Customer Support Is Everyone’s Business

I was reading a Los Angeles Times article today on how difficult it can be to find customer support numbers on Web pages.

This has always been a sore spot for me; a sense of major frustration. Why do so many companies (including ones I have worked for to remain nameless) try to bury contact numbers.

While I understand that each contact a customer has with a company costs money, is that not part of the relationship you build with your customer? Whether a tube of toothpaste or a private jet, companies try to build brand loyalty.

What better way to screw that up than punt on enabling the customer to contact you, in a manner they feel most comfortable. Forcing a customer to web-only interactions, because they cost the company less, does not provide a reasonable alternative. You need to meet the customer where they want to be met.

Customer service is inherently expected in a purchase (if needed). We are a service based economy, and just because it is hard to tie support costs back to repurchase rates, it does not mean a) we should not try, and b) we should not make it easy for customers to speak with us.

Marketing should look at new ways to measure customer loyalty through support contacts. No, not in the cheesy ‘do you want fries with that’ pitch that many companies employ to try and turn their support calls into revenue generating opportunities. Yes, in the manner that you are building your brand, supporting you customers, and helping customers understand that you stand behind your products/services.

If you invest, it will return in spades- through brand reputation, re-purchase intent, re-purchase rates, and word of mouth marketing.

People, Planet, Profit

Hot off the presses from McKinsey (yep the stratergery consultancy):

• Almost 70 percent of executives around the world say that global social, environmental, and business trends are increasingly important to corporate strategy
• Yet relatively few companies act on the global trends they think will affect them most
• Among those that do act, only 17 percent report significant benefits

Hmmm… Social, environmental and business. Sounds eerily like the ‘triple bottom line’ to me.

Full disclosure, I am a big proponent of the triple bottom line: People, Planet, Profit. I am a capitalist at heart, but do fundamentally believe that the ‘carrying capacity’ of the planet – especially in terms of people and environment, are important factors we need to address--- today.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not a dope smoking, stereotypical hippe that demonizes capitalism and the goal of profit. I am for profit (although my bank account would suggest otherwise), and could not put my hair into dreadlocks if I had to.

No, I am just an average guy who sees that 5,10,15 years from now these will be issues that are mandated through regulation. So I figure, start addressing it now, invest for the future, and you will win…

Call it what you will:

• Cost avoidance- spend $10 today or $10,000 in the future
• Competitive advantage- if you are ‘there’, why not push for more regulations, as will cost your competition more to catch up
• Investment- if you can figure out how to make social and environmental economically feasible today, think of the learning curve effect for tomorrow
• Positive PR- consumers are getting more savvy as to including social and environmental considerations in their selection criteria

Bottom line- the triple bottom line will be more important than just 70% talking about it. Soon, you will have to do something about it.

Wireless on the Brink?

AT&T reported their earnings, and revenue for wireless data services -- including text-messaging and mobile Internet access - surged 57%. Data now represent 22% of AT&T`s total wireless service revenue.

Motorola Inc. (MOT) said Monday it made an equity investment in VirtualLogix through Motorola Ventures, its strategic venture capital arm. VirtualLogix is a maker of virtualization software, which enables the mobility of applications from the desktop to mobile devices.

Are we on the brink? Back in 2000, with the advent of 3G, the mobile industry was going to be flipped on its head? That never materialized.

Devices have become more powerful. Access has become more ubiquitous. Are customers more willing?

The timing is getting closer, but until someone cracks the code on getting customers to invite them into their personal space (the screen on the phone) in such a way that companies can truly monetize it, we are still in the waiting game.

It will only take one to make the difference. Where is that one, and how far along are they?

Intrusion By Invitation Only

Last week I was reading an article from MediaPost on Claire Bennett, the CMO of American Express. The net of the article was that she is helping guide American Express redefine marketing to that which is invited by the customer, rather than intrusive to the customer.

While I agree with her positioning on transactional v relationship marketing, and the goal of building relationships, I do not agree with her implied statement that transactional advertising is intrusive.

We may be debating semantics here, as Claire may have not been intended that to be the casual readers (or audience’s) interpretation. But it was mine. And to me the idea that marketing is based on intrusion – whether transactional or not, is inappropriate.

Has not the goal of marketing always been to somehow be ‘invited’ into the consumers’ mind?

Marketing is successful because it transcends that gap and creatively determines ways to be invited into the consumers mind.

Are You Being Heard?

I just got done taking my 19 month old son for a hair cut. Personally, my ears are ringing like I just got out of a metal concert.

Throughout the ordeal, my guilt for my son’s screaming escalated. I found myself profusely apologizing to anyone in earshot (the whole barbershop) for his tirade. Then the barber paused, looked at me, and in the kindest words said, ‘you are the only one its affecting.’

What? With that decibel level? With that red face? With those forced tears?

I looked around. Another customer was casually chatting with his barber. Waiting customers were leafing through magazines. They were oblivious to the rant.

Why? Could they have been there and done that before- and therefore they were de-sensitized? Could it have been lost among the clutter? Could it be that the screaming was not as loud as I thought it was?

At this point I do not know. What I do know is that it made me stop and think: When I communicate, am I really being heard?

'Green' For The Lack Of A Better Word, Is Good

Green advertising and initiatives are everywhere these days. Subaru, Johnson and Johnson, even McDonalds.

Seems as if market research continues to drive corporate marketing campaigns. A variety of reports in B2C note that customers overwhelmingly consider sustainable or environmental details when making purchase decisions (what is not clear yet is does that make a difference in their actual purchase behavior). In B2B I have seen several studies that triangulate around the ‘80% of customers would pay up to 5% more’ for a product or service that is tied to ‘green’. Again, at the end of the day will the funds follow the hearts.

Regardless, this is a markers dream. A new field to play in. A new campaign to design and execute.

But is it all for real? Are the companies really embracing the change? Or are they ‘putting lipstick on a pig’, to use the cliché? It can be very hard to tell.

There is one site I really like to review, The Greenwashing Index. While not 100% comprehensive, it is very informative. With all the initiatives out there, they have their plates full.

Check them out at: http://www.greenwashingindex.com/.

BTW- I consumed no paper and produced no waste in the posting of this blog. My carbon footprint in the production of this message was negligible, and I will offset that by riding my bike this evening rather than driving. (Fact or Fiction? - maybe the greenwashing index will comment :) ).

Probabilities

Today is my wife’s birthday. It is also her great aunt’s birthday. It is also our daughter’s birthday.

So the natural question arises. What is the chance of that? And should we then play the lottery and hope to win $200M?

Let’s focus on the first. Even though these are family members, statistics do not care. As such each ‘event’ is considered independent of one another. Logically, each probability is then 1/365 (ignoring leap years for practical reasons).

Thus the total probability of any three people have the same birthday is a 7.5 in 1 million chance, or 1 in ~133,500.

Not near as remote as you would initially think. Not near the remote odds of winning the lottery.

So as for the second question above: Oh well, guess that $200M will go to someone, eventually……