It’s officially 2012, and, again this year, we’re hearing “2012 is the year of mobile commerce“. We heard it in 2011 too. Did we hear it in 2010? Yep. In fact, as far back as 2007, pundits and observers have been prophesizing that the days of whipping out our phones to pay for all sorts of retail sundries are just around the corner.

First, I think it’s probably important to get some definitions right. As the Forbes link above says, I think it’s fair to say that mobile-enabled e-commerce does not equal mobile commerce, at least strictly speaking. When you buy a book from Amazon on your iPad, you’re not engaging in mobile commerce per se – you’re using an e-commerce portal adapted for your mobile device. “Mobile commerce” is probably best described as shopping that takes advantage of unique properties of mobile devices.

So, why doesn’t it ever seem to happen – and when it does, why does the development in the space seem to happen so slowly?

VentureBeat took that subject on a few days ago. They posit that there are two big barriers to widespread adoption of mobile payments and commerce:

• The lack of a developed, recognized standard. There is an industry-wide standard for credit cards, and processors work such that almost any credit card can be swiped at almost any retail point of sale, and the transaction will go through. The same is absolutely not true for mobile payments, at least not yet: retailers wishing to accept mobile payments have to guess what kind of phones their customers use, and potentially install multiple pieces of hardware to handle the transactions.
• The significant cost of updating retail infrastructure. Hand in hand with the lack of certainty around a particular processing standard is the big cost retailers face in upgrading their infrastructure to handle mobile payments. Big retailers often use purpose-built or highly-customized point of sale software, designed to integrate smoothly with inventory and payment processing systems – positive qualities that make implementation of a new payment method prohibitively difficult and expensive. Included under this heading is the cost of training new staff to use the equipment – no small feat.

To this, I’d add one more: consumers just don’t seem to be interested. And I can’t entirely blame them. I might be being small-minded here, but it sounds like there’s no inherent advantage to whipping out one’s phone to pay for a retail transaction vs. whipping out one’s credit card.  (Notable exception: the Starbucks Card Mobile app enables customers to load gift cards into a single app and then simply scan their smartphone to pay the cashier instead of keeping up with multiple gift cards.)

In the development of other forms of e-commerce, there was a real sticking point – the need to get up and go to a store to get books and other items, for instance – and there doesn’t appear to be one here. Unless it’s possible with mobile payments to walk out of a store without checking out – and it sounds like that day is very, very far in the future – I just don’t see the draw, at least in a retail setting.

So, I won’t go the easy pundit’s route, and say 2012 is the year of mobile commerce. I think 2012, and 2013 for that matter, will be years of mobile-enabled e-commerce – a series of incremental innovations designed to make the buying experience easier for mobile users. There’s real growth in that – maybe not whiz-bang growth, but growth nonetheless – and it’s something worth pursuing.

How do you KNOW that customers PRERER to call you?

The fact that customers still call (indeed, even that they call after having visited the website) should not be seen as proof that the live phone is the preferred channel.  In all likelihood, the reason why many of your customers still call is because your website has failed them in some way.

The key, then, to understanding how customers prefer to interact with your company—online or in another channel—is to ask the customer directly rather than making assumptions based on customer behavior.  This sounds like an in-depth survey process (and certainly it could be), but there are shortcut ways that companies are unearthing channel switching root cause drivers in a low-cost way.

Specifically, Fidelity Investments discovered a low-tech, customer-friendly method to capture customers’ reasons for abandoning Web self-service for live channels.  They use inbound calls as opportunities to conduct two-question surveys to gather in-the-moment customer feedback about the company’s online self-service and customers’ reasons for switching to the phone.

In addition, Fidelity is very careful about phrasing the questions so that the survey does not come across as an attempt to push self-service but rather a learning exercise.  We believe this is a big part of the strategy’s success—customers are not made to feel as though the company doesn’t want them to call.  Instead, the company simply wants to know more about what customers want from them.

CCC members, learn more about Fidelity’s two-question framework in a new summary here.

