I’ve written previously about different job postings with CX-sounding titles. One of those jobs is in the family of “Customer Success” positions. If you’re like me, and work in CX, you may have wondered, What, exactly, is, Customer Success? From a CX perspective, it may be useful to understand how these roles and their responsibilities differ from ours. To that end, it’s a lot like CX, but it’s not exactly that. While I’ve not played much a role in this space, I’ve made quite a few connections in the CS world and here’s what I’ve been able to gather from these conversations:
You know I’m all about metrics and measures. One of the things that made entering the CX profession so attractive to me was that this is a field of study that’s not only based in numbers, it’s starving for people who have an affinity for measuring. CX is a study that’s founded on measuring…from survey results to Customer habits and attitudes to top-level improvements in your CX KPIs, numbers are all around us.
One topic of confusion I’ve seen a lot over my time is in regard to lead versus lag measures. Everybody’s got their own opinions and there doesn’t seem to be a textbook answer to what’s what, so take this as simply my theory and how I approach what’s meant when we speak of such things. […]
“Well, it’s because they’re different.”
The not-deliberately snarky, yet somewhat oversimplified tautological response was understandably not satisfying for the support business leader who’d asked me why I thought NPS would be different for the different lines of business his organization supported. But in the end, it’s no more complicated than that. Forget that I was, without it occurring to me, loosely quoting Vanilla Ice, but sometimes it’s hard for us in the context of the business we think we already understand to see the forest for the trees.
In my defense, the Customer profiles were different, the products in the different lines of business were tremendously different, and even the people they had supporting the two products were different, and located in different contact centers.
This occurred to me the other day when I was reading through some discussions regarding two approaches in the VoC world: Transactional versus Relationship surveys. […]
I once had a mentor whose cubicle walls were covered in certificates and evidence of completion of training and qualification. People considered him a bit of an egotist and obsessed with certifications. Credentialism is a thing, after all. But I asked him once about all his accreditations. He said, “Some people say, ‘Sure, well you’re just good at taking tests,’ and I say, ‘Yea, I am, I guess.’” Point being, he was pretty humble and casual about them, but wasn’t kidding himself that lots of folks take them to heart. In his mind, it didn’t hurt that some people weren’t impressed—he likely wouldn’t lose favor with any of them for being credentialed (he was, it should be said, supremely smart and talented too…that always helps). But for those who did care, why not jump through a little hoop here and there to get your foot in the door? I’ll just say, it served him well.
I wrote recently about hiring your CX leaders from outside of your industry. I understand that that’s quite a plunge to take for some folks: You mean you want me to go with a complete novice in our industry and trust that person with our Customers? Our entire CX program? You must be nuts. […]
The topic of the Voice of the Customer (VoC) has many branches and sub-categories. Just on the topic of surveys alone (which is only a part of VoC), there are tons of thoughts: We discuss things like the formatting of surveys, the proper response rates, how and what sorts of questions to ask, which channel we should use to survey, even whom to survey. Beyond that there are numerous other methods of collecting the Voice of the Customer: market analyses, social media (SoMe) monitoring and analysis, competitive comparisons, and of course we can’t forget Walking in the Customers’ Shoes. Each of these other methods likewise comes with their own set of approaches and execution methods.
But what about what comes out of those efforts? Sometimes we concern ourselves so much with the day-to-day transactional concerns about collecting the VoC, we forget why we’re doing it in the first place. In the worst case, we substitute raw winning vs. losing motivations for insights, and devolve the entire process to: “What’s the score today?” Let’s back up a bit, though, and recognize what I’ve said so many times I should just make a bumper-sticker out of it: VoC insights are of no use if you don’t use them to improve your Customers’ experiences. That leads to a remarkable—and to some, shocking—conclusion:
You should be hungry for negative feedback. […]
There’s a meme going around LinkedIn these days about a job posting that requires of the ideal candidate experience that’s physically impossible: a history of use of a platform or programming language that’s longer than the language’s existence in the first place. There’s even been a mocking job posting put up with a cascade of similar impossibilities as requirements.
But that led me to thinking: As I’ve written about before, I sometimes browse through job postings on LinkedIn and Glassdoor in the CX field. What I mentioned in that previous post was how disparate the actual jobs are that are all listed as “CX” in some way or another. But the joke about a job requirement for experience that’s literally impossible to have acquired set off a bell in my mind that reminded me of another thing a lot of these CX job postings have in common: They almost universally require extensive experience in the hiring company’s industry. […]