System problems and policy problems
I’ve been thinking lately about what causes CX to go south. Well, okay, I do that a lot anyway.
Naturally, considering my Framework, I concentrate a lot of my efforts on identifying processes and systems that are causing misalignment with a Brand Promise. After all, as I’ve written previously, CX is really just an excuse to do Process Engineering, right?
In a ton of instances, the problems your Customers are having with you are a result of bad (or poorly executed, or both) processes. But then again, no process is fool-proof and guaranteed always to work properly. And that’s not even to mention what happens when people get involved. So, sometimes, it’s genuinely a process that’s ill-conceived, and other times it’s a process that’s simply not adhered to (and if it were, perhaps the problem would be solved…if not, see the previous issue of the process being bad itself).
But there’s another potential issue: What happens outside the processes? That’s when we get into the problems with your policies. […]
Small Print or Bigger Person
Your mom may have told you to always read the fine print. Or maybe it was a college professor or something along those lines. If you’ve ever interacted with an attorney of course you’re familiar with the admonition.
By and large that’s always a great idea, even when working with a trusted and Customer-centric brand. After all, it’s important for both parties to understand what’s expected of the other, and it’s not necessarily a sign of mistrust to get certain things down on paper, just to be sure.
And, after all, let’s be honest: If a brand didn’t live up to its written word, wouldn’t you hold them accountable? So, to some degree we owe them a degree of latitude as well: We oughtn’t expect something they’ve never promised. It’s nice to know you’re working with a brand and partner you can trust, but nevertheless, as they say, good fences make good neighbors.
Still, though, you have to wonder: How many companies do you work with who hide behind their contract instead of standing behind their brand? […]
Communication is cheaper
I recently had to return a pair of shoes I’d purchased online. I realized immediately when I tried them on just after they were delivered that the size was wrong. Fortunately, the return process was super simple from a Customer’s perspective: The company had included a return label that I could slap right on the exact same box (that we wisely chose not to let the dog get hold of) in which came the original order and all I had to do was swing past any FedEx office to get it back on its way. Then, once they’d “received the return” they’d get my replacement, properly-sized, on its way back to me.
The “received the return” part is in quotes on purpose. […]
Customer screw-ups are your fault
Some of your Customers are idiots.
Hey, full disclosure, that includes me.
In fact, in some circles, I’m known as the “LCD,” or least-common denominator. As the joke goes, Z is the dimmest bulb in the group, and as such, if I get something, everybody should be able to understand it.
Self-deprecation aside, the much-more-straight-faced point I’m making here is that we as brands need to develop our systems for the lowest-common-denominator Customer. I don’t mean to treat our Customers like idiots, but…well, kind of to do that, yeah.
As I consider this concept, I’m taken back to a situation I recently wrote about where I had a difference of perspective from a brand I was dealing with. As per their policy, they characterized what’d happened as my having made an error. The point of my previous article was: Even if so; so what? Forget who’s gotten what wrong…the brand should hold some interest in making sure I’m satisfied as a Customer…that’s what goodwill gestures are all about.
But there’s another side to this; a more transactional perspective. And it’s something that brands are even more loath to consider (mostly because it takes more work): By and large, your Customers’ errors are your fault. […]
They’re already robots
All the rage these days in Contact Center online webinars and consortia is the topic of automation and “AI”… “Bots”, “ChatGPT” (I still don’t understand what that does, but apparently, as far as you know, I’m using it to write this article right now.)
The ominous overtone to most of these conversations is that Robots are coming for your Contact Center!
Now, things like automation and self-help have been with us for a while, and it’s advanced civilization—if you don’t mind my getting a little melodramatic about it all. After all, when’s the last time you had to call or email somebody to reset your password for a website? Certain things lend themselves to self-assistance. I’ve bought and sold stocks and index fund shares over an app on my phone while on the elliptical machine at my gym.
When it comes to things like Contact Centers and Customer Support and Customer Care organizations, some people are seeing this trend as “writing on the wall.” […]
Gate-keeper or problem-solver?
I wrote recently about how the term “representative” can take on a different meaning depending on whether you consider your front-line agents as representatives of you as a brand, or of your Customers as they navigate your systems.
When dealing with a hospitality brand recently, that came to mind. There was a discrepancy and I kept repeating my point with every new escalation (I was passed off from one department to anther a couple times, and then up the supervisory chain). At every point, all I got from the folks on the phone was a reiteration of the company’s policy. Okay, I get your policy. In fact, I was aware of it before I called. That’s actually kind of why I’m calling. What I’m asking for isn’t an explanation of it (over and over again from different people), but rather an exception to it (which reminded me of another article I’d recently penned, about not taking ‘no’ as an answer from someone who’s not authorized to say, ‘yes’). Your telling me what your policy is over and over doesn’t change anything from my perspective. […]