Related CCC Resources:

1. Improving Web Self-Service with Customer Voice (Event Replay)
2. Full Case Study: Fidelity’s Channel-Switching VOC
3. Diagnosing Online Failures (Study Chapter)

• The Next Frontier of Rep Performance—when we heard from our members that rep performance was stalling despite continued investments in talent, we decided to take a closer look at what drives performance in the service organization today. What did we find? While traditional skill sets are still important, most reps were missing a crucial piece of the rep performance puzzle—one that has more than twice the impact on performance as any other factor. We call this set of skills and behaviors the Control Quotient (CQ), which quantifies a rep’s ability to exercise ownership over their day-to-day work, as well as to remain in control over themselves in stressful situations. In today’s quality-driven world, CQ is the number one lever that companies can pull to boost performance in their frontline.
• Training Resources—as mentioned above, 2011 was a big year for upskilling staff and renewed efforts to drive performance across the service organization. To help members teach our ideas as easily as possible to their staffs, we’ve developed a full suite of ready-to-use training resources based on our best practice insights. These modules are designed to fully introduce and reinforce the concepts of experience engineering, personality-based service, and world-class coaching to frontline staff and supervisors.
• Managing Multichannel Contacts—continuing a trend we’ve observed across the last few years, our members today are serving customers in more channels than ever before. To help them strategize about the right channels to enter, as well as the best way to manage these diverse service channels, in 2011 we published new research on social media, customer communities, and e-mail, as well as proactive alerts to help our members stay one step ahead in serving their customers.
• Modernizing the Quality Assurance Function—as we looked across the CCC membership to gauge how companies are assessing quality today, two things were clear. One: delivering high-quality customer experiences is more important today than ever before. And two: for the most part, companies have yet to evolve their traditional QA processes to keep up with this increased focus on quality. We’ve learned how progressive organizations are taking a new approach to quality assurance and, in doing so, ensuring the best possible outcomes for staff and customers alike.

Here’s to a successful end to 2011 and a Happy New Year from CCC!

Customer Service Buzz Readers—what other topics were on your mind in 2011? What was your favorite CCC insight or blog?

As it turns out, the prophecy has somewhat come true.

In this case, though, it’s not people setting up their own DIY call centers, but instead service and support organizations increasingly catering to DIYers.

In an interesting recent Wall Street Journal article, vacuum cleaner, lawn mower, and snow blower companies all report that they have seen an uptick in call volume from customers who increasingly are self-troubleshooting but getting stuck mid-way and calling for help.

Apparently this is yet another indication that cash-strapped and budget-minded customers are trying to get a little more mileage out of their current products instead of running to an expensive repair shop or purchasing new products.

As a result of this influx of DIY-related call volume, a number of companies have indicated that they are hiring additional staff to support this demand.

Here are a few ideas to minimize the need for additional staffing and to help to DIYers help themselves further.

1. Publish help videos on YouTube. Companies such as Dell have some very helpful troubleshooting videos—nay, a troubleshooting channel—which can make technical support much easier in certain circumstances.  Putting videos on YouTube in addition to a company Web site increases the likely that a customer will come across the information when searching for a solution using a search engine.

2. Make it easy to understand warranty coverage.  This admittedly can require some technology investment if you need to build out in self-service channels.  Even if your site doesn’t allow customers to log in and find out their specific coverage, it should be readily apparent on the Web what is and isn’t covered under particular warranty policies and what the timeframe is for the warranties.

3. Path customers to the right place on the Web to find the technical support. CCC has a lot of research on the importance of guiding customers to the correct place for troubleshooting in self-service channels, including an interesting idea from a high tech company on designing the support page to guide particular customer segments.  We’re continuing to conduct new research on guided customer experiences, so if you’re interested in learning more about this, please let us know.

But can QR codes effectively be used in service?

A service executive recently asked me this question, and to be perfectly honest I’d never considered it.  I always looked at those funny little black-and-white boxes as one more marketing tool to get me to read something or watch a video on a product that I may be interested in purchasing.  But this question prompted me to broaden my thinking a little and the more I considered it the more I realized that there may be some good service opportunities nestled in those tiny little boxes.

