Customer Feedback – Friend or Foe?

I caught in interesting story on Australian radio this morning. Noted Twitterer @612brisbane Spencer Howson was talking about his foray into the world of Internet auction sites. What was interesting this morning was his experience in providing feedback to a seller. In a nutshell Spencer provided negative feedback about one aspect of his experience. On the surface, this seemed reasonable and reflected his feelings about his experience.

What Spencer found unusual was the seller contacted him and asked him to change the feedback because he or she felt the feedback was harsh or unwarranted.

The fact is Spencer cared enough to provide feedback.

As we note too many of our customers when we get talking about social media monitoring, and the potential for negative feedback to be made public

With thanks to Scout Labs

I really like this image and tag line from Scout Labs – it’s one of the best I’ve seen – and it’s a point I make to all of our customers.

Putting aside whether Spencer was fair or harsh, I think the seller has missed a great opportunity to engage in dialogue with a customer and address his concerns – and also build trust and goodwill.

Rather than challenging Spencer and trying to embarrass him into a back down, my recommendation would have been to acknowledge the feedback, thank the buyer for caring, and then communicate what steps you’re taking to learn from this and improve the operation of your business. And don’t forget to ask the customer what they think you should do to improve your service – chances are their perspective is reflective of other customers.

What percentage of your customers give you direct feedback? What percentage of your customers talk about you in the social-sphere? How would you know?

This is where tools like Scout Labs come to the fore. Social media monitoring allows you to dial into what your customers, non-customers, and the community are saying about your product, your company, and your services.

Social media monitoring is NOT a marketing exercise – it’s about aligning your whole organisation to your community – from the executive down into R&D, sales, service, marketing, finance, and logistics. And it’s about finding opportunities to engage in dialogue.

As an aside, does your company engage in email marketing where the “From” address is ‘do-not-reply@’? Do you see the issue here?

I caught in interesting story on Australian radio this morning (http://www.abc.net.au/brisbane/). Noted twitterer @612brisbane Spencer Howson was talking about his foray into the world of Internet auction sites. What was interesting this morning was his experience in providing feedback to a seller. In a nutshell Spencer provided negative feedback about one aspect of his experience. On the surface, this seemed reasonable and reflected his feelings about his experience.

What Spencer found unusual was the seller contacted him and asked him to change the feedback because he or she felt the feedback was harsh or unwarranted.

The fact is Spencer cared enough to provide feedback.

As we note too many of our customers when we get talking about social media monitoring, and the potential for negative feedback to be made public

With thanks to the Scout Labs team

I really like this image and tag line from Scout Labs – it’s one of the best I’ve seen – and it’s a point I make to all of our customers.

Putting aside whether Spencer was fair or harsh, I think the seller has missed a great opportunity to engage in dialog with a customer and address his concerns – and also build trust and goodwill.

Rather than challenging Spencer and trying to embarrass him into a back down, my recommendation would have been to acknowledge the feedback, thank the buyer for caring, and then communicate what steps you’re taking to learn from this and improve the operation of your business. And don’t forget to ask the customer what they think you should do to improve your service – chances are their perspective is reflective of other customers.

What percentage of your customers give you direct feedback? What percentage of your customers talk about you in the social-sphere? How would you know?

This is where tools like Scout Labs come to the fore. Social media monitoring allows you to dial into what your customers, non-customers, and the community are saying about your product, your company, and your services.

Social media monitoring is not a marketing exercise – it’s about aligning your whole organisation to your community – from the executive down into R&D, sales, service, marketing, finance, and logistics. And it’s about finding opportunities to engage in dialog.

As an aside, does your company engage in email marketing where the “From” address is ‘do-not-reply@’? Do you see the issue here?

Are Social Media Obligations and Responsibilities Mutual?

Many of us would have read the story recently about Za’s Brick Oven Pizza restaurant and their run in with a South Carolina Twitter celebrity. It’s an interesting lesson about the power of the crowd and how sometimes this power can be misused (either intentionally or unintentionally).

As someone who is active in social media, generating income from working in the space, consulting to companies, and providing solutions I’ve long advocated the basic principles put forward by the luminaries like David Meerman Scott (as an aside – did you know that David is coming to Australia next month – don’t miss this…) Brian Solis, and Axel Schultze – be open, be transparent, contribute and expect nothing in return, accept feedback, listen, engage, and most of all be honest.

But as I read this story and thought about the ideals that we strive to live to I was struck by this notion that sometimes consumers don’t seem to live to the same set of expectations. So there’s no mutuality in this social media thing… Is this fair?

