Does every customer deserve good service?

devil_angel.jpg

Are companies rewarding people for whining online by coming to their rescue? Is it even possible to respond to all social media queries? Maria Ogneva explores.

 

This post was inspired by discussions that have taken place on destinations such as the CRM Outsiders blog and the SocialCRM Pioneers group led by Jeremiah Owyang and Ray Wang. The original question was posed by my pal Mike Fraietta of Jive Software. The issue in question was: What impact does the number of Twitter followers have on your ability to get help via Twitter? What impact *should* your number of followers have?

Mitch Lieberman states, and I agree, that we are starting to develop some bad habits. We are essentially rewarding people for whining online, by coming to their rescue… As long as they have a significant number of followers. With fiascos like Kevin Smith and Southwest Airlines, brands are scared, which is definitely understandable, that a vocal 'influencer' will forever tarnish them beyond the point of repair.

Does the rest of the customer record matter?

A vocal influencer may provide negative word-of-mouth, which may cost you potential customers. However, this particular person may not be a customer, or may not be a profitable customer (yes, sometimes, it IS ok to fire your customers). What’s more valuable: to keep this vocal person happy who may or may not be a profitable customer (or not a customer at all), or to keep happy someone who you know is an important and profitable customer?

Ideally, you would do both; however, more often than not, it’s rhetoric. When you have to pick and choose: what do you do? John Bernier of Best Buy’s Twelpforce, aims to help every customer with no regard to who the customer is. He has built a well-oiled machine and he was able to do so due to his company’s orientation towards service and commitment of necessary resources to the cause. "It doesn’t matter who they are and where [what channel] they are coming from.. We provide value and service that’s valuable, going out of our way to service the customer," John told me during our interview.

As part of social CRM, you should be able to  have visibility into a customer record, marrying social data with internal data on that customer. Whether you decide to help everyone, or to help selectively, you (and other relevant personnel within your organisation) need to have access to  complete and current information to make the decision of whom you help. Moreover, being able to reference context (such as previous conversations and purchase data) when she sends you a tweet, is undoubtedly crucial to providing a seamless service experience.

Is it even possible to respond to all queries? And even if you could, should you?

I think your ability to scale your reactive service depends on the type of business you are in, and the way you have structured your organisation. Companies with consumer-facing products receive more Twitter messages than B2B companies (I have no empirical data supporting this, but it’s based on observation). There are simply more consumer customers than business customers. The type of good or service you provide is a consideration too. Products with higher repurchase rates create more opportunities for questions and service queries. Products with more intense purchase decision cycles also invite more assistance. Last and certainly not least, the more problems your product has, the more service your customers need. I call all of the above reactive service.

Proactive service, on the other hand, is structuring the collaboration channels within your company in such a way that they allow and strengthen collaboration channels between customer and company. For proactive service, your effort should not vary with how many inbound queries you get. You should be working your butt off to involve your customer in product creation, in a way that makes her feel valued, and not 'used' for her feedback. You also need to figure out how critical roles within the organisation allow for this collaboration, and how to get them to collaborate with each other. You should still engage in reactive service, but not at the expense of proactive service. Even though reactive service tasks feel more urgent and can thus crowd out proactive tasks, it is important to invest in forward-looking strategies. It’s the whole issue of short-term fire drill vs. a long-term strategy.

In order to help you deal with the current fire drills though, you should establish processes that allow you to do more and efficiently. There’s been some debate about automation and its place in social media. We are going through the process of figuring out how much of the Attensity product should be automated. My view is that the response itself should rarely, if ever, be automated. However, the system should figure out what the question is asking, find the right response (in internal FAQ or external user forum) and suggest this response to the company rep. This way, the rep can craft a personalised message, while cutting the research time.

How can you scale customer service?

The key is to establish the right internal process and a smart system that makes you efficient. This system should result in activating the right resources within the organisation, and for a large organisation should involve at least some degree of automation and routing (by message type, content, tone, etc). But even more importantly than tools and processes, you need to become a culture that welcomes customer support – both kinds: not only reactive, but also proactive. Socialise your existing support teams to receive inbound queries and to collaborate with the product team.  Instead of providing only phone support, encourage your service reps to jump on Twitter as well.