For instance:

1)      Push to Self-Service – the QR code is an easier way to communicate a link to a customer & can instantly place them in your Web self-service to resolve issues, answer questions and perform transactions.

2)      Offer an Up-Sell – if a customer is willing to scan the QR code to learn more why not offer them additional products and services while they’re on the site, too?

3)      Survey Customers – include the QR code at the bottom of a receipt and send the customer to a survey asking about overall experience and customer experience.

What’s your take?  Is there a future in service for QR codes?  Or should we say, “Thanks, but no thanks” to adding this functionality to our current offering?

CCC Resources:

1)      Create principled incentives to drive self-service adoption.

2)      In a live interaction, teach customers about the benefits of self-service.

3)      Read a recent discussion about migrating B2B customers to self-service.

Complaints about long e-mail chains, delayed responses, and unclear (or worse, scripted) information are earning e-mail a reputation of being ineffective in issue resolution. Indeed, CCC data shows that customers lack confidence in this channel’s issue resolution capabilities when compared to other channels such as phone or web self-service.

That said, with almost 1.9 billion e-mail users worldwide and 480 million new e-mail users added in the period 2009-2010, e-mail is a high potential customer support channel. So why are companies struggling to crack the channel? In fact, is it the channel the culprit at all or simply the way companies use it for issue resolution?

CCC’s new research helps companies rethink their e-mail support strategies by focusing on three considerations:

• Whether or not e-mail is right for your organization—With a proliferation of contact channels and a dynamic customer base, it is a good time to re-evaluate why you have e-mail in your support channel offerings. Does e-mail fulfill your customer’s needs? A good starting point—compare your company’s true e-mail resolution costs with your other resolution channels to see if you are optimizing email as a channel.
• How to build customer confidence in e-mail—Customers expect the same quality of service and issue resolution via e-mail as they do on phone. This is a challenging task for e-mail, however, as e-mails are not as well-suited as live conversations for complex issue resolution. Leading companies improve e-mail resolution quality by focusing on issues suited to e-mail, while simultaneously investing in rep skill building and streamlining e-mail processes.
• How to make e-mail management more efficient—Often companies have competent staff but huge e-mail volumes. This makes timely and high quality responses to customer queries a constant challenge. Learn how companies manage such volumes and drive rep efficiency, by focusing on improving staffing processes and technology.

Read more in CCC’s new research on e-mail as a support channel to learn how companies can make e-mail an effective channel for service.

Does your company use e-mail for customer support? Is it “everything to everyone” or do you have a more tailored approach?

Related CCC Resources:

• E-mail (Topic Center)
• Evaluate the E-Mail Opportunity
• Improve E-Mail Resolution Effectiveness
• E-Mail Technology and Capacity Considerations

By Kirsten Robinson

Did you miss our webinar featuring what you need to know about social media?

If so, worry not—we’ve compiled key ideas and takeaways discussed during our Q&A with Cindi Freeburn, Director of Community at QVC, and Joanna Howard, Head of Strategy at BT. Cindi and Joanna told us how their companies are using social media as a customer service channel, including insights covering:

-Using social media to provide technical support

-How to measure the ROI of social media activities

-Whether reps should specialize in one channel or work across platforms

-Lessons learned and advice for using social media as a service tool

CCC members, find out the key insights you missed and learn how QVC and BT use social media as a customer service channel.

As healthcare insurers in the U.S. prepare for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to take effect, CCC is paying particular attention to how these changes to the law will impact the contact center and the relationship between customers and service going forward.

We recently had a CCC member in the healthcare insurance industry reach out to discuss her ideas and get our perspective on how to best prepare for these changes, and for the good of all of our members in the healthcare industry, I thought I would share some thoughts from that conversation:

One of the biggest implications of new healthcare laws is greater choice for consumers. This choice will come in the form of marketplaces, also called healthcare exchanges, that will allow individuals and smaller employers to shop for insurance coverage and compare plans side-by-side. The new laws will also enable greater mobility, allowing consumers greater freedom to switch plans and providers.

