Customer Service Buzz

In our ROI-driven world, apparently museums are the latest organizations to assess the value they provide to visitors.  Pressed by increasingly frugal donors to demonstrate the effectiveness of their investments, museum staff are trailing art lovers through exhibits, observing them enjoy paintings.

While perhaps bizarre to some, or even a bit big brother-ish, the truth is that the service and support world can actually learn a thing or two from these art museums, particularly as relates to self-service channels. 

What these museums are examining is time spend—and using it a proxy for the quality of the visitor experience.  Too little time in a gallery (less than one minute, specifically) means a visitor is just rushing through and not absorbing much.  Several minutes could be a sign that the visitor is really engaging with the art.  Or it could indicate visitor confusion with unwieldy art descriptions.

Read More »

CCC wrote a blog post for Harvard Business Review’s blog on customer preferences for self-service, research with which CCC members are most likely familiar (click here to read the research).  What members might not be as aware of is the visceral reaction this finding has sparked across the customer world.  Over the past 48 hours, since the post went live, it has been the #1 most viewed item on the HBR site and has garnered 60 comments on HBR and an additional 58 comments on YCombinator.  What’s more, it’s been Tweeted on more than 800 times around the world.

[5 Aug. update: the post has been live for a week now, with more than 80 comments on the HBR site and over 1,000 Tweets worldwide.  The blog remains one of the most frequently read pieces of content on the site, currently ranked #3.] 

As a service leader, you owe it to yourself to review not just this post, but the comments which it sparked.  You are sure to find some eye-opening customer stories and reactions that will dial up the urgency for you and your team as you consider how to improve the customer experience.

Here’s a sampling of the reader comments: 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 »

Niche branding and segmentation—differentiating customers based on distinctive characteristics—are, of course, the bread and butter of the marketing world.  But we’re increasingly seeing a greater focus on this in the service and support world as well.

Segmentation isn’t a new concept for many service and support organizations.  In fact, many organizations use a segmentation structure that often comes directly from the sales and marketing side of the company.  But in an environment where many companies are looking to service and support as a “competitive differentiator,” companies are rethinking their strategies, and in many cases, seeking to expand them.

The problem is that many companies are going about this typically based on visible customer characteristics or behaviors: like where the customer resides or how much the customer spends.

Such segmentation strategies can be helpful for other parts of the business, but they offer limited insight into where the best service and support opportunities lie.  Indeed, using a segmentation strategy based solely on visible customer characteristics can lead companies to misplace service investments specifically.

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 »

As CCC’s resident benchmarking expert, I thoroughly enjoy looking at customer data.  I find it to be one of the most interesting parts of what we do in the service environment.  Of course, the challenge here is how to analyze the data and come up with conclusions that match with true customer needs.

I believe we have a tendency to look at individual data points in relative isolation (for example, tracking higher handle times or lower resolution rates) which can lead to a myopic point of view that doesn’t take into consideration the context of that data point, nor connect with what the customer is actually experiencing.

Instead, I’ve found that every data point has a rich story behind it – a story that better explains what customers actually need to have a positive customer experience (as opposed to what they may say at any singular time).

The key is to recognize the difference here – and to dig a little deeper to get a true understanding of the customer.
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 »

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 »