Two schools of thoughts are fighting these days around the following issue: how customers should be treated in social media space. Can customer service/support interactions be automated or the whole nature of social media channels dictates one-on-one personal conversation-based communications.
In order to sort out the pros and cons of each group, let’s go back in time and look at the history of self-service.
In 2007 Times Magazine has published the following a story: “10 Ideas That Are Changing the World” with one piece dedicated to customer service. The self-service concept as you can learn from this article was coined back in 1916 by Clarence Saunders. To increase the profits from his grocery store he opened his new revolutionary at that time chain of self-service grocery stores: Piggly-Wiggly. Now we are using self-service options when we do our banking, checking in at the airports, purchasing online – the self-service life becomes a reality. We are moving more and more into becoming almost 100% automated self-service society.
Customer Service went through the chain of different communication channels: from letters, e-mails, phone calls to social media channels like Twitter, Facebook, communities..
Interestingly enough with the introduction of new channels the old ones did not go away. And the challenges stayed the same: how companies can provide CONSISTENT, GREAT customer experiences across all the channels in a COST EFFECTIVE manner.
From a customer point of view the one and only thing that matters to them – how fast their problem gets solved. And to get support they will use all or any of the channels available. Do I care as a customer if I will get automated response to my tweet with the right answer? – NO! As long as it is fast and accurate. Or maybe not – maybe I do want to see a real human interaction, conversation, friendly personalized support. If I do, am I willing to pay extra?
Do you think that there will be an introduction of new paid service-level based customer service options for social media channels? You want one-on-one personalized conversation? – pay for it? In any case, even if companies will opt-in to provide you with “free” human-based personal interactions, the cost of this support will be embedded in the cost of their goods and services. You will end up paying anyway.
What are your thoughts, expectations and views on a future of customer service in a socially-networked world? Will you as a customer accept self-service based support in social space?
Robert Bacal
2 years ago
Thanks for bringing up this issue. It’s at the core of both customer service and social media these days.
Personally, I look historically at other customer service channels and how they have been perceived by customers, and I have NO doubt, having trained 1000′s of CS staff, that if you want to stand out, you MUST personalize.
The right answers are important, but the medium (as McLuhan said) dictates the meaning.
I cannot think of a single CS tool based on technology that is well received by customers in general, be it voice mail, information via automated phones, even email. One logical reason is that no automated system can diagnose and customize the advice or responses to the particular person’s level, and circumstance.
That said, I wonder if many humans can.
If you want to wow people via your CS, it’s simple. Don’t look at it as overhead, and hire good people, and pay them enough and treat them well enough to be PROUD of their work.
If you want to be like everyone else, automate.
Visit the Customer Service and CRM Hybrid Search Engine
http://researchprofessional.org/customerservice/
Automate or Personalize Customer Service – A Clear Choice | The Happy Curmudgeon
2 years ago
[...] subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.Powered by WP Greet Box There’s an interesting and stimulating blog post about automating or personalizing customer service, with respect to the use of social media and [...]
admin
2 years ago
Hi Robert,
thanks for your note!
I have worked with many [too many] customers in service/support areas as well! I agree with you that it is hard to find a tool or technology that can find the relevant answer fast. But the space is evolving. There are number of companies that have products that help with 1) capturing knowledge from the top experts; 2) store that knowledge in consistent manner; 3) enable that knowledge to be retrieved in a most easy-to-understand for customer way. Some of those tools provide intelligent guidance. But to me the whole area is not going to be addressed by the availability of certain tools. What’s more important is the design and implementation of overall customer service/support strategy. Which is very specific from one customer to another. Some of my customers for example in complex technical support space were very concerned about potential liability issues related to community-driven solution recommendations, we had to build a very specific solution that helped them to deliver the service and at the same time addressed their concerns.
Thanks again for a great feedback!
Tatyana
@glfceo
Nancy Twoemy
2 years ago
NOT either/or. No doubt the pendulum is swinging to social media paths for service – as the shinny new toy in multi-channel customer experience and journey. The good and bad news – ONE channel does not necessarily replace another. Social, web self- service, IVR, email, SMS, Social, Chat, contact center, in-person, etc – are all channels for customer interactions and service. As businesses offering products and services need to be where your customers are and interact the way they choose.
There are two dramatic challenges for busiensses in this world of increasing channels – now including social. #1 is to deliver a truely seamless experience no matter the channel; #2 is to be flexible and optimize your investments in channels (people, processes, systems, data…) to align with the preference of your prospects and customers.
This is a timely and huge topic with factors way beyond what is represented here.
Robert Bacal
2 years ago
I agree that one channel does not replace another, and THAT is THE issue, in my view. The costs are unreasonable, and worse still we “teach” customers to expect absolutely bizarre consideration (did you know that fraudulent product returns now are the leading loss to retailers, passing cc fraud in Canada).
If I cannot “reach” customers and retain them without having multi-channels for contact, then I suspect I’d be in the wrong business, or be simply inept.
You can’t compete on the basis of doing something everyone can do. And every major company will do similar things, thus inflating costs in the name of customer service WHILE actually contributing to the perceptions that customer service is worse.
I don’t believe Twitter offers a single advantage period, whether automated or not.
