The Readerboard - Call Center CRM Archives

The (Social) Customer Isn't Always Right

2011-06-08T18:43:40Z

There appears to be a tendency with social media as a new and highly visible channel to overstock the value of the sentiments expressed in the posts and Tweets, that they do accurately represent the voice of customer and that the complaints are accurate and well-founded. And that those who made them must be supplicated to keep them as customers, lest they tell hundreds of others never to do business with one’s company ever again.

These set of attitudes with social media reflect the cliché “the customer is always right.”

Nonsense. Balderdash. Rot.

The “social customer”—like any other customer—is not always correct.

Just ask anyone who deals with customers i.e. the public: counter/front desk/retail staff and contact center agents. And they will tell you that a fair chunk of the complaints that they get from them are not valid: either from misinformation e.g. about hours, offers, prices and features or mishandling i.e. they didn’t read the instructions. Customer tech support experts guesstimated a long time ago that some 75 percent of calls received by support centers can be classified as "RT(F)M". Namely did they “read the (friendly) manual”?

Moreover, in most instances the individuals making such inaccurate complaints are cranky and obnoxious. Too many of them are trying to get discounts or other financial gains and will bluff and scream to get what they want.

And to top it off those obscene customers are more often than not the marketers’ sweet spots, the ones that outfits are fighting to attract and retain. These are the affluent and influential, the ones who expect forelock-tugging and kowtowing from others below their station. They are accustomed to bullying and lying (outright or by omission) to get their way even for the smallest purchases: techniques no doubt used well in their professional lives. They not surprisingly treat customer-facing staff like serfs. These individuals get a perverse satisfaction from haggling over pennies. For them winning no matter how trivial or upsetting to others, is all what counts.

Of the customer abuses product returns are the worst. Too often the goods are returned damaged not because of flaws but because the customers abused them. One of the biggest scams in womens’ apparel (I know people who work in that industry, I started out in the "needle trades") are customers buying expensive outfits then returning them several days later, whining about the color, fit and quality—when what they did was to “borrow” them for a wedding, job interview, important meeting etc.

Individuals' behavior on social media is no different than that on the other channels. Anyone can go and post and Tweet a comment. Whether these are accurate, have value or are not part of any scams is another question altogether. There is so much muck out there that it takes an immense amount of precision sifting to get to those messages that are worthwhile e.g. a “United Breaks Guitars”. Alas in too many cases the social statements can be distilled to “(fill in the blank) sucks”. The volume of dreck and trivia on Facebook, just to name one example is so high that there are users like my wife have practically given up on it.

Rarely do I comment on sites. There are only so many hours in a day to deal with sifting through this information and commenting and responding in kind. I will though when I am looking to buy products and services visit review sites and sift through them. I have a well-developed nose for paid puffery, dealing as I do with PR flaks and having been one myself.

The one great advantage of the social channel as opposed to in-person and contact center phone is that there is a briefly-opened window in which the winners can be sorted from the whiners sight unseen. Here are two excellent indicators for such analysis: sentence construction and word choice. When one writes in proper sentences one has previously thought through what they are going to say. When the language selected is in the midrange between formal and informal, reflecting conversation and conveying the right amount of emotion to the matter being dealt with, it indicates authenticity rather than canned responses.

There are a growing range of social media monitoring and sentiment analysis available. In sourcing, specifying, purchasing and configuring these solutions firms should consult with those who work directly with the customers i.e. in-person and contact center staff.

Moreover, and equally more importantly firms should ask the sales associates and the agents what they can do to minimize misunderstandings and complaints. Like clearly posting business hours, applying the KISS principle to offers and terms and above all making, delivering and pricing the products and services right.

After all it is those who interface with customers who know more than anyone else in the organization when the customer is (and isn’t) right. And it is they who will have to deal with the customers directly—in their face or over their screens--before and after they post on social media or read the comments of others.

The New Customer Self-Service: Ourselves

2011-05-19T21:25:12Z

Leave aside well-trained live agents, subject matter experts reachable via presence and knowledgebase-connected automated IVR/speech rec and web self-service.

One of the best (and the most affordable) answers to customer service issues--from basic product information to fixing problems—may come from each one of us, which can be termed as peer service or peer support. That is provided that this method is set up and managed right.

Peer service/support is exploding in popularity thanks to social media which has taken it from the rarefied confines of IT bulletin boards, whose establishment predates the Web and whose participants were likeminded geeks to the hoi polloi in the virtual universe. The social media/channel has virtualized a core human behavior i.e. reaching out to others for help just as it has done for buying decisions.

Look at our own experiences. Who knows a product or service better than those who buy and/or use it? Who else is intimately acquainted with their benefits, flaws and quirks and workarounds? Where do we often go first when we have questions, need assistance or gripes? Our colleagues, family, friends and acquaintances…

Let’s face it, do contact center agents, or the individuals who write and update the automated self-service tools have firsthand familiarity with typically the higher-priced goods and services that customers are contacting them about and where the pain points are? Can they then directly relate and empathize with the customers’ inquiries and issues?

This affinity-to-customers matter has been one of the knocks against offshoring, as demonstrated with considerable humor on the series Outsourced that NBC has alas hung up on i.e. the often sexually-charged novelties that the Indian agents were taking orders for. Can those who live/work in hot climes truly relate to customers residing in Minnesota or Montreal calling about their furnaces breaking down? Or sell credit cards when they do not use them?

(NBC ought to change its mind about Outsourced. I would have liked to see episodes featuring the contact center being threatened with speech rec in the form of--what else—a blowup doll a la Airplane (call her “Janet”, the cousin to Amtrak’s “Julie”). And how about this for a series finale: Mid America Novelties coming home but managed instead by Todd Dempsy’s grandmother and her knitting circle, sitting in their rocking chairs on the front porch in Kansas, sporting headphones and laptops…)

The benefits of peer service/support via social media are clear and obvious: quick answers and solutions at little or no cost to organizations. IOW it provides the gains of automated self-service tools without the soulless canned responses and the sometimes disconcerting experiences of talking to machines.

