One of the reasons we do customer feedback is because customers have a different view of a company than the company has of itself. Getting that outside perspective is important not only because you want to please your customers. It's also often the case that customers see inside the company's own internal blind spots.
It's common for companies to have lots of internal moving parts that have some friction between them. This is especially true when the company has been around a long time, or has grown through multiple acquisitions. There can be very complicated multilayered processes to help all the pieces work together, and when thing go well all of this should be invisible to the customer.
But the more complicated the processes and organization, the more likely it will be that there will be gaps. That's where getting the outside view can be extremely helpful.
Because chances are if you have gaps in your processes, there's customers falling into it. They may not understand what exactly is going wrong, but they will definitely notice that they aren't getting the level of service they expect. Maybe calls aren't being returned, or paperwork is getting lost, or customers are getting incorrect invoices. But whatever the situation, the customers know that their expectations aren't being met.
Chances are that any process issues like this are relatively rare, because if they were common they would have been noticed and fixed.
(If problems like this are common, then you might have a completely different set of issues like systemic mismanagement or even fraud. Wells Fargo probably had lots of customer complaints about fraudulent accounts, but senior leadership had a strong incentive to ignore them.)
Just because a problem is rare doesn't make it any less important to the customer who experiences it. And some of those process gaps can be very expensive in terms of added customer service cost, lost business, and even legal expenses if the situation is bad enough.
Fortunately, it's not hard to bring the customer's perspective into your organization to shine a spotlight on your blind spots:
The key is to remember that there are two sides to every story, and two views of every company. Often we're blind to the problems inside our own organization, maybe because we've become habituated to them, or maybe because they don't seem as important as they should be. Getting the customer's view can help see gaps that live in your blind spots.
This has been a bad week for United Airlines. After making news for having a paying customer dragged off a plane, bloody and unconscious, for refusing to accept $800 to take a later flight, another slightly-less-horrible story emerged of a United first-class customer who was threatened with handcuffs if he didn't give up his seat to a "higher priority" first class passenger.
It's no surprise these stories went viral. They've got everything: giant faceless corporation beating up its customers (literally!), tales of woe about how unpleasant air travel has become, astonishingly tone-deaf non-apology. At least United didn't also kick puppies and kittens out of spite.
But there's another side to this story, one with some important lessons for Customer Experience. Because at the exact same time United was digging itself furiously into a PR hole, Delta managed to score some positive press when a customer wrote about getting paid $11,000 not to fly in the middle of Delta's own system-wide scheduling fiasco.
On paper this should have been a terrible week for Delta, too, since the airline cancelled thousands of flights after severe weather rolled through Atlanta. And there were certainly stories out there about customers struggling to get home and chaos in airports. So why is it United that lost a billion dollars in market value and not Delta?
The answer lies in an interesting pair of statistics: among the four largest airlines, Delta overbooks the most. But Delta, in contrast to its competitors, almost never bumps passengers involuntarily. Instead, Delta tries harder to get passengers to give up their seats willingly in exchange for compensation.
That's how a family was able to score $11,000 by negotiating with Delta for not flying. Delta empowers its staff to offer more compensation in exchange for customers willingly freeing up seats.
Meanwhile United apparently decided to draw the line at $800. When nobody was willing to accept that to give up their seat, they had left themselves no option but to remove already-seated passengers from the plane, by force if necessary. In hindsight, United probably wishes they had been a little more flexible and offered more money.
There's two CX lessons Delta has figured out that United hasn't. First, sometimes it's better to spend a little more money upfront to keep customers happy and avoid bad publicity. That's obvious.
Second, and more important, Delta understands that there is a segment of their customer base who likes making deals, customers who think about overbooked flights with anticipation, not dread, since they see an opportunity to score cash and free travel. Customers who get so excited about getting paid $11,000 to cancel a family vacation that they write articles about how they did it.
The accountants will probably do the math and say that Delta paid way too much to free up six seats total (from a family of three who cancelled a round-trip). That's almost $2,000 per seat, way more than the amount Delta would have been legally required to pay for involuntarily bumping those passengers. But what the purely financial analysis doesn't take into account is the fact that people hate being bumped involuntarily. There's a cost associated with forcing a customer to give up his seat against his will.
Usually that cost is hard to quantify, but this week it because large and obvious. Don't fall into the trap of ignoring the hidden cost of bad customer experience.
We've published the 104th edition of Quality Times, Vocalabs mostly-monthly newsletter about customer feedback and related topics. In this month's issue we discuss how it could be that the American Customer Satisfaction Index is showing increased scores for several retailers who are closing stores and losing customers.
As always, I hope you find our newsletter interesting and informative. Subscribers should have already received their emailed copies, and if you want to subscribe too, you can sign up here.
Back when news broke of Wells Fargo's fraudulent account scandal there was some speculation that we might be hearing of similar problems at other large banks. Wells Fargo is not the only large bank with aggressive sales goals and a punitive approach to employees who miss their targets.