You don’t get to play by the old rules any more, and it doesn’t matter what business you’re in. You don’t get the old privilege of anonymity – Sonia Simone

So we as vendors can’t live by the old rules! But what about consumers who choose to use word of mouth tools (like Twitter) to make a complaint that they know full well is going to spread; is there an obligation or expectation on them to take an active role in the resolution?

Is it fair on the vendor if a customer rants on Twitter and then decides they don’t want to talk, that they want to move on!

Or have we entered an age where consumers won’t accept mistakes period?

Or worse, have we entered an age where minor transgressions become internet headlines? My dish arrived 2 minutes later than I expected so it’s death to the reputation of this restaurant… I have to admit I don’t like this model where a consumer can rant and run. It goes against my core values of fairness and accountability.

How should we deal with those that decide to rant and run – do we as active members of the community have a right to turn the tables and call out consumers who do a seagull?

CRM Vendors Continue to Confuse the Social Media Space

I continue to spend time working on our strategy and product offering around social media for the B2B world. Having evolved our business from the CRM space, we keep a close eye on what some of the big dicks are doing and I continue to be profoundly disappointed at what I’m seeing. And whilst it dismays me that I have to mention SFDC twice in the one month, it is necessary as yet again, the propaganda from SFDC has hit the airwaves without anyone being critical of what it all means.

Firstly, this initiative is not ground breaking. I commented on this recently in another blog post and stand by those comments and this additional post.

The article in question goes to great lengths to promote the failings of the social media monitoring tools (even mentioning the thought leaders like Radian6 and Techrigy) creating in my opinion a Benioff-esque tone of “they’re not a CRM so clearly they can’t be any good” as well as promoting a “jump in with jack boots” approach to interacting with the community

Example #1

After all, monitoring a conversation is one thing, but responding to it is another entirely — the domain of CRM, something Salesforce knows better than almost anyone else.

Monitoring or listening is one of the most fundamental activities of any company wanting to harness the power of the groundswell (with due credit to Li and Bernoff).

SFDC’s strategy seems to not so much put them on a collision course with the community monitoring start ups but puts you the customer on a collision course with your own community. I can’t help but feel SFDC are rushing into this space with grand plans about how you can use their platform to “respond” to social media activity yet they haven’t given a second of time to understanding the strategy that MUST reside behind the use of web 2.0 tools.

These “monitoring tools” deliver far more value than they are given credit for. Tools like Radian6 and Techrigy have a rich set of features that if used properly will allow a company to quickly and easily tap into the true feeling of the community. And it’s not just the “I’m interesting” bit that you should be tracking. Why not use these tools to keep an ear to what the community is saying about your strategic customers. Can you imagine going to one of your major customers with a solution to a problem that you unearthed via Radian6 when they probably don’t even know the problem exists? How can you use this information to deliver innovation to a major customer? I’m sorry but SFDC isn’t going to do that for you…

Example #2

But monitoring thousands of conversations across Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, YouTube and blog comments is only part of the challenge. You still have to respond to them.

Absolute rubbish. If anyone goes into this thinking they need to respond to every piece of social noise about their company or products then they will fail quickly (and spectacularly).

This is what you’ll be doing if you follow what the author and SFDC are suggesting:

Due credit to Marta Zagan

Let me repeat something else Marta Zagan suggests – “The goal is not to control the conversation”.

In simple terms, the goal of using social network analytics is to watch, listen, and share some information with your community.

Don’t ever think you can skip the listen bit. And without tools like Radian6 or Techrigy you won’t be listening properly. Brian Solis (Social Media Manifesto) commented – “It’s about conversations, and the best communicators start as the best listeners”. Think about that for a minute. Isn’t this suggesting we step back and listen, then contribute? Not jump in boots and all with a human-being charged with responding and controlling?

Don’t go jumping in thinking you can communicate. You will need humans involved, but more importantly you need to have everyone understanding what the strategy is and what effort and commitment is required. Because this social media stuff isn’t easy. Get your VP of Sales in and let them see the data, let the Exec’s see what people are saying, in fact, make it a priority to have non-sales and marketing people looking at some of this information so that you can gain insights into the information.

CRM will have a role to play in how you engage with your communities, but it can’t be the driving force behind this. You must have everyone understanding how you as a company will harness these tools to deliver a dialogue and engagement. And you must also confront the problem of whether you even want this data in the CRM in the first place.