Yet peer service/support has its challenges, hence the qualifier “provided”, and to meet them incurs investments. The biggest issue is accuracy. While typically if a respondent provides what may be a wrong answer others will often correct them there needs to be some authoritative means to judge and state which is the right one. There is also the risk of disinformation from competitors. That means organizations need to put in and maintain integrated thread/matter monitoring, tracking, alerting, moderation and intervention and in realtime knowledgebase updating; the knowledgebases need to be accessible via every channel.

Corporate-sponsored social collaboration sites arguably provide the best venues for peer service and support because the issues can be carefully monitoring and intervention is easy. They can create formal user communities. Firms can readily offer discounts to customers once issues have been resolved or make and at the right time cross-sell/upsell offers. They must be careful to avoid during such sites as sales venues as this would turn customers and users—and those they influence--off at light speed.

Organizations can though also use “open” social media i.e. Facebook, TripAdvisor and Twitter to monitor and respond to issues. Many customers prefer these sites rather than go to sponsored forums.

In both cases, the employees handling the moderating and the responses should be named for credibility and personalized and have their contact information displayed. They must also be trained on social media as media i.e. they are acting as spokespeople whose words may well impact their employers’ brands, reputations and sales/revenues.

Will peer service/support eliminate the need for live agents or automated self-service? No because there will always be questions and issues that can be best managed by directly interacting with customers via professional live agents or tightly scripted machines.

What peer service/support can and is doing—again provided that it is done right—is to improve the customer experience and with this retention, loyalty and referrals while shrinking customer contact expenses in the fastest growing channel there is.

"Managing" The Anonymous Customer

2011-05-17T00:52:29Z

It has long been a given in more recent customer attraction and retention strategies that knowing your customers is key to connecting and staying connected with them to obtain maximum lifetime value including, with the advent of social media, the value of those they can influence.

The ability to accurately identify customers and to determine their incomes, demographics, purchasing patterns, likes and dislikes enables more personalized, targeted and successful offers and service that hopefully leads to repeat business, recommendations and referrals.

Customers in turn expect that when companies contact them or when they reach out to firms that they know them well enough to meet and anticipate their needs.

Or do they?

Are there and are there many (and growing) customers who prefer to remain anonymous, their mantras being “don’t contact us, we’ll contact you”?

I suspect there is. In today’s environment the customers are in charge and in many instances they i.e. us want to investigate companies before making their buying decisions without alerting them. They can—and do—find information about firms whether from web sites or via social media. Many will ignore the chat requests that pop up or work around the registration requests. They become as stealthy as reporters in investigating outfits. Only when they have done their homework will they make their outreach.

Moreover many consumers want to keep their personal information private. They/we have unlisted phone numbers, cloak e-mail addresses and call and e-mail gatekeeper programs. And once they realize "if its online it is public" they use handles in posts and restrict the information they provide to firms and post about themselves. As many individuals are now doing.

The proclamation by some businesses that “individual privacy is dead, deal with it” is being countered by a backlash on privacy as witnessed by “do not track” legislation that in itself is the latest of such laws going back to Do Not Call and efforts to regulate door-to-door sales. Making unsolicited calls (and soon texts) to wireless phones is a big no-no.

Moreover the amount of personal information that is being collected by any entity—private and public--is being challenged. Canada recently made compliance with the long-form Census voluntary.

The reasons are the same. Many consumers don’t want to be bothered by people—and firms --they don’t know. When companies reveal, even hint what they know about buyers/prospects it creeps many of them out. Call it “commercial stalking”.

And as more tools are devised to strip away privacy—firms are now busy coming up with solutions to identify the authors behind anonymous posts—there will then be pressure from annoyed consumers (and voters) on lawmakers for legislation restricting these practices.

As politicians have learned, privacy gets votes. And marketers make for great punching bags. Just ask the telemarketing industry.

There are two other factors that come into play: the commoditization and interchangeability of products and services and a slow growth economy. Products and services and their providers are only as good as their last performances. If the customers’ experiences were good they may--or they may not stay--if the next time they need their wares someone else offers equal if not better features, services and quality at and/or lower prices. If they stunk, wasting customers’ scarce resources and annoying them greatly, these buyers may very well go elsewhere because there is no shortage of hungry competitors they can do business—and recommend others to do likewise via social media--as sweet payback. No matter how nice and helpful the contact center agents bearing the brunt or reaching out to them may be.

Yes, knowing the individual customers are improves organizations’ abilities’ to provide excellent service to them: including giving them the attention and service and offers based on their value to the enterprise.

Yet how much information is needed and shouldn’t all buyers be treated well? The data collected on consumers especially is a lousy source of predicting future behavior. No software can crystal-ball in today's uncertain economy what will happen to individuals' jobs and earnings and purchases, and value to enterprises. Individuals' values are also only as good as their last transactions.

Moreover why put the extra effort in to get to know customers as if they are best pals and intrude on their privacy? When customer loyalty itself is ephemeral?

How do you manage customers including those that wish to remain anonymous? The best strategy is to assume they want to be anonymous until they give you permission to act otherwise. Ask only the most critical questions for the interactions and to listen to them, for they will tell firms what they need to know, nothing more, nothing less.

And if they wish to remain behind the curtain and do not want to give any data respect that. Don’t sneak to obtain that material behind their backs. Any good listener/reader will know the language including the tone, just like the smart retail sale staff knows when to move forward or to back off.

Customer relationships whether one-off, recurring or occasional are or should be based on respect and trust.

By respecting customers’ anonymity, by not tracking their every move (and avoiding the risk of annoying them) will result in a smaller but sweeter pool of buyers. Just like telemarketing clients who got with the Do Not Call program. Buyers who will be more likely to return: if/when they are ready to buy and what is being offered meet their needs and the service is excellent.

Do-Not-Track Online Act Will Make The Web Less Creepy By Shooing Away "Nasty Sister"

2011-05-10T19:34:31Z

Going online and going mobile has become a creepy experience with companies tracking your movements: virtually and in-person. There is something disturbing about for example web ads for companies that one does business with (or the case of biz journalists, one covers) when they appear on general newspaper sites. Including when one is mobile and is at home. Equally disturbing are ads from one’s own country displaying on a site belonging to a firm in another. And you thought CBP was alone in tracking foreign "travel".