Twelpforce does it well, and so does Zappos, so it is possible (I wrote about my experiences with various companies here). Socialise your product team to and establish channels for customers to co-create with you, making her a stakeholder of the product’s future. And we all know that great service and a great user experience is the best marketing and PR. And if you need me to sell you more on the value of being proactive vs. reactive, service-oriented vs. 'salesy' – check this out: customer retention is cheaper and more effective than acquisition.

And finally… social (networking) responsibility

To echo Mitch’s sentiment, we have created a system that sometimes (not always) rewards obnoxious socially visible behavior by providing the fastest customer service to the perpetrators. Our ecosystem makes it OK for the customer to hurl insults at companies, but not the other way. In the court of social media opinion, we side with the consumer before we would side with a company. Whereas that’s a welcome development, as it’s shifting the balance of power in the consumer’s favour, we have to be careful to not over-shift that way. We have to remember that at the end of the social media helpline, there are people too. We have to demand mutual respect, and we all as consumers and brands have to step up to the plate to set boundaries.

I love this post from Jacob Morgan that urges companies to create SSCLAs that would establish proper expectations. I think it’s a great idea, and do hope it catches on. The SSCLA achieves several things at once. Firstly, it provides a better customer service experience, as she now knows what to expect (do all queries get answered? how often? etc). Secondly, it holds the company responsible to its promise. Finally, it holds the customer to a standard of social conduct.

And remember… with power comes responsibility, so if you are an influencer, you really need to set an example for people within your network by treating others with respect, whether they are individuals or companies.

To conclude:

  1. Yes, we all deserve excellent customer service.
  2. Companies need to provide it by scaling their reactive service in the current term, while building for the future: through proactive service and collaboration.
  3. Companies need to spell out what is reasonable and possible to expect.
  4. In return, we must adjust our expectations.
  5. We need a new social contract that requires social dignity and responsibility from both sides.

What are your thoughts on this complex question?

Maria Ogneva is the director of social media at Nimble, a social relationship management solution that transforms your entire community into business opportunity by leveraging the best of customer relationship management, social media and communication tools, in order to listen and engage externally, while collaborating internally. You can follow her on Twitter at @themaria or @nimble, or find her musings on the company blog and her personal blog. This post originally featured here.

vdimitroff's picture

Yes, and more -

To answer the question in the title: every customer deserves adequate service, which is by no means the same to everyone. 'Good' (as in the question) is adequate for the lowest common denominator of mass customers, i.e. keeping our brand pormises.

Then some customers would deserve 'better than good' service (call it 'excellent') and further up some may even be worth exceptional  service. This is all based on their value which, in the Social Age is no longer just how much they are spending with your business. More and more companies are including in their CLV (lifetime value) models some variables to indicate social value like advocacy, influence etc. This social vector does not override monetary value (historic and predictive), only adjusts the total.

It is not unusual, therefore, to provide a better service level to someone with a high social value (e.g. influence), all other (monetary) variables being equal. It is the right thing to do, for anyone thinking of themselves as customer-centric. The cynical view "...we are unnecessarily rewarding whiners..." has nothing to do with customer centricity.

Now, to the context: it is a totally different matter whether knee-jerk reactions (amounting to the 'damage limitation' known from PR) have anything to do with good Social CRM practice. The instances where front-line employees (and sometime executives) rush to please the 'influential whiner' need to be examined case-by-case:

- was there a comprehensive Customer Value score, based on monetary and social value? Was it checked before action was taken?

- did the company have a due process in place, prescribing adequate reactions - properly documented and with staff duly trained and motivated to adhere to such process?

- was any of the decisioning automated in any system (called CRM or otherwise) and what business rules are configured in the system to drive it? If not automated and taken (God forbid! : ) by humans - what levels of staff are empowered to make such decisions and within what boundaries?