But with these new choices comes uncertainty for customers—and, more likely than not, additional calls for companies to answer. The question is this: are you prepared to deal with the influx of customer contacts resulting from the new legislation? And, more broadly than that, how should healthcare insurers adjust their strategy for serving customers under these new laws?

For starters, CCC has several existing resources to help members forecast and staff for higher-than-normal call volumes, a likely result as consumers struggle to grasp the implications of new laws on their coverage and benefits:

• Forecasting for Expected Call Spikes – Healthcare insurers can get ahead of expected increases in call volume by considering other methods for forecasting and workforce planning. While many healthcare providers currently forecast based on a fixed number of anticipated calls per customer/month, alternative models may allow for more accurate forecasting given changing consumer behavior.

• Forecasting for Unexpected Call Spikes – Even the best-laid plans are no match for an unforeseen issue that spurs customer calls, but progressive companies have policies and procedures in place to deal with the unexpected and ensure that customers can still be served.

Thinking more strategically, though, one of the biggest opportunities for healthcare insurers to ease the burden on their contact centers is to prepare for this customer uncertainty in advance by providing opportunities for customers to easily self-serve and answer their own questions. So don’t just think about how your organization will handle new call volume…think about how you will avoid it altogether. From our research, CCC knows that customer preferences are actually trending toward self-service, and we have an entire section of our Web site dedicated to resources related to self-service.

In the case of healthcare insurers, this self-service would likely be just one component of a larger, cross-functional effort designed to educate customers on the laws and changes coming down the pike, but contact centers should pay special consideration to:

• Guiding customers to the right channel to solve their problem
• Designing Web sites for issue resolution by assessing existing failure points
• Writing smart, consumable FAQs to answer customer questions regarding the new legislation

CCC Buzz readers, we’d love to hear from you. How are you managing the changes resulting from new U.S healthcare legislation?

Related CCC Resources:

-       Workforce Management Topic Center

-       Self-Service and Multichannel Topic Center

-       Consumable FAQ Rules (Travelocity)

In a recent blog written by Pete and Lauren, 55% readers voted for Social Media being a viable, long term customer service option. Given the growth of Facebook and Twitter accounts, the percentage of votes will probably only increase, if I had to guess. By linking social media channels with a unique objective (e.g. Twitter for broadcast notifications, and in-the-moment support; Facebook for engagement and discussions), companies are increasingly innovating on how they connect with the “socially-connected” customer to troubleshoot, engage, and build service differentiation. Here are some of my favorite examples of companies working with social media.

Facebook and Twitter are popularly used by the service industry for troubleshooting:

Mindful of Facebook’s viral nature, companies are linking complaints via social media with responses through traditional channels.

• A customer of home furnishing chain Pottery Barn, was fed up with the customer help line and in-store service, so she posted photos of a tabletop explosion on Pottery Barn’s Facebook Page. Within 30 minutes she received a call from a customer representative who worked with her to find a solution. This led to a negative experience turning positive, averting further negative comments on a public channel.

For Twitter, the brevity of tweets helps in responding quickly and defusing tension, if not always problem-solving.

• Airlines like Southwest and Delta use Twitter as an “information booth”, directing messages to other functions or sending Web site links where customers can find more information. Southwest Airlines helps novice fliers with queries around seat choice by referring such questions to its “tweeting pilots.” At Delta Airlines, staffers assigned to @DeltaAssist can also change reservations and issue tickets based on customer tweets.
• State Farm Insurance uses Twitter for in-the-moment support for its customers for problems like excessive hold time, refunds, and technical issues. State Farm uses it as a direct channel of communication, building credibility and positive word-of-mouth.

Facebook and Twitter also can help companies drive customer engagement through community building activities and by providing tangible value for customers.

• Australian telecom company Optus’ Facebook page is a lively page of company and customer interaction. Optus shares company and product updates, and posts relevant links, videos, and discussion questions driving customer opinions and debates.
• Hewlett Packard (HP) India’s Facebook page has a dedicated support tab for customers. Additionally, customers share problems and comments on the wall that are addressed by both users and customer reps; this is common across regional HP Facebook pages and garners huge appreciation from customers.
• Through Twitter, companies like online shoe and apparel shop Zappos, go the extra mile by providing customers with information not only on their product but also help in finding items they don’t carry.