The corporate “Nasty Sister”—the evil sibling to what is in retrospect a more benign government “Big Brother”-- is indeed following us. She is demanding that we pay attention to her in the hopes that we give her what she wants i.e. money and more importantly our information.

Companies that act as Nasty Sisters don’t get it. They risk ticking off the very people they do business with. And in doing so can harm customer loyalty that keeps marketing costs down through retention rather than spending resources on continually attempting to acquire replacements: which are scarce in today’s slow economy.

These outfits are in denial that in today’s Web 2.0/social media age the customers are in charge—not them--and they will decide how, when and what to buy and will make their opinions known to the world that others will pay attention to. Haven’t corporations learned the lessons of Do Not Call et al? IOW “don’t bug the buyers”.

(Hello marketers: your parents'/grandparents' “Mad Men” age of assuming the consumers are stupid and full of cash is over. Get used to it.)

The Do-Not-Track Online Act of 2011, introduced by Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will if it remains largely intact through the legislative process, make the web less creepy by empowering consumers to tell the corporate “Nasty Sisters” to quit following them.

The Do-Not-Track Online Act of 2011 would, says a release:

* Create a universal legal obligation for all online companies to honor consumer choice when consumers do not want anyone to collect information about their online activities

* Allow the Federal Trade Commission to pursue enforcement action against any company that does not honor this request by consumers

* If consumers ask not to be tracked, allow companies to collect only the information that is necessary for the website or online service to function and be effective, but then place a legal obligation on the online company to destroy or anonymize the information once it is no longer needed

More legislation is in the works. The release said that the Sen. Rockefeller’s committee is also working on comprehensive legislation to increase cybersecurity following scores of high-profile hacking incidents against individuals, government and the private sector.

“Consumers have a right to know when and how their personal and sensitive information is being used online—and most importantly to be able to say ‘no thanks’ when companies seek to gather that information without their approval,” said Rockefeller. “This bill will offer a simple, straightforward way for people to stop companies from tracking their every move on the Internet.”

Predictably the Direct Marketing Association, reflecting the wishes of its members, has come out to oppose Do Not Track saying it is unnecessary because of industry self-regulation, that it will cost businesses and hurt consumers and the economy.

The DMA points to its Self-Regulatory Program for Online Behavioral Advertising, launched by the DMA and four other leading trade associations last year. It says the Rockefeller bill fails to recognize this strong and effective self-regulatory program, instead calling for a massive government program to provide protections that industry already offers to consumers.

“The DMA and its thousands of member companies have spent countless hours and considerable resources developing a system to provide real and meaningful choice to consumers about the way their information is collected and used across the Internet,” said DMA CEO Lawrence Kimmel in a press release. “I can say with certainty that business is safeguarding consumers’ privacy without any cost to taxpayers while protecting the economic interests of all Americans.”

This is a boilerplate argument against any such legislation and it has the same holes no matter what issue it is applied against. Namely that there are many firms that don’t belong to associations like the DMA et al and do not abide by their principles and practices and that outfits members and nonmembers alike who will be tempted to ignore them because the short-term money is too tempting. Just think of the brave but futile attempts to ward off Do Not Call like the ATA’s much-vaunted TeleWatch program announced with fanfare in October 1999: undermined by the teleservices companies that would whine when regulations were later imposed on them.

Sen. Rockefeller’s bill has another benefit: it may ward off state legislation, like California’s Senate Bill 761, (which Facebook and Google are reportedly not too keen about, according to a KEYT.com story). Does industry really want yet another lawyer-enriching patchwork of state laws or would it prefer a comprehensive federal law?

Do-Not-Track Online is not perfect. It should be made opt-in. It also needs companion legislation prohibiting tracking wireless devices, enforced by the FCC, unless consumers also opt-in.

Opt-in is better than opt-out because it gives consumers respect through giving them control over their behavior. Asking is someone first is always nicer,--and will result in a more positive, productive relationship--than telling them you’re going to do something unless they say no.

The corporate “Nasty Sisters” needs a smack: just as the teleservices industry was asking for it with too many unwanted calls, abandoned calls and pushy agents.

Do Not Call didn't kill but instead it helped shape up the teleservices industry, making telemarketing less of an annoyance and instead more of an assistance to consumers. For example outbound calls both live agents and automated has become a boon to customers and the firms they do business with through notifying them of service issue. Do-Not-Track-Only will do just that for Internet firms and advertisers. There will be similar ways found to make tracking--through permission—helpful. And that is good news for companies that truly want to have meaningful, prosperous relationships with customers.

Customer relationships are—and should be—based on honesty and respect. Tailing and bugging customers is not how you keep and build them. Listening to them, letting them dictate how they do business with companies is how you accomplish this.

9-11-01 to 5-01-11: Honoring Contact Centers Who Were, And Are, On The Line

2011-05-02T22:04:36Z

I have not yet found the words to fully and adequately describe my reaction when I heard and saw the news late Sunday night, 05-01-11, that Osama bin Laden had been killed by U.S. forces.

The closest is a heartfelt thanks to the brave men and women both uniformed and civilian who have been relentless in pursing the perps and bringing them to justice at the risk to their lives. And to the families who support them.

My prayers go out to the families of the victims…

My wife and I had witnessed the attacks on the World Trade Center while commuting from our-then home on Staten Island to midtown Manhattan. We saw the smoke billow from the north tower. I watched the second plane crash into the south tower. My sister-in-law heard a loud boom on her subway train as it rumbled underneath what would become forever known as “Ground Zero”.

With strong memories of building and train station evacuations and “security alerts” while growing up and later working in the U.K. I called my wife and sister-in-law and said we’re getting out. Our offices were located near the Empire State Building and Madison Square Garden and nobody knew then how many planes were still in the air. And shortly afterward our companies gave us the evac order.

Unknown to us our son, a paramedic, was called to the scene. There he watched the people leap from the towers and performed triage on those who could be saved: including on a firefighter buddy who was wandering around in a daze…with a severed hand on his shoulder…

We didn’t know our son was alive or dead--or him us—for two days. The cell towers were knocked out. We had commuted in on the Staten Island Ferry and rode the bus rather than the subway to our offices. And the bus route we took, the M6, went past the WTC.