Similar problems--though perhaps not as severe--are now coming to light among Canada's five largest banks. A CBC News investigation has led to thousands of reports from current and former employees detailing aggressive sales targets, punitive management practices, and pressure to sell customers products they didn't want or weren't in their best interests. A few laws may have been broken along the way.
It may seem strange that banks, traditionally stewards of their customers' assets, have succumbed to high-pressure sales tactics more at home on a used car lot. But this is a natural consequence of viewing the customer relationship as something to extract value from, rather than something to nurture and grow over time.
It's similar to a farmer deciding what to grow each year. Not all crops are created equal. Some are more valuable, some extract nutrients from the soil, some require more pesticides, and so forth. A good farmer won't just plant the most profitable crop every single year, since that's likely to deplete the soil and encourage pests. Over the long term, it's better for the farmer's bottom line and the health of the land to look for a tradeoff between what's profitable now vs. what's going to keep the farm sustainable over the long term. So while you could make a little more money now, it comes at the expense of future earnings.
Banking relationships are often measured in decades, so it's natural to think that they should be carefully tended like a farmer's fields. But we are long past the time when a bank's owners were local civic leaders interested in the health of the community and willing to take a long-term view. Today's large banks are publicly-traded corporations owned by financial investors who are mostly interested in quarterly growth and are perfectly willing to replace management teams who don't deliver. The pressure to risk long-term customer relationships for short-term profitability can be hard to resist.
Chances are that plenty of people have known for a long time that something was wrong in the five Canadian banks in the CBC report. I don't imagine that managers enjoy berating longtime employees over sales targets, any more than longtime employees enjoy being beat up over unrealistic goals.
It's likely that these banks will be paying the price for a long time, both in short-term loss of business and bad publicity, and in long-term customer distrust and regulatory oversight.
I don't have any magic prescription for avoiding these kinds of situations, other than to say that both employees and customers probably would have told the companies that things were going wrong if only they had been asked and the leadership had sincerely listened.
Instead, five major Canadian banks today find themselves issuing bland PR statements about employee codes of conduct and gearing up for government investigations.
Just some random Customer Experience musings on a Wednesday afternoon:
American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) data for the retail industry was released this week, and the folks over at Consumerist noticed something, well, odd. Scores for Sears, JC Penny, and Macy's took huge leaps in 2016--despite the fact that those traditional department stores have been closing stores in the face of sustained sales declines and changing consumer tastes. In addition, Abercrombie & Fitch, a speciality clothing retailer, also posted a big ACSI gain despite struggling to actually sell stuff.
The idea that customer satisfaction scores would jump as the companies are losing customers seems counterintuitive to say the least. The ACSI analyst gamely suggested that shorter lines and less-crowded stores are leading to higher customer satisfaction and, yeah, I'm not buying it.
I'd like to suggest some alternate hypotheses to explain why these failing retailers are posting improved ACSI scores:
Before trying to explain why ACSI scores might be up, it's worth asking whether these companies' scores are actually improving, or whether it might just be a statistical blip.
Unfortunately, ACSI doesn't provide much help in trying to answer this question. In their report (at least the one you can download for free) there's no indication of margin of error or the statistical significance of any changes. They do disclose that a total of about 12,000 consumers completed their survey, but that's not helpful given that we don't know how many consumers answered the questions about Sears, JC Penny, etc.
With this kind of research there's always a temptation to exaggerate the statistical significance of any findings--after all, you don't want to go through all the effort just to publish a report that says, "nothing changed since last year." So I'm always skeptical when the report doesn't even make a passing reference to whether a change is meaningful or not.
It could be that these four companies saw big fluctuations in their scores simply because they don't have many customers anymore and the sample size for those companies is very small. There's nothing in the report to rule this possibility out.
We know that even though surveys like ACSI purport to collect opinions about specific aspects of customer satisfaction, consumer responses are strongly colored by their overall brand loyalty and affinity.
So as these shrinking brands lose customers, we expect the least-loyal customers to leave first. That means the remaining customers will, on the whole, be more loyal and more likely to give higher customer satisfaction scores than the ones who left.
In other words, these companies' survey scores are going up not because the customer experience is any better, but because only the true die-hard fans are still shopping there.
If this is the case, then the improved ACSI scores are real but not very helpful to the companies. They are circling the drain with an ever-smaller core group of more and more loyal customers.
This is a hard theory to test. If ACSI has longitudinal data (i.e. they survey some of the same customers each year) then it might be possible to tease out changes in customer populations from changes in customer experience.
Finally, it's worth asking whether the ACSI is simply no longer relevant. The theory behind ACSI is that more-satisfied customers will lead to more customer loyalty and higher sales, all else being equal. But the details are important, and the specific methodology of ACSI was developed over 20 years ago, based on research originally done in the 1980's.
I know that ACSI has made some changes over the years (for example, they now collect data through email), but I don't know if they've evolved the survey questions and scoring to keep up with changes in customer expectations and technology. Back in 1994 when ACSI launched, not only did we not have Facebook and Twitter, but Amazon.com had only just been founded, and most people didn't even have access to the Internet.
