There’s an interesting and stimulating blog post about automating or personalizing customer service, with respect to the use of social media and networking.
Here’s the reply I left. Comments?
Thanks for bringing up this issue. It’s at the core of both customer service and social media these days.
Personally, I look historically at other customer service channels and how they have been perceived by customers, and I have NO doubt, having trained 1000’s of CS staff, that if you want to stand out, you MUST personalize.
The right answers are important, but the medium (as McLuhan said) dictates the meaning.
I cannot think of a single CS tool based on technology that is well received by customers in general, be it voice mail, information via automated phones, even email. One logical reason is that no automated system can diagnose and customize the advice or responses to the particular person’s level, and circumstance.
That said, I wonder if many humans can.
If you want to wow people via your CS, it’s simple. Don’t look at it as overhead, and hire good people, and pay them enough and treat them well enough to be PROUD of their work.
If you want to be like everyone else, automate.
Visit the Customer Service and CRM Hybrid Search Engine
http://researchprofessional.org/customerservice/
#1 by Milan Davidovic on December 14, 2009 - 2:58 pm
For me, at least, I have to agree with the author that “personalized vs automated” doesn’t matter as long as the problem gets solved fast.
That said, I’ve never met an automated system I was especially impressed with, but a few human systems have really come through for me.
#2 by Robert Bacal on December 14, 2009 - 4:58 pm
Milan, one of the central things I’ve been teaching in my Defusing Hostile Customers seminars over two decades is that a customer who has a problem, and is annoyed or angry, needs first to be heard. If the customer does not have the anger and frustration acknowledged first, s/he isn’t ready to work with the employee to solve the problem.
Almost all of my thousands of seminar participants “get this” when it’s explained to them, since it explains what appears to be bizarre customer behavior — ie. being such a pain that there’s no way to actually help them because you can’t get the information, for example.
It’s a basic part of the CARP system, and I’ve explained it in my Defusing Hostile Customers Workbook. Click the link. At the bottom are some chapters that may be relevant – already online.
Now, with customers who simply want information that is cut and dried, and if they are calm, I don’t see a problem with some automation, but as a customer I don’t want that. Nothing ever works right, and I always have the question that the auto systems or faq don’t have the answers for.
I also don’t see how an auto tweet system is any different from an autofax system or an autoemail system, etc, and we’ve all had our fills of that crap, yes?
#3 by Robert Bacal on December 14, 2009 - 5:12 pm
I just left an additional reply on the originating blog, and figured I’d reproduce it here.
I agree that one channel does not replace another, and THAT is THE issue, in my view. The costs are unreasonable, and worse still we “teach” customers to expect absolutely bizarre consideration (did you know that fraudulent product returns now are the leading loss to retailers, passing cc fraud in Canada).
If I cannot “reach” customers and retain them without having multi-channels for contact, then I suspect I’d be in the wrong business, or be simply inept.
You can’t compete on the basis of doing something everyone can do. And every major company will do similar things, thus inflating costs in the name of customer service WHILE actually contributing to the perceptions that customer service is worse.
I don’t believe Twitter offers a single advantage period, whether automated or not.
So, not only am I saying that automating is a bad idea (you will almost never succeed via automated systems with an angry customer), but I’m saying that going multi-channel is even worse.
Obviously that’s a minority opinion, and it IS an opinion, although I believe that such thinking has made my customer service books successful…[insert imaginary plug and links here].
#4 by Robert Bacal on December 14, 2009 - 9:58 pm
Here’s more of the dialogue.
Actually, there’s not much new here, although I’m tickled to hear you folks talk about what happens on twitter as if it’s new. People have been complaining about companies as long as there have been bulletin board systems, usenet discussion lists, listservers etc, going back even before the Web. (yes, I’m that old!).
There’s nothing new there. The argument SoMe folks will put forth is that there’s been nothing on the scale of Twitter, but in fact, the “scale” is vastly overestimated. Same for Facebook. The number of people who actually are active is way smaller than most think.
Here’s a few points:
1) If people search for your company, they can find bad things anywhere on the Internet, not just in social media. To test this search for an Internet provider company or Satellite TV company. You cannot squelch them where they complain, and you cannot possibly go around the web ferreting the complaints out 1 by one. It’s pointless.
2) If you find complaints on a proactive basis, there is no guarantee that the people who read the complaint will read your wonderful response, or even the original customer’s compliment. (same as on other communication channels). In fact MOST will not see your response.
3) Angry people want two things, and IN this order: They want to be heard, emotionally, AND they want the problem solved. You can’t do either easily in Twitter, or other mini platforms. If you switch the order, they won’t cooperate in solving their own problems.
4) Automating stuff that involves diagnostics never works in customer service. Frankly it pisses people off, because it’s rare that a person fits the prototypical customer on which the system is based, re: literacy, experience, knowledge, familiarity with product, and on and on. I hit this all the time, and I bet most of you do to. It’s too much info, or too little, or too basic, or…
5) Finally our assumptions about customer service are wrong. You can’t compete on customer service if you do what all your competitors can do. It’s like an arms war. Each escalates, which costs money, and almost always it doesn’t result in more customer satisfaction. You can’t build and build, while at the same time seeing the CS support as overhead. Almost all the time the systems, human or otherwise fail. SIMPLIFY.
Provide reasonable customer support and customer service. Manage customer expectations, and don’t disipate the budget on multiple channels, and automation.
Give me a company with enough profit margin (I’d never take on one with not enough), and I’ whip any competitor’s behind on customer service by employing real humans, paying them properly, retaining them, and saying to customers;
Call us. We’re SO good at this, you won’t even have to wait more than 2 minutes.
The one exception to all I’m saying is I DO think it’s worthwhile to monitor Twitter for comments about one’s company. And then follow up with a person.