For weeks, even months afterward there was the wrenching aftermath…F-16s shrieking overhead…family members crying suddenly and uncontrollably on the express buses…security checks that blocked bridges, roads and tunnels…seemingly unending funerals…and the unmistakable and unforgettable smell that wafted downwind…

Yet there came defiance that gave us hope. The Twister Sister hit: “We’re Not Gonna Take It” became the second, Flag-waving car-honking-anthem of Staten Islanders—the New York City borough that had lost more people in the attacks than any other because many residents worked at the WTC and also served as firefighters.

And we didn’t take it…though at the ultimate price that freedom sometimes requires…

Many forests have been used in writing about the police and fire personnel (not enough on the ‘medics but that’s another story) who were there at Ground Zero—and at the Pentagon. Similar tomes have been penned on the American and United flights—and about the men and women who have gone into battle. There has been ink spent in telling the stories of the MTA and PATH subway dispatchers who saved countless lives by stopping and rerouting crowded rush hour trains.

I’d like to take up some paper and ink on those who were called to the scene if virtually…and who did their work under the most extreme pressure that they God willing will ever have to face in their lifetimes…and these are the agents and supervisors at the contact centers that handled the calls…

Namely—but not exclusively—the 911 dispatchers, the City of New York, Pentagon, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and D.C information teams, the customer service at American Airlines and United Airlines, the communications carriers’ tech support desks, the hospitals' and the funeral homes' answering lines…

The September issue of Customer Interaction Solutions has a feature on business continuity/disaster response. I want to hear from contact centers and their managers who were running their operations on 9-11-01 when all hell literally broke loose so I can tell their stories and find out what has changed in their processes as a result of it and since then…

Drop me a line with a synopsis and contact information by the Fourth of July and I’ll go from there…

As one who wrote about the first World Trade Center bombing, interviewing terror experts, who himself appeared as a subway expert on CNN in the wake of the sarin gas attacks on the Tokyo underground as well as having felt the fear of terror directly, I know that sadly that the victory on 05-01-11 will not be the last that is needed.

And that contact centers will be called on again in such events…

Forget Government Big Brother, The Real Evil is the Private Sector "Nasty Sister"

2011-04-15T18:58:25Z

It is not the Orwellian government “Big Brother” citizens have to worry about in protecting their privacy and freedom. It is instead “Nasty Sister” i.e. private companies that aggregate vast amounts of data on individuals and track their every move.

Of the two Nasty Sister is more evil because “she” on the surface is sweeter and seemingly more benign. After all, “she” can’t put you in jail or rob you of your freedoms.

Well…that’s not exactly the case…because the data collected by “her” can and does impact individuals’ abilities to obtain and keep credit, pay bills, acquire housing and get and retain employment. Instead of the authorities that are making these life-changing judgements based on information collected by the police it is companies relying on their own internal spying, data acquired from other firms and from credit reports.

What makes Nasty Sister especially dangerous is that there is relatively little oversight on how this data is used and handled and what is collected. In contrast “Big Brother” does have to answer ultimately to the public. With government you can turf the political lowlives out of office, even cause a revolution. You can’t storm the corporate boardroom as readily as the Bastille.

The recent controversy over cellphone tracking is just one very public example of this invasion of private lives by firms. It follows on the other hot issue of tracking individual online activities.

Yet there are other private sector invasions of personal lives that are just as insidious. One of which is the recent trend to require job applicants to their previous addresses with companies for background checks. Not just for high-risk employment that stipulate security clearances—where the “bad guys” could cause loss of life, injuries, harm national security and damage property--but for $10/hour typical contact center customer services, support and sales work.

The address tracking follows on the equally odious practice of performing credit checks on prospective employees. This last one is the reeking house arrest equivalent of Victorian-era debtors’ prisons. What is the logic in denying employment to someone who is otherwise qualified who was late paying their bills? Hmmm…wouldn’t giving them a job help them to repay their debts???

There is no overriding necessity for these intrusions. Are for example contact centers hotbeds of crime? Are agents and their unwitting supervisors putting their nations at grave risk by deliberately or carelessly having information fall into the wrong hands? Have there been widespread outbreaks of ID, asset and corporate documents theft, insider trading, reputations destroyed, property damaged and lives lost and individuals maimed via unscrupulous contact center staff?

Contact center agents are arguably one of the most carefully and extensively watched positions there is. Any risk factors--however slim--are mitigated by the extensive array of already-required and proven call and contact monitoring, data blanking and IT security tools such as secure desktops.

One can make the argument that “there is no such thing as too little information on prospective employees”. Also that “we know the risk is slight but what happens if something does happen?”

The problem with this logic that it is the equivalent to “there is no such thing as too little security” e.g. like requiring reception staff to wear Kevlar vests and having Uzi-toting guards patrolling call floors. It covers and lines the butts belonging to lazy, and/or incompetent management who can then abdicate their responsibility to properly assess risks and fairly screen individuals as individuals to vendors who profit from this insecurity and paranoia.

There are reasons for companies to be afraid but it isn't from the people they track, and collect data on. Instead it is from outside thieves that hack into private networks to steal data. What's valuable to companies is equally if not more valuable to crooks.

There is a public interest in tracking the activities of criminals and suspects. There is also a public good in uncovering and monitoring demographic trends i.e. where individuals as an aggregate are living, working, going to school, commuting and spending, whose information is vital for efficient allocation of both public and private sector resources. There are long-responsible and trusted mechanisms for both: law enforcement agencies and the Census Bureau that are overseen by departments that respectively that report to the public via their elected officials.

At the same time there is a public interest in the ability of firms to effectively market and serve their customers including determining their suitability and value. This creates economic value, activity, jobs and taxes.

There is however, no public interest in private data being used to unfairly restrict individual freedom. No more than there is for governments to go snooping into personal lives beyond what can be justified in a court of law.

Big Brother is answerable to the public in a democratic society. What is needed is an effective mechanism to make Nasty Sister equally responsible through a comprehensive, integrated, coherent and fair set of laws and regulations that can adapt as practices, technology and society change.