The predominant number of anecdotes circulating in conference presentations, guru articles and sites like this, have no answers to the above questions. The authors haven't checked. Or if they did, in most cases the answer is 'No'. Processes are far from clear and streamlined, even less - widely known and adhered to. Systems are not configured to support those (non-existent) processes. Full customer value is rarely checked before reacting to 'whining' (no wonder there's over-reaction to the social component of value - which is real, but shouldn't be seen in isolation). And decision empowerment is either lacking or chaotically dispensed, resulting in people without adequate training, competence or aptitude making (often critical) decisions on the social frontline.

I'm very much with Mitch Lieberman on the statement 'Twitter is not social CRM'. Seeing a single medium (or even the portfolio of all social media) as synonymous with (even just the Service component of) Social CRM is primitive and wrong. Nobody mentioned other essential and defining attributes of Social CRM: engagement (e.g. in the propagation of advocacy) and collaboration with customers (as in co-creation, co-production, co-marketing, co-service and even co-management). These are far more critical in Social CRM than the awkward PR efforts in the anecdotes with 'whiners'.

A company practicing Social CRM wouldn't need to jump and over-serve 'whiners', even influential ones. Those would be taken care of by outnumbering and even more influential advocates that such a company has. This is the 'social' bit about it: a Net Promoter (this is is a whole other theme) is not someone who answers favourably in surveys. A true company advocate proactively engages in every instance and (a) helps those in need of service, and (b) rises in defence of the company where it's unfairly attacked (the true meaning of 'advocate'). And the responsibility of employees with anything 'social' in their job title is to create, educate, empower and motivate such advocates. Not to rush and pacify whining influentials...

Just some random thoughts, my 2p (no VAT) on the subject.

Neil Davey's picture

Thanks for your thoughts

Great comment Vladimir, some really good food for thought - thanks for your contribution!

vdimitroff's picture

A further thought

Thanks, Neil -

I am sure many of the companies from the social anecdotes have massively invested in Six Sigma and Lean Sigma, and hordes of 'belts' of various colour walk their corridors. But customer processes (unless it's about cost-saving) seem to be exempt from discipline, structure and (oh, horror!) efficiency. And what passes as 'social CRM' is even further removed from such boring and un-sexy concepts. Process people 'don't get' social things, according to the self-proclaimed all-things-social elite. It's art, not science...  Or is it?

123Contracting's picture

Yes for a certain amount of time and then kick them out

If I had a client who had a very large following on Twitter and that following was made up of potential new clients then I would go out of my way to make that client happy. If the client was a real pain and unprofitable I would still do this. I would give it a time frame so if none of his followers signed up to our services over a 6 month period then I would possibly drop the client and not worry about what he tweets. You could always respond to any negative tweets that he/she might make.

..........................................................................................

vdimitroff's picture

Devil in the details

 How big is a 'big followership' on Twitter? Have you got a threshold (e.g. 1,000 or 10,000 followers) to consider such a client worth pleasing at all costs?  How many are 'many potential clients' in his/her followership: 10%? 50%? 80%?

What is the cost of 'going out of your way' to please a typical client - and what minimum influence and/or potential referrals would produce revenues to justify such cost?

What if the 'problem' client has zero Twitter followers (and no account there at all)? Would you be aware of other influence s/he may have? Having a blog with many readers is an easy one; how about having an influential spouse?

And, finally - no positive effect (new business) during his/her presence doesn't automatically make it safe to drop the client: negative effect is more likely to come at/after kicking the client out. Are you using any predictive techniques to quantify such outcomes?

Or is everything mostly gut feel?  (And online 'pub speak' rather than clear business strategy embedded in robust, consistent processes)?

(N.B. I acknowledge that 123Contracting is possibly a smaller business and may have a less formal or scientific approach. Trouble is, large corporations often behave with surprising lack of discipline and science in their decision-making when it comes to social marketing and social CRM)

Create your free account

  • Access all articles in full
  • View multimedia
  • Receive email bulletins
  • Private messaging
Register now

Login

Forgotten your password?