So if the index hasn't kept up enough, it's possible that ACSI is putting too much weight on things that don't matter to a 21st century consumer, and missing new things that are important.
I'm only picking on ACSI because their report is fresh. The fact is that interpreting survey data is hard, and it's important to explore alternate explanations for the results. Even when the data perfectly fits your prior assumptions you may be missing something important without looking at competing theories.
It's entirely possible that ACSI did exactly that, tested all three of my alternate theories and others, and they have some internal data that supports their explanation that, "Fewer customers can lead to shorter lines, faster checkout, and more attention from the sales staff." But if they went through that analysis there's no evidence of it in their published report.
When the survey results are unexpected, you really need to explore what's going on and not just reach for the first explanation that's remotely plausible.
We published the 103rd issue of our newsletter, Quality Times, today. We've published the 2016 results for the National Customer Service Survey for Banking, and this month's newsletter focuses on some of the changes we've seen this year. We also discuss some of the unique challenges in trying to apply the Net Promoter Score to a business-to-business survey.
This newsletter is one of the ways we get to know prospective clients. So if you find this useful and informative, please subscribe and pass it along to other people who might also enjoy it.
We've published the 2016 results of the National Customer Service Survey on Banking. This ongoing research tracks the customer service quality at Bank of America, Chase, Citi, and Wells Fargo in a continuous data set going back to 2011.
The most striking change in our survey scores in 2016 is the continued decline in Citi's metrics, which have declined substantially over the past two years. Citi now ranks last in eight of the nine survey scores we track.
We don't know why Citi has seen such a drop in our survey, but we speculate that it might be related to Citi's partnership with Costco. It's been widely reported in the media that onboarding the Costco customers took longer and was more of a challenge than had been expected. If Citi had been diverting resources from its regular customer service to manage that transition, that would explain the results we're seeing. If that's the case, we would also expect to see Citi's numbers rebound now that the Costco transition is complete.
The other interesting result this year is a case of something we didn't see: We saw no decline in survey scores at Wells Fargo despite the company's fraudulent account scandal. We think this is because of two factors: first, news of the fraudulent accounts broke midway through 2016, meaning that about half our survey sample was collected before it became widely known. Second, our survey is intended to measure the quality of customer service and not reputation. Unless a specific Wells Fargo customer in our survey had been personally impacted by the company's fraud, he or she isn't likely to rate the customer service any lower as a result of the news.
The executive summary of this report is available for free download, and the full data including customer comments and interview recordings is available by subscription.
Language Log has coined the word "Nerdview" to describe the common situation of writing in technical terms for a non-technical audience. Nerdviews are all around us, to the point where we hardly even notice them anymore.
For example, asking you to input the "CVV2" on your credit card to process an online payment is a classic nerdview, since unless you are in the payment industry you would have no reason to know what a CVV2 is or how to find it. This is so common that most people have figured out that the CVV2 is the three-digit security code on the back of a credit card--even though most cards don't label the code "CVV2" or give any other indication of what it's for.
Nerdviews almost always lead to a worse customer experience, and should be avoided whenever possible. But that can be a challenge because oftentimes the people who have to decide how to communicate important information to the general public are the same ones who are experts in their own narrow field. It can be hard to step outside your expertise and think like a novice.
My personal favorite nerdview was one I encountered many years ago at Vocalabs. One of our clients was an insurance company, and in their automated customer service system one of the prompts asked, "Do you want to know your withdrawal value or your redemption value?" Unless you are in the insurance business, chances are you don't know that a life insurance policy can have two different values, much less what they mean.
Finding and avoiding nerdviews is almost always worthwhile, but it can be a challenge. Nerdviews tend to become invisible to us once we figure out what they mean. Humans are adaptable, and even if you were mystified the first time a government form asked you for your "DOB", chances are the next time you remembered that it meant "Date of Birth" and hardly even noticed.
Here are some tips for uncovering nerdviews:
And remember that even if you don't think you're a nerd, we are all nerds about something. Remember your audience, and stay away from the nerdview.
Imagine taking a college class, and at the beginning of the semester the Professor announces, "For this class, we're not going to be handing back any of your papers or exams, and we won't tell you any of your grades on individual assignments and tests. The only grade you'll get is your final grade at the end of the semester which will be an average of all your work."
You wouldn't expect to learn much in this class. In order to improve, you would want to know what you were doing well at and where you needed to improve throughout the semester. You would want specific feedback about specific things you had done.
And yet many customer feedback programs are structured just like this insane Professor's class. Somehow we expect employees to know how to improve despite only getting an average survey score every month or every quarter.
In order to make a survey program helpful, we need to give people the chance to connect specific customer feedback to specific things the employee did to garner that feedback. We also need to help employees think about the feedback as constructive criticism so they have the tools to apply the feedback to their daily customer interactions.
Here are some tips to help make this happen:
There are, of course, real concerns about managing the delivery of customer feedback to employees. But the solution is better coaching and supervision, not giving people so little feedback that it becomes useless.
Let us put our expertise in customer feedback to work for you.