The Dangers of Social Media Commentary

2011-03-29T07:14:07Z

There is one cardinal rule of social media: that it is media. Anyone who comments on these sites and uses these tools is acting no differently than if they were facing a camera, have a mike in their face or are glancing at someone scribbling in a notebook. Employees or others who are acting on behalf of organizations who go on social media must have the same skills and discipline as those who appear on-camera, on the air and on the record.

I have been warning of the risks of having individuals who lack this training, discipline and experience, namely contact center agents, to go on social media. Why? Because I know firsthand as a reporter, as a spokesperson and as a political and community activist and as a onetime public office candidate how careful you must be when making media comments. This doesn't mean the language has to be bland and/or content-devoid. It means that the messaging--especially in a public interplay that can get hot-and-heavy--must be accurate, kept consistent and be delivered calmly.

The impacts of poor social media commentary was brought home in March by a pair of 'misTweets', one by an employee of an ad agency the other by a well-known comedian--individuals who know the power of language--that embarrassed their organizations and which led to their dismissal.

The New York Times, in an excellent article by Stuart Elliott
“When the Marketing Reach of Social Media Backfires” published March 15 reported that these fates befell an employee of the ad agency handling the Chrysler consumer brand’s Twitter account after posting a comment that read: “I find it ironic that Detroit is known as the #motorcity and yet no one here knows how to drive.” “Between “to” and “drive” was a vulgarity.” They also struck Gilbert Gottfried, the voice behind the AFLAC duck when he “started to post at least 10 jokes to his personal Twitter feed about the earthquake and tsunami in Japan — a market that accounts for 75 percent of Aflac’s revenue,” said the Times.

“The incidents, involving remarks on Twitter that were judged to be tasteless, inappropriate and insensitive, point out some inherent risks of social media,” said the Times.

“One challenge is the “amplified effect” of social media, said Ian Schafer, chief executive at Deep Focus, a digital agency in New York, citing how, on Twitter, “you put something out and it can be retweeted thousands of times.”

“It’s an age when anybody can communicate to an audience,” he added. “It didn’t used to be that way.”

“The relative newness of that phenomenon, said George E. Belch, a marketing professor at San Diego State University, means “there are people in your company who forget when they post on a blog, on Twitter, on a Facebook page, that it’s out there — and it’s out there at warp speed.”

"Another risk with social media is how many users vie to be first with what they consider clever comments on news stories and other subjects their friends and families care about."

“I’m concerned,” said Daniel Khabie, chief executive at Digitaria in San Diego, an agency that is part of the JWT division of WPP. “I think you should think before you speak, and you should think before you tweet.”

“We, as people, have a social responsibility,” he added. “What you say in social media shouldn’t be just a chain of thoughts.”

“Brands need to “establish a social media policy,” Mr. Khabie said, because without such precautions, “we’re giving people loaded guns to do incredible harm.”

---

The Times article then cited Craig Macdonald, chief marketing officer at Covario who "said he would recommend that marketers pursue a strategy of “controlled chaos” in social media."

“Offer employees some sort of certification course and tell them, ‘We’ll tolerate some negativity and dumb stuff, and we’ll course-correct as we go along,’ ”Mr. Macdonald said. "Then monitor what they say, course correct — and do better next time.”

Are Contact Centers Supporting Customers Via Social Media?

2011-03-07T19:26:56Z

According to an excellent recent blog entry by Tim Passios, Director of Solutions Marketing, Interactive Intelligence, not as many as may well be warranted by well-publicized incidents e.g. “United Breaks Guitars” .

Tim lists some very impressive social media statistics:

* Almost 640 million users of Facebook (SocialBakers)
* Over 90 million tweets a day
* Over 156 million blog sites (BlogPulse)

Tim wrote: “most contact centers just aren't feeling the absolute need to support it as a channel for now. As one of the customers I spoke with told me, "The majority of people are going to call you long before they are going to tweet or blog about bad customer service. Our job is to take care of that customer at the time they call and not give them a reason to use Social Media."

They, and Tim, have a point. If a matter hits social media it is almost too late. It jibes with the point raised to me by Convergys in that the best most cost-effective customer service response and strategy is not to have product and service problems to begin with...which is now being driven home by the power of the social channel.

Tim goes on to write:"... after talking to several customers, I found they are more concerned about improving the support via their voice channel, as well as email and chat, than they are Social Media."

That may not be the wisest move. From what I've seen and heard, social media response via organizations and contact centers have been at both ends of the spectrum. While many firms do not have a social media strategy and service mechanisms in place, others such as Time Warner and Wells Fargo have dedicated teams. Wells Fargo’s presence is especially engaging, and personable.

Indeed some outfits often respond to issues raised in comments and posts far quicker than they do to those by phone or e-mail. Their rationale, with some justification, appears to be that the social channel has more immediate and larger impact than the others…though customers on eternity holds or twiddling their fingers waiting for e-mail replies can and will likely complain on social media…

At the same time some firms…their names have been left out to protect the identities of the guilty…have taken the same “who-else-are-they-going-to-do-business-with?-so-who-gives-a-rat’s-hindquarters” attitude to those who reach out or comment about them…that they have done with those who have complained by voice, e-mail, paper mail, fax and in-person.

“Does that mean they [contact centers] are behind the times?” asks Passios. “Not at all. It simply means they are responsive to the demands of their customer's needs to service them via the channels they wish to use.”

“Does it mean they are putting their company at risk by not rapidly deploying support for Social Media? Again, not at all. As a matter of fact, they are driving in the exact opposite direction. Every customer I talked to said that they are in the process of formulating a Social Media strategy and before rolling it out, want to be sure they know what they are doing. “

Tim says that contact centers are asking all the right questions such as:

* “Does my customer use Social Media? If so, which ones? And what are they saying? “

* “Do I need to monitor all of Social Media or can I focus on just a few?”
* “When I respond, how do I do it and how quickly do I need to respond?”

* “How do I prepare my agents, my supervisors and my customers?”

* “How do I queue and route Social Media?”

* “Can I run reports on it just like I can my other channels?"

* “Can I develop measurable KPIs?”

There is one other question--perhaps the biggest one of them all--and that is from me: who should vet social media comments, posts and responses?

