Every few months companies pose questions about the upcoming trends of the service and support function.  Though typically prompted by companies revisiting their strategic plans and technology roadmaps, vendor whitepapers are probably equally responsible for causing hype and questions.

I’m certainly an avid reader of trade press and secondary research, and keep a list of the top trends to the side of my desk (CCC members, find the latest here).  But in my role as a researcher, I also try to break away from the latest technology enablers and innovations and consider more holistically what an “excellent” customer experience might truly look like.

So what are the top things that would radically change the service and support experience?  Here’s my take:

Read More »

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 21^st 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.  Read More »

This week marks the official release of the Customer Effort concept into the “wild” with the publication of our article, entitled “Stop Trying to Delight Your Customers,” in the July/August issue of Harvard Business Review.  If you haven’t seen the article, feel free to download a complimentary copy.  You will also find some cool podcasts and our Customer Effort Audit tool available to download.

As you’ll read in the article, our research shows that “delighting” the customer—in other words, going above and beyond—yields only marginal additional loyalty from the customer. 

We also found that customers are four times more likely to leave a service interaction disloyal as compared to loyal, and the primary thing companies can do to mitigate this disloyalty in the service channel is to focus on reducing the effort customers must put forth to get their issues resolved. 

Put succinctly, loyalty in the service environment is a matter of reducing effort, not delighting the customer. Read More »

We’ve all been there.  Endless circles, no clear directions on how to get out, choices that are appealing but aren’t quite what you’re looking for.  No, I’m not talking about your last trip to Ikea.  I’m talking about IVR h*ll. 

Let’s face it: even if you have the best IVR around, your customers probably inwardly groan as soon as they hit your intro message.  What I’ve found in helping companies with IVR design is usually some very quick fixes exist to help alleviate at least some of the pain that customers associate with the IVR. 

According to CCC data, the two statistically significant drivers of customers experience related to the IVR are speed and ease of use.  Customers are saying to you, “make it quick and painless, please!”  Just like our work on customer effort in the live phone channel – eliminating unnecessary effort is the key.  Read More »

Ask any organization how to achieve customer centricity, and cost figures immediately come to mind.  Dedicated teams, comprehensive surveys, high-end analytics systems—it’s an expensive proposition.

A company recently asked what it means to be more customer centric, and the thought exercise resulted the company vowing to take a “back to basics” approach.  In fact, organizations with large and small purse strings alike should take the basics to heart before extensive investment.

So what exactly do we mean by “back to basics”?  There are many considerations, but among the most powerful: Simply ask the customer.

Read More »

When you step in the elevator at work, what’s everyone doing?  No, I’m not talking about that awkward shuffle to maintain appropriate spacing… Everyone is on their mobile device. Checking e-mail, reading the news, texting.

It’s habitual for me and I’m not alone. Say a friendly “hi” to a co-worker? Nope, gotta get rid of these e-mails burning up my inbox before the third floor. Yes, it’s pathetic.

Welcome to the era of the truly mobile customer.

It’s an understatement to say that we struggle to keep pace with how customers interact with our businesses. Six years ago, I remember advising companies to dive (not just dip a toe in the water, but a cannonball plunge) into self-service.

At the time, self-service portals were nothing more than glorified (and quite stale) FAQs. Most service organizations had minor input into this largely marketing-owned channel. The “call center” think about self-service? Please.

Just as we got serious about getting customers to the web, CCC data highlighted that need to shift focus away from migrating customers to self-service channels, toward getting them to stick in those channels. We discovered that nearly 60% of all phone contacts traveled through the web enroute to the phone, and yes, customers now value self-service just as much as live service. That study was another signal that we’re still playing catch-up with customers.

Last week, I read a startling finding – for the first time, customers are using cellular networks more for data exchange than voice.  Read More »

My friends and I have board game nights as a way to have fun without breaking the bank.  And while Apples to Apples and Phase 10 are our faves, there’s nothing like an old-fashioned game of charades. 

Whether we’re acting out Project Runway or The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, it’s always a hilarious experience.  In the heat of the moment, folks try wacky things to get their team to guess the correct phrase – it’s stuff that makes sense to the actor at the time (like jumping up and down to simulate flying), but looks like gobbledygook to their team.  It’s all about perspective, right?

And that got me thinking, what does the service organization do that makes total sense internally, but confuses the heck out of customers?  From recent conversations with some of our members, it sounds like our FAQs on our websites offers up some quick win opportunities.

FAQs are often the customer’s go-to information source, but they tend to be added on an ad hoc basis – cutting and pasting from press releases or internal documents.  The end result is a large volume of FAQs that are repetitive and hard to understand.  CCC data shows that between 2-5% of call volume comes from customers who were just on the company website but were either confused or unconfident in the information they found.

Just how hard are your FAQs to understand?  Well, there’s a simple, free tool you can use to find out.  Read More »

By Dan Clay

I recently received a new credit card in the mail.  I looked at the ‘how to register’ details on the front of the card for the phone number, and a slight twist on this inevitable sticker changed my typical action.  Instead of providing me two equal options – a Web site and a phone number – the sticker provided the Web URL and then said, in the soft whisper of small font, “If you do not have internet access, call 1 (888)…”

They still provided the phone number.  I bet they would have taken my call without running background to check for broadband bills.  But they took a basic choice and subtly positioned one option as the obvious default. 

Harvard Business Review calls this process setting a “mass default” that directs customers toward the choice that’s better for the company and easier for the customer.  The “choice architecture”—the order of the options, the font size difference, the language preceding the phone number—nudges me to the Web and away from the phone. Read More »

Procter & Gamble, Walmart, and Walgreens are all limiting customer choice in the grocery and drug store aisle.  Why aren’t their customer service and support organizations following suit?

In line with the economic downturn, many retailers and consumer product good firms have realized that limiting customer choice can actually help drive purchase decisions.

The “Paradox of Choice” movement has evangelized this idea.  But it seems the message hasn’t trickled down to service and support…yet.

Read More »

A week ago I contacted my publishing company to request a new login and password because I deactivated my old e-mail address.  The bottom of the email submission form page listed some basic e-mail turnaround times and operating hours. Not a terrible wait time, I thought, and thanks for setting expectations.

Fast forward 24 hours, the response read: “Go to our site, enter your User ID and we’ll send a new password to that address.”  Sounds good right?  But…my User ID was my old e-mail address. Strike #1.  So for round 2, I was more explicit in my request.

Fast forward another 24 hours to the second response: “Go to our site, enter your User ID and we’ll send a new password to that address.”

Yep.  They sent me the same response (verbatim) two days in a row. And the worst part is that this type of email “resolution” is the norm in my experience, not the exception.

Call me the jaded contact center geek, but it seems that the usefulness of email as a service channel has expired.  I recognize some B2B interactions may be an exception to the rule – given more regular customer interactions – but for most service interactions, it’s a poor channel. Read More »