Register  |   Contact Us  |  Log in

Home » Our Viewpoint » What Do Web Chat and Segways Have in Common?

Our Viewpoint

What Do Web Chat and Segways Have in Common?

By Hannah Hellebush

It happens often; a new product or idea is immediately heralded as the next big thing and although there’s a lot of buzz surrounding it, the actual “innovation” turns out to be a dud.

Even the savviest among us aren’t immune to the hype circling “the next big thing.”  Steve Jobs thought the Segway, a personal transportation device, was about to become a revolutionary innovation in 2001, placing it in the same category of ‘cool’ as personal computers. Nine years later it’s clear that Segways have not become the preferred mode of transportation for the 21st Century. The opinion of mall cop squadrons aside, it is safe to say Segways have not lived up to their initial billing.

In the customer service world, there has been a similar level of excitement around Web chat as a new service channel with considerable cost-savings and customer experience enhancement potential.  In addition, many members we talk to tell us they are investing in chat in an effort to “keep up with the Joneses” (i.e., competitors are doing it, so we need to as well).  But despite all of the enthusiasm about this new channel, CCC members who implemented chat often tell us they have difficulty realizing a healthy ROI.  Across our conversations with members, we’ve identified a few of the major impediments to a successful chat implementation. 

The first obstacle is customer receptivity.  Chat generally doesn’t strike confidence in the hearts of customers. CCC data shows that only 38% of customers are confident that their issue will be resolved in chat, the lowest of all channels assessed in our survey (including phone, Web, and e-mail).  Not surprisingly, only 4% of customers list chat as their preferred channel to resolve an issue. 

Why are customers generally down on chat?  There are two reasons:

  1. Chat Can’t Address Complex Issues: There are limits to the types of questions that can be answered through chat – due to legality or complexity.  In fact, 38% of customers who couldn’t resolve their issue in Web chat say it was because the issue was too complex.
  2. Reps Use Scripted Responses: A further 36% of customers say their issue was unresolved in Web chat because they felt the rep’s responses were scripted.  In a rush to handle multiple chats at once, reps often rely on scripts that don’t quite answer the customer’s question.  

Aside from the dubious customer experience benefits of chat, many companies make the business case for the technology based on assumed cost savings that never materialize.  We’ve seen, more often than not, that companies struggle to get to the level of concurrent chats necessary to make chat a cheaper channel than phone.  While theoretically reps can handle multiple chat conversations at once, most companies have discovered that reps should handle no more than 2-3 chats concurrently (the average is 2.5). Handling more than 3 chats noticeably increases response time and degrades the chat quality.

When frustrated customers leave chat and pick up the phone, not only are they now in a disloyal state (our data shows that customers who channel switch are 10% more likely to be disloyal), but the company is likely seeing its costs double (i.e., the chat rep and the phone rep are simultaneously trying to resolve the customer’s issue).

Despite these drawbacks, chat is not without some merit as a service tool.  We have seen some enterprising companies leverage this technology in unique ways that help to circumvent some of the obstacles described above.  One such organization is EarthLink, a member that uses chat for both proactive sales and service outreach (CCC members, check out Earthlink’s best practice chat strategies for both sales and service).  The company has developed highly refined algorithms based on customer clickstream patterns to help identify those Web visitors who are most likely to either purchase products or services or are demonstrating behavior that suggests they may “bail out” of the Web self-service channel.  When used in this way, chat can actually help to drive revenues or prevent calls.

Now, what to do with that Segway?

Let us know what you think. Have you seen Web chat used well?

Related posts:

  1. Channel Choice: More Detrimental Than You Think
  2. Putting E-mail in my Delete Box
  3. Sifting Through the Noise in Customer Data
  4. How to Become More Customer Centric on a Shoestring Budget
  5. Are You A Low-Effort Service Organization?

Comments from the Network (4)

  1. Jonathan
    on July 22, 2010
    Respond

    I think you may be doing a great disservice to on-line chat. You spent most of the time describing Generation 2 dynamic reactive chat that we all know has it’s challenges. You project the challenges across seamingly all chat. In the very end you describe Earthlink as a best in class. That is because they leverage LIVEperson 3rd generation proactive chat back-stopped by a dynamic reactive chat button. 3rd Generation Chat is very effective in driving online sales and service at the moment of truth when the customer demonstates a need for some help. It proactivly recognizes it and invites the customer to chat as long as agents are available.

    Please research the value of 3rd Generation chat and write it up rather then spending time on old technology and misleading the reader.

    Thanks,

    JD

  2. Tweets that mention Customer Service Buzz » What do Web Chat and Segways Have in Common? — Topsy.com
    on July 22, 2010
    Respond

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Derek Jenkins, Jordy Leiser. Jordy Leiser said: …interesting post on the topic, comparing the introduction of web chat to the introduction of segways http://bit.ly/dxlxoh #custserv [...]

  3. homer
    on July 23, 2010
    Respond

    Indeed one must consider the audience or client for Web Chat. If your Clients are in a hospital with little to no Internet access, or little time to type in a Web Chat, then the return on investment may be minute. And keep in mind that in a contact center, while you may be able to achieve higher live ‘answer’ rates with small numbers of agents for telephone, you may actually need more agents to achieve live answer rates on web chat and phone. An be very careful on automated web chat agents, that read key words and is not a real human interaction.

  4. Lauren Pragoff
    on August 4, 2010
    Respond

    Jonathan–thanks for your feedback. CCC certainly agrees with your opinion that the 3rd generation chat can be used quite effectively, and EarthLink is a prime example of the proactive chat approach in action (we’ve profiled EarthLink’s proactive chat for both service and sales, which you can find on the CCC web site via the link in the body of the blog). To explain our attention on the 2nd generation reactive chat, we find that most companies we speak with that are considering chat technology continue to focus on this reactive approach rather than beginning with the proactive approach. Our purpose, then, in focusing on 2nd generation pitfalls was to continue the dialog about the various approaches to chat and the challenges that companies can expect to encounter, particularly with reactive chat. You make a very good point in saying that not all chat is created equal and that companies should not dismiss the technology altogether. Instead, they should proceed with caution–and ideally pursue a 3rd generation proactive chat strategy should they acquire chat technology. Thanks for raising the question.

Add Your Comment

Log in

Commenting Guidelines

We hope conversations will be energetic, constructive, and provocative. All posts will be reviewed by our editors and may be edited for clarity, length, and relevance.

We ask that you adhere to the following guidelines.

1. No selling of products or services.

2. No ad hominem attacks. These are conversations in which we debate ideas. Criticize ideas, not the people behind them.

Switch to: Mobile Version

More in Our Viewpoint (144 of 171 articles)