be indifferent at best.
Posted by Peter Leppik
Other companies divide up duties. For example, dedicated trainers or coaches who do nothing but work on the skills of individual agents, and operations managers who make tactical decisions to keep calls flowing smoothly and make sure the technology is working properly.
Some large companies have entire departments dedicated to nothing but quality assurance for customer interactions. They may do customer surveys, hire mystery shoppers, and devise entire incentive programs around trying to improve the customer experience. In a surprising example of corporate wisdom, some of these departments even report up through marketing rather than operations.
But no matter the formal structure, delivering a quality customer service experience always comes down to the front-line employee. And front-line employees are usually pretty good at figuring out a company's true priorities. If making a new sale is more important than keeping an existing customer happy, then the new customer will get more time and attention, even if it costs the loyalty of an existing customer in the process. Similarly, if keeping existing customers is the highest priority above all else, then strange things can happen when this priority gets translated into incentives at the front line.
There is no standard way to manage the customer experience in the same way most organizations consistently divide responsibility for things like finance, sales, IT, and marketing.
In the absence of proven management methods for ensuring customers have a satisfactory experience, a lot comes down to the priorities set by senior management. If they care about customer service, then customer service will be delivered. But if the executives have other things on their minds, then odds are the level of service will be indifferent at best.
Posted by Peter Leppik
Defending Against Customers
Tue - September 27, 2005 03:17 PM
What happened to "The Customer is Always Right"!
This question, shouted, growled, or grumbled, is likely to mark the very bottom of a bad customer service interaction. The customer wants something, but the company won't give it to him. All other arguments having been exhausted, the customer makes one final appeal: that he is entitled to what he wants simply because he is a customer.
This question, shouted, growled, or grumbled, is likely to mark the very bottom of a bad customer service interaction. The customer wants something, but the company won't give it to him. All other arguments having been exhausted, the customer makes one final appeal: that he is entitled to what he wants simply because he is a customer.
Of course, the reality is quite different. Any organization which grants every customer's whim is likely to quickly go out of business, since customers can be demanding creatures. Customers often want things which are expensive, impossible, unfair, or contrary to the needs of other customers.
So organizations develop defensive mechanisms: ways to deal with unreasonable demands without angering customers or appearing insensitive. Some of these defenses are as unsubtle as the Suggestion Box which gets emptied nightly by the janitor. In other instances, there may be elaborate procedures and review policies which nearly always lead to rejection after months or years of delay.
Every organization does this--it would be impossible to survive otherwise--and the first impulse is usually to reject anything unusual or unprecedented. So customers develop strategies for getting around the defensive mechanisms through persistence, creativity, or creating some appearance of a mass movement.
Tess Thompson in her blog Arch Words wrote about a classic example of this dynamic from her college days. She wanted her dining hall at Penn State to offer blue drinks.
Not for any deep philosophical reason, but just because she wanted to be able to mix drinks in every color of the rainbow. Since all the dining hall offered was shades of red and yellow, her palette was sadly limited.
In a classic example of an organization's defensive mechanism against customer requests, the dining hall invited students to fill out comment cards. One can safely assume that whimsical or outrageous requests--like "Please offer blue drinks"--went straight to the circular file.
I won't give away the ending to the story (go read it yourself), but Tess provides a great illustration of the lengths some customers will go to get around an organization's defenses.
Posted by Peter Leppik
So organizations develop defensive mechanisms: ways to deal with unreasonable demands without angering customers or appearing insensitive. Some of these defenses are as unsubtle as the Suggestion Box which gets emptied nightly by the janitor. In other instances, there may be elaborate procedures and review policies which nearly always lead to rejection after months or years of delay.
Every organization does this--it would be impossible to survive otherwise--and the first impulse is usually to reject anything unusual or unprecedented. So customers develop strategies for getting around the defensive mechanisms through persistence, creativity, or creating some appearance of a mass movement.
Tess Thompson in her blog Arch Words wrote about a classic example of this dynamic from her college days. She wanted her dining hall at Penn State to offer blue drinks.
Not for any deep philosophical reason, but just because she wanted to be able to mix drinks in every color of the rainbow. Since all the dining hall offered was shades of red and yellow, her palette was sadly limited.
In a classic example of an organization's defensive mechanism against customer requests, the dining hall invited students to fill out comment cards. One can safely assume that whimsical or outrageous requests--like "Please offer blue drinks"--went straight to the circular file.
I won't give away the ending to the story (go read it yourself), but Tess provides a great illustration of the lengths some customers will go to get around an organization's defenses.
Posted by Peter Leppik