Why is this issue critical? Because, as I’ve argued before, social media is media. No different than TV, radio, online and print. Whoever responds is acting as the corporate spokesperson.

The impacts of comments, and the needed skills and the discipline in hearing and replying in any public role are arguably far different and deeper and more immediate than any words uttered in customer service. And with the realtime nature of social media there is little leeway for buffering remarks as there is in e-mail or chat. You rarely get a second chance in media, and the social channel is no different.

The question then is this: “would you want your contact center agents to appear on CNN?” If not, then do not have them handle social media.

And yes I’ve been live on CNN…

There are increasingly sophisticated games that could well be playing in social media that companies need to be aware of. I fear that it will not be long until it will be used to tear down as well as build up firms just like this channel and others including face-to-face are used in politics. Check out talk radio, any political story article response whether posts or letters or an all-candidates’ meeting to hear and read for yourself.

My counsel on social media is this: have the corporate communications departments, in partnership with Legal serve as the gatekeepers and policymakers. Under their tutelage select staff for and train dedicated social media teams. Look for staffers with media, PR and paralegal experience as well as customer service skills. In smaller firms have corpcomm serve as the social media team: just as they do for other media. In both cases closely link corpcomm with customer service, sales and marketing, with comments collected from social media cleansed and housed and integrated with remarks from other channels to obtain a full, realtime view of customers’, prospects’ and the public’s viewpoints.

In that fashion then firms will get social media right. And with the rapid takeup of customer inquiries by self-service, and with the demand for higher quality service from customers...as well as the increasing popularity of social media as a customer service channel...it is only a matter of time when the social media response teams become the customer service teams.

Letter Responding to Jan. CIS Logout "To Improve Quality and Profits Get Rid of "HR"

2011-02-25T16:39:25Z

Here is a letter written in response to my Logout column “To Improve Quality and Profits Get Rid of "HR" that appeared in the January 2011 Customer Interaction Solutions.

In the piece I decried the too-often poor contact center agent and supervisor hiring and screening practices, such as job descriptions having little to do with the reality of the work, as a result of the human resource "HR" mentality--treating people like raw materials rather than as individuals.

---

Brendan –

I read your article (Customer Interactions Solutions, Jan 2011 issue) and couldn’t agree more. HR serves very important functions in any organization; however executives should not assume that HR staff are experts at recruiting talent.

Inside every great organization today, their executives understand the importance and priority on their “human assets”. They get personally involved in their talent acquisition and employee retention initiatives. Recruiting and hiring great employees on a regular basis is a science just like any other profession. You cannot expect administration or operations staff (or computer software) to achieve this for you. As they say, “the quality of the hire directly maps to the employee’s work performance” and also “you’re only as good as your people”.

Employers who believe in these statements get it right. Organizations that have been cutting back on their internal and external recruiting resources these last 2-3 years have been getting it wrong.

John Alexander
Partner/Co-Founder
Berkshire Search Partners
Hackettstown, N.J.
http://www.berkshiresp.com/

How To Win Contact Center Agent Loyalty

2011-02-17T07:54:54Z

Contact center work is important, sometimes interesting but more often than not highly stressful and mind-numbing and the hours are often unsociable. It is little wonder then that agent turnover is high, even in an economic downturn; at the first sign of an uptick, of better-paying, more 9-5 and stable jobs off go the headsets.

And with indications that at last the economy may be turning the corner, more attention should be given to keeping quality staff.

In many cases these conditions described above are inherent in the contact center business. We as customers want service and support and to have our purchases handled promptly and professionally through the channel and language of choice 24/7. We also don’t want to pay for the service we get.

Contact centers provide just that, arranging enough agents to be there when we contact them or to contact us and they can pay only so much from the budgets provided. Also working with the public often stinks; people are too often rude and impatient.

(Each of us should work in a contact center, or in retail or a hotel or restaurant to hear and see for ourselves, and then catch ourselves when we behave the same way.)

Yet many of these conditions can be compensated or ameliorated. There has long been a wide array of turnover-limiting solutions proposed: from more accurate applicant screening for their tolerance to the work environment to goalposting and certifications and to rewards programs.

Each of these methods, though, has their flaws. To get enough people screening standards are often lowered. And agents cotton onto the cynicism inherent in goalposting. They’re not stupid. They know there is no career advancement in this business; these levels too often mean nada—try to explain them in the real world—and are worthless unless they are backed up with some real benefits like $1/hour-$2/hour increases. Certifying agents (and supervisors) to objective transferable standards is counterproductive; they enable even higher turnover by making it easier to hire on with other contact centers.

Rewards programs are useful when they honor exceptional performance but they run the risk of becoming substitutes to the real rewards which is providing excellent service and meeting/exceeding targets. They can be then in those circumstances be compared to Pavlovian/Skinnerian operant conditioning used infamously for dogs and for the Mercury space program chimpanzees. Make or exceed the AHT, FCR, CPH or SPH and get a biscuit or a flavored pellet. Fall behind and get zapped.

There are, however, two proven, not very complex and low-investment methods to keep quality agents.

The first is high quality supervision, by supervisors selected for their leadership, management and training abilities. Supervisors are not made but are born. You have it, and can have those skills honed and be trained on new methods, or you don’t. Those that have it are rewarded, and by extension so are their employers, by employees who will put 150 percent into their jobs, who will stay later, come in earlier and take on spare shifts. Those that don’t—well there’s plenty of web sites out there where agents have expressed their frustration—and will find out soon enough with the smash of headsets into the workstations.

The second is enabling agents to have a life and by that I mean is giving those that want it set hours every week with no change they can count on. In that fashion they can take courses to better themselves, hold down other jobs if they are part-time, get fit, participate in their communities and faiths and look after their children and other loved ones in meaningful routines.

Contact centers are better than most service businesses when it comes to that. Retail is notoriously terrible when it comes to spur-of-the-moment shift and hours changing; employees are often sent home if sales are slack. On the other hand there is little freedom and freedom to move careerwise in contact centers and the work itself commands little respect. Therefore to retain quality people extra care must be given to permit them to have meaningful lives. And in return they will return it with loyalty, and exceptional service.

Tablets as Phones...Are There Signs of It Happening?