And just so you know, there are some CRM vendors doing some far more interesting work in this space than SFDC. RightNow is really ahead of the curve when it comes to customer experience management and SugarCRM are miles ahead in terms of how they are harnessing the power of open source with these great new web 2.0 tools.

Gorilla in their midst – hardly…

Your comments are welcome as always

Salesforce.com – behind the times but applauded by the analysts

Tech Target reports today that Salesforce.com is moving customer service into the cloud and allowing integration with communities, discussion groups, forums etc. Whilst the analysts are (yet again) falling victim to the relentless PR machine that is Salesforce.com what this release actually says is two things.

Firstly, they are way behind the times when it comes to innovation in customer service. What SFDC has announced here was actually pioneered by RightNow Technologies and Lithium around 3 years ago. RightNow Service was integrated into the Lithium community platform providing a complete customer experience solution that focuses the overall customer care experience. So why is it news that it’s taken SFDC 3 years to catch up?

Secondly, they still don’t get this whole social media/web 2.0 space. Their approach so far has been to latch themselves onto other people’s ideas and let hubris take over. I particularly liked the comment from SSPA VP Ragsdale – “They’ve done a good job of latching the Salesforce brand with the FaceBook brand”. Many SFDC customers must be truly confused as to what all this means.

Innovation in customer service (or customer experience management as it is rightfully called) is being done elsewhere. Here’s a good example – Greg Gianforte – not spewing out noise or grandstanding, but actually getting out into the field and talking to real customers, listening to real business issues and bringing this back into his organisation.

Ragsdale rightly comments that as many organisations are new to social networking and many of the web 2.0 ideas and need help understanding how to leverage these ideas and technology components – something we’ve been championing at Smart Selling for a while now.

Customer Experience Management – The untapped potential at Qantas

I fly around Australia a lot and my airline of choice is unashamedly Qantas.

I had an interesting experience today and it got me thinking about how situations could be handled more efficiently and effectively – particularly given the availability of technology like Smart Speak. Through our partnership with RightNow Technologies I had a chance to look at the Smart Speak solution earlier this year and was really impressed.

The situation that triggered this is I received an SMS from Qantas informing me that my flight home later today has been cancelled and could I please contact their call centre for more information. There was nothing personalised about the message as they (helpfully) directed me to their general call centre (not the premium flyer call centre) as well as offering a number to call should I happen to be calling from NZ (odd given I was flying from Sydney to Brisbane).

So I rang the premium flyer call centre and was helpfully informed that I’d been booked on the next flight – Great. But I then received a call from Qantas 10 minutes after I arrived at the airport wanting to speak to me about the change of my flight. Given I’d already checked in for the new flight, this was in fact a complete waste of Qantas resources.

Knowing the Smart Speak product, I got thinking about how Qantas could use this technology to (a) deliver a richer customer experience for their customers, and (b) reduce the impact of cancelled flights on their call centre operations – which would clearly mean lower operating costs and better experience delivery for other customers not affected by a flight cancellation.

Smart Speak lives in the Cloud and kicks into gear when an inbound call is received. Recognising the inbound number, Smart Speak can interpret a real time database (for example RightNow’s Service module) and recognise that the caller ‘might’ be calling about an open service incident. Smart Speak can ask the customer if that is what they’re calling about, or even give them an update before asking if they still need to speak to an agent.

Here’s what I would do.

A flight is cancelled – Qantas creates incidents against each affected passenger

The SMS is sent (I’d like to see this message personalised more – for example – “Qantas flight QF544 13 NOV from SYD has been cancelled. We’ve booked you on a later flight, pls call 131313 for details”)

• As passengers are moved onto later flights, the open incidents are closed off

Inbound calls are now routed via Smart Speak which identifies the caller and interprets the incident database.

Smart Speak asks the caller if they want information about their new flight, or would they like to speak to an agent.

If they want information about their new flight, it’s offered and the caller confirms their needs have been met.

Smart Speak is sophisticated enough that it can inform the customer that incident information has been updated, deliver this information, and then ask the customer if they are satisfied or still need to speak to a call centre agent.

What does this mean?

Well firstly, it means the customer gets the information they need with a minimal investment of time.

Secondly, Qantas wins as it means they deliver automated information to customers and prevent each and every customer hitting the call centre looking for information.

I can see this being a real winner for Qantas, particularly among their regular customers. Most of us understand the demands of running a modern airline and most of us get the system so this really is a case of Qantas developing the system so that we can use the system to help them help us.