So, not only am I saying that automating is a bad idea (you will almost never succeed via automated systems with an angry customer), but I’m saying that going multi-channel is even worse.
Obviously that’s a minority opinion, and it IS an opinion, although I believe that such thinking has made my customer service books successful…[insert imaginary plug and links here].
admin
2 years ago
Thanks for your thoughts Nancy!
Yes, this topic is huge – totally agree with you. I recall intense debates when customers started using e-mail as a service/support channel. Funny enough we discussed almost identical topics. This time it becomes more interesting as with the new channels customers do not come to you as a vendor, they just go out there – to the whole social world – and complain, ask for support, advise the whole universe! Vendors are forced to 1) monitor and listen; 2) respond; 3) measure; 4)learn; 5) educate and more…
Best regards,
Tatyana
@glfceo
Robert Bacal
2 years ago
Actually, there’s not much new here, although I’m tickled to hear you folks talk about what happens on twitter as if it’s new. People have been complaining about companies as long as there have been bulletin board systems, usenet discussion lists, listservers etc, going back even before the Web. (yes, I’m that old!).
There’s nothing new there. The argument SoMe folks will put forth is that there’s been nothing on the scale of Twitter, but in fact, the “scale” is vastly overestimated. Same for Facebook. The number of people who actually are active is way smaller than most think.
Here’s a few points:
1) If people search for your company, they can find bad things anywhere on the Internet, not just in social media. To test this search for an Internet provider company or Satellite TV company. You cannot squelch them where they complain, and you cannot possibly go around the web ferreting the complaints out 1 by one. It’s pointless.
2) If you find complaints on a proactive basis, there is no guarantee that the people who read the complaint will read your wonderful response, or even the original customer’s compliment. (same as on other communication channels). In fact MOST will not see your response.
3) Angry people want two things, and IN this order: They want to be heard, emotionally, AND they want the problem solved. You can’t do either easily in Twitter, or other mini platforms. If you switch the order, they won’t cooperate in solving their own problems.
4) Automating stuff that involves diagnostics never works in customer service. Frankly it pisses people off, because it’s rare that a person fits the prototypical customer on which the system is based, re: literacy, experience, knowledge, familiarity with product, and on and on. I hit this all the time, and I bet most of you do to. It’s too much info, or too little, or too basic, or…
5) Finally our assumptions about customer service are wrong. You can’t compete on customer service if you do what all your competitors can do. It’s like an arms war. Each escalates, which costs money, and almost always it doesn’t result in more customer satisfaction. You can’t build and build, while at the same time seeing the CS support as overhead. Almost all the time the systems, human or otherwise fail. SIMPLIFY.
Provide reasonable customer support and customer service. Manage customer expectations, and don’t disipate the budget on multiple channels, and automation.
Give me a company with enough profit margin (I’d never take on one with not enough), and I’ whip any competitor’s behind on customer service by employing real humans, paying them properly, retaining them, and saying to customers;
Call us. We’re SO good at this, you won’t even have to wait more than 2 minutes.
The one exception to all I’m saying is I DO think it’s worthwhile to monitor Twitter for comments about one’s company. And then follow up with a person.
admin
2 years ago
Thanks Robert. Great comments. I think the real change is around the whole communication diagram. If before customers were mostly exposed to direct contact by the company and company had high control on their brand, now customers tend to go and ask other customers for their feedback on companies, products, services. Brands who are not engaging social media channels to build loyal customer communities will most likely see an impact.. And customer service/support function is one of those main three areas that gets high visibility and high interaction level in social media space – so your goal as a company is not only to take care of angry people but mostly to covert them into your advocates. And multiply those advocates, build communities of experts as well!
Warm regards,
Tatyana
http://twitter.com/glfceo
Robert Bacal
2 years ago
Ok. I understand you when you take about creating advocates, and on the surface, of course that sounds fine. However, beneath your thinking (and the thinking of those are encouraging social media use for CS) is a set of assumptions about people, and about how people use the technologies.
I think you probably make some assumptions that are incorrect, and if they are incorrect so are your conclusions. Let me give some examples of assumptions that might underlie the social media party line.
It’s possible, via Twitter or a single SM platform, to create ardent advocates.
Those advocates will continually champion the brand to others on Twitter.
That the people who are looking to purchase will see the advocates advocating in a timely fashion.
That the potential consumers will believe what the advocates say.
That the potential consumers will act on what they read from advocates and buy f
Twitted by rwang0
2 years ago
[...] This post was Twitted by rwang0 [...]
Robert Bacal
2 years ago
sorry my keyboard died. on backup
Ok. I understand you when you take about creating advocates, and on the surface, of course that sounds fine. However, beneath your thinking (and the thinking of those are encouraging social media use for CS) is a set of assumptions about people, and about how people use the technologies.
I think you probably make some assumptions that are incorrect, and if they are incorrect so are your conclusions. Let me give some examples of assumptions that might underlie the social media party line.
It’s possible, via Twitter or a single SM platform, to create ardent advocates.
Those advocates will continually champion the brand to others on Twitter.
That the people who are looking to purchase will see the advocates advocating in a timely fashion.
That the potential consumers will believe what the advocates say.
That the potential consumers will act on what they read from advocates and buy from the company.
sorry this isn’t working…half to do repairs.;