2011-02-10T08:14:38Z

I like cellphones as phones and tablets as e-mail/texting/surfing means. I dislike the reverse: for me and many others cellphones are a terrible tool for communications other than voice. The keyboards may be suited for Tweets and texts but are just too tiny for serious e-mail/chat work for all as are the screens. My wife has a BlackBerry smartphone with the touchscreen pad and the only "smart" task (other than making calls) she uses it for is occasionally checking her e-mails. She can't stand the form factor for surfing or writing e-mails.

And tablets as of yet, and for some unexplainable reason do not have cellphone i.e. voice call functionality built in.

Which to fully stay in touch and to communicate with others effectively over multiple channels means having to lug both sets of devices, which are a pain in the back, neck and arms and most importantly the wallets. And as the number of things one has grows arithmetically the odds of losing, misplacing, breaking or having the items stolen or most commonly the batteries dying increases geometrically.

That’s why I have neither a so-called smartphone nor a tablet. And I’m on a rate plan that my carrier now loses money, so my mailbox (and recycling ban) regularly gets filled with offers to upgrade…

I keep checking at my carrier's local outlet. Maybe I ought to write to them and make the suggestion...if they really want my business and that of many others in the same position.

Now could it be that the device manufacturers may finally get it right by combining the two? And actually give heavy duty voice and keyboard users like journalists (like me), emergency personnel (like my paramedic son) and yes salespeople, field support and contact center supervisors a do-everything/anytime/anywhere box?

The other week I was in a competing carrier (to mine)’s retail outlet, saying how convenient it would be to have an iPad combined with an iPhone and the salesperson hinted to me that it the iPad could have that functionality…

Now HP’s new TouchPad tablet, says the release… is “Designed to be used alone or as a digital companion to your webOS phone, TouchPad connects you and your devices through the elegant webOS experience. Never miss an important call or SMS message – they can be answered and viewed right on your TouchPad.”

Two key footnotes point out that the TouchPad “Requires connection to compatible webOS phone with the same HP webOS Account. Voice service requires separately purchased service contract. Availability may vary by carrier.” Also “Within wireless coverage area only. SMS and IM require data services at additional cost. SMS requires connection to compatible webOS phone. Availability of IM functionality may vary by carrier.”

A CNet article on the release including this information: “Initially the TouchPad will be offered as a Wi-Fi only device, though HP said it plans to release a version with 3G/4G mobile connectivity later on down the line.”

Hmm: 3G/4G…could it mean I could run Vonage of the tablet with a speech-to-text softphone app, clip on the Bluetooth and do an end run over cellphone fees through VoIP?

Now we would be talking…

A Big Reason To Avoid Credit-Checking Contact Center Applicants: Lawsuits

2011-02-04T08:16:43Z

I have been critical of using credit checks as contact center screening tools. Not only are they in most cases unnecessary, another excuse by hiring managers who are unable to examine people at their true worth but they are also morally wrong. They act as blows to the kneecaps of highly skilled and motivated individuals--whom through little fault of their own have fallen behind in their bills that is practically inevitable in today’s tough economy—that makes it even more difficult for them to get up. These checks serve then as virtual debtors’ prisons; Catch-22s for which there is little escape.

Now there is another reason—and rightfully so—why contact centers should consign credit cards to the dustbin: lawsuits. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit late last year against Kaplan Higher Education Corporation for allegedly engaging “in a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination by refusing to hire a class of black job applicants nationwide.” The EEOC claims that Kaplan has since 2008 rejected applicants based on credit history.

The EEOC brought action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The commission says it is a violation of Title VII to use hiring practices that have a discriminatory impact because of race and that are not job-related and justified by business necessity (itals mine).

The EEOC says it attempted to reach a voluntary settlement with Kaplan before filing suit. It is "seeking injunctive relief in its lawsuit, as well as lost wages and benefits and offers of employment for people who were not hired because of Kaplan Higher Education’s use of job applicants’ credit history."

“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was intended to eliminate practices that serve as arbitrary barriers to employment because of a job applicant’s race,” said Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, which oversees Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland, and portions of New Jersey and Ohio. “Employers need to be mindful that any hiring practice be job-related and not screen out groups of people, even if it does so unintentionally.”

Some law firms are now raising the red flags. A Jan.19, 2011 blog by Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton points out that “although it is legal for employers to review the credit history of applicants, employers should use the practice with caution, especially in light of this recent lawsuit.

“If credit histories are used to evaluate applicants, policies and procedures should be in place to ensure that the use is relevant and fair. Employers should also determine whether there is a sound business reason to obtain such information because, if it is not directly job related, it could be considered discriminatory.

“Indeed, running credit reports on all applicants, regardless of position, can have the effect of discriminating against protected classes, as alleged in the Kaplan lawsuit. Moreover, employers should be aware that credit checks are not always accurate indicators of a person's qualification for a particular job or a valid predictor of job performance.”

The law firm points out several states: Hawaii, Illinois, Oregon and Washington ban or severely restrict credit checks in hiring. Many more may be joining their ranks: including Connecticut, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont and Wisconsin.

Are there grounds for credit reports for employment screens? The law firm's blog says yes: if the employees handle money, makes financial decisions “or has access to private financial data.”

This last one may be the excuse for contact centers to use credit checks because many if not most of them are handling personal financial information especially as agents are prodded to convert sales and support calls into telemarketing transactions.

Yet there is a wide array of safeguards and strict standards governing and protecting data such as PCI-DSS, which is backed by law in some states: Minnesota, Nevada and Washington; Massachusetts has strict data privacy legislation.

And with how closely monitored every keystroke and utterance is, recorded and archived in contact centers, agents would have to be extremely stupid even if they could get access to try and get away with stealing data. There have been few instances of it happening even offshore; if they were there would be screaming headlines and quick action by lawmakers.

Sheppard Mullin rightly recommends that employers who use credit checks “should ensure that they are directly related to the job and necessary for business purposes. Employers should also review other hiring practices to ensure that they do not screen out groups of people, even if they do so unintentionally.”