Companies also use Twitter innovatively to create unique strategic advantage in the marketplace through customer service.

• A Twitter-powered customer service tool, Best Buy’s Twelpforce (Twitter + Help Force) allows users to directly connect with employees to ask questions, get advice, or solve problems. With over 12,000 requests answered in the first 3 months, Twelpforce is effectively catering to “unmet” needs of customers.
• Other companies like Citibank plan on using personalized Twitter accounts for reps to continue discussions with customers in a secure environment.

Your customers ARE talking about your service on social media. How are you planning to use Social Media to connect with them?

Related CCC Research:

• Getting Started in Social Media
• CCC 24/7 tweetview (free Twitter monitoring service for CCC members)
• Social Media and Customer Service

By Corey Stout

A CCC member—let’s call him John—recently shared an interesting observation with our team: 

We are seeing that the Customer Effort Score (CES) is worse in our chat channel than in our phone channel, but our chat beats the phone in terms of CSAT.

John’s survey results sparked some rich discussion among our team about the correlation of CES and CSAT across different channels.

As you can see from the data below, our data tells us that customers generally report higher effort in the Web chat channel than in the phone channel, which is consistent with what John saw. The difference is that for the same data set, customer satisfaction is generally also lower for chat—although not significantly lower (3.31 for Phone vs. 3.23 for Web chat), which is different from what John saw…

However, there are always exceptions to trends, as John’s observation illustrates, but rather than leave it at that, CCC brainstormed potential explanations for this situation.

Based on our brainstorming, here are three reasons why Web chat may receive high CES scores (which is a bad thing) and also high CSAT scores; in other words, why customers may report that they had high effort service experiences, but were satisfied with those experiences. 

1.      The channel changes the experience: Not only do service channels differ characteristically, but they also differ in the experiences they offer. For example, waiting for a response in Web chat is different than waiting on the phone (at least the phone comes with hold music). So, customers may have different perceptions of each – they may feel like they had to put forth more effort in one channel than in the other or they may be more satisfied with their service experience in one channel than in the other.

2.      Survey-channels can biases results: There are pros and cons associated with all survey channels. We find that Web survey responses are more negative than phone results (which may explain the high CES score for our member’s Web chat channel) because customers do not feel like they are “taking it out on” someone personally by venting about their experience.  Also, Web surveys appeal to a younger population, more inclined to be straightforward about and have higher expectations for service. Ultimately, because of inherent biases with each service channel, we do not recommend comparing data across surveys conducted in different channels, even for answers to identical questions.  Rather, we recommend that members use longitudinal data to track trends across time within survey channels. 

3.      Metric Differences: CES and CSAT are different metrics with very different drivers, so it is difficult to compare one to the other. In particular, CSAT is more about the rep whereas CES is more driven by perceived effort and process-level effort (which may be more or less apparent depending on channel).  Additionally, a customer is more likely to engage in Web chat after they have already looked for an answer on a company’s Web site whereas a larger portion of people who use the phone channel have not been online. In this instance, those who have searched the Web before using Web chat have put more effort into finding an answer than those who have just picked up the phone and called the company, which may explain why Web chat may seem like a higher effort experience.  

The discrepancy between CES and CSAT that John saw may actually be a great opportunity to examine the underlying drivers of those data points and make improvements based on those findings—as you can see, the hypotheses we came up with offer a variety of interesting angles to explore. In the end, the most effective way to learn more is asking the customers themselves! For CES in particular, a follow-up opportunity to leave a verbatim comment can effectively shed light on what made the experience seem like a lot of effort for the customer.

What do you think? Have you seen such discrepancies between CES and CSAT? What would you add to our hypotheses?

CCC Related Resources:

Cost Savings Customers Want : CCC’s Research on Customer Channel Preferences

Cost, Productivity, and Quality Benchmarking Survey (see if your phone and chat survey scores stack up)

Effort Audit