Mining The Social Channel for Customer Gold

2011-01-25T19:19:21Z

The social channel appears on first glance to provide a readily-extracted motherlode of information and insights that can help firms retain and build relations with customers and attract new ones. For in the huge volume of conversations: blogs, comments on sites e.g. TripAdvisor et al, Facebook postings and Tweets are concerns, complaints, experiences and ideas about companies’ products and services that are waiting to be mined, assayed, processed, refined and used.

Yet as one spends any time on the channel knows, going through it is akin to mining in another way: there is an awful lot of raw ore that must be processed to obtain a few ounces of valuable commodities.

I recently asked enterprise feedback management (EFM) solution providers for a story on EFM in the February issue of Customer Interaction Solutions about replacing customer feedback surveys with social channel comment harvesting and analysis.

After all if customers and prospects are already remarking about firms on social sites why not capture these comments instead of spending scarce resources on reaching out to and getting them to respond to questions?

The doubting responses from these fine suppliers’ executives would, if I could see their faces, no doubt be accompanied by eye rolling and eyebrow raising: or attempts to stop them from happening.

These companies have a point. Facebook conversations and Tweets are so weighed down with and focused on with to others seemingly trivial details on individuals’ lives that they are often useless for meaningful personal let alone for commercial interactions.

My wife has practically given up on Facebook because it has become such a time-waster. If anyone wants to reach her they can send her an e-mail. Or call. The same goes for me. My TMC blog and the odd comments on media sites are about the extent of my social media interactions. When learning from others or offering my suggestions to them I prefer long and in-depth discussions.

And when there is commercially valuable information is it what firms need to know and use at that time? For with the social channel, like any resource, what is there is all that there is: take it, work with it or leave it. There is nothing companies can do to change the composition or the location.

There is the issue of whether what is said on the social channels accurately reflects marketplace sentiment; are the comments and posts instead examples of “empty cans rattle the most?” Who actually listens and more importantly heeds their messages? Are the people who use them also sought-after customers, possessing the right income, interests and demographics?

Moreover because these posts are typically anonymous how can firms find out these individuals’ identities and from there determine their value to their enterprises without arousing their suspicions other than approaching them head-on and only if they agree to reveal who they are?

The majority of the working population rarely has time during business hours--which are becoming longer as are commute times—to spend much time on social media. Stringent corporate policies and tougher laws that rightly restrict communicating in motion are going in place to limit such activities, though their success in doing so is debatable.

More seriously, too often the remarks made about firms on social media are unhelpful and worse yet occasionally inaccurate, which could harm brand and company reputation.

The social channel's anonymity opens the door to concerted guerrilla marketing warfare where commenters would be paid to build up their clients and tear down competitors, with language specially shaped and sharpened to get through the sites’ hosts’ screens. As these posts are anonymous the perps make their attacks and slip away into the ether.

Don't believe me? Since when have there truly been open and honest all-candidates' meetings, online media surveys and comments both call-in and written on public policy issues?

If that were not enough spam has already infested social channel sites, requiring accurate filtering. Suspicious-sounding responses have been sent to blog entries; it takes a careful eye and ear for language to diagnose and remove them.

The social channel, for all its ability to give consumers a global voice, also has its limits in influencing buying behavior; which makes it no different than any other channel. Customers will, for all their squawking, tolerate mediocre products and services if they marginally perform better for the money compared with the competition.

For example United Airlines has been taking a beating rightly or wrongly online. Yet as long as the carrier represents the best choice to get people and their luggage to get to their destinations when they want and reasonably on time and in fair comfort at viable fares it will stay in business.

Companies that want to tap the social channel had better be prepared for the hard work and are willing to invest in top-grade harvesting and analysis tools to extract wealth from these veins. They should must retain and expand their use of traditional voice of customer means and tools, like EFM-launched-and-managed surveys and interaction speech and screen analytics on calls, e-mails, chats and texts. They need to watch for, analyze, investigate and act on negative comments ASAP.

Even more important than that though outfits must design, engineer, deliver, price and support their products and services right. For there is no surer means than that to attract and retain customers: who will encourage others via the social channel to join them, resulting in a wealth of positive, reinforcing feedback that can create a virtuous cycle of prosperity.

Calling During the Holidays (and afterwards)? Be Nice, Not Naughty

2010-12-17T19:29:05Z

This is the time of year where all bells should be ringing in tune at and at the right times: church bells, those of the Salvation Army volunteers, those at the cash registers and those at the homes from telemarketers and other contact centers making unsolicited calls.

This is also the time of year where children are reminded to "be nice, not naughty": a reminder that grown-ups should be given too. That includes those who manage contact centers.

For the laws regulating calling hours, whom to call and what devices to be reach are strict and are enforced. The lumps of coal in one’s stocking for being bad is nothing compared to those received from publicity-seeking elected officials: which are in comparison mere taps to those that can be wielded from annoyed customers via comments delivered through Tweets and posts.

Here are some of the common areas that poor judgement in which can make good contact centers into bad ones:

* The U.S. federal laws permit telemarketing calls between 8am and 9pm. However many states strict these further. For example, in Connecticut (where TMC is headquartered) prohibits calling for such purposes before 9am, while Alabama and Louisiana limit calls during prescribed state holidays

* Calls to Canadians are permitted between 9am and 9:30pm. The smart organizations cut them off after 8:30pm

* Calling hours are the called parties’ local time (I reminded one firm of just that earlier today). IOW it may be 9am in Portland, Maine but it is 6am in Portland, Oregon

* Calling cell phones, those on do not call lists, using automated voicemail delivery systems like live agent calls and exceeding limits on abandoned calls

Fortunately there are excellent resources to keep telemarketers and other contact centers in tune with the laws and with customers. PossibleNow, from I sourced the federal and state information provides the DNCSolution suite that covers calls (landline and wireless), faxes and e-mails. It also enables firms to comply with Canada’s regulations. And it makes sure that postal mail isn’t sent to those who do not want to receive it. To stay good PossibleNow also offers the compliance management, auditing, consulting and training services.

Placing companies like PossibleNow on your holiday list, to clean calling lists--to keep predictive dialers and autodialers in tune with the laws and regulations--is a holiday “gift” that your organization and your customers will appreciate.

In this way you’ll ring up customers when you’re allowed to, and how and when customers want you to, and you’ll both be happily ringing in the holidays.