Today a colleague brought me a recent article in Time Magazine called “The End of Customer Service“- thanks Josh.

The topic of the article is the prevailing movement to replace customer service personnel of one sort or another, with automated processes powered by, the consumer. A common example is the self-check out at the supermarket. The question, “Is this a good thing”? .

Because we often tend to look at the glass as half empty, many would say that this is not a good trend, that corporations are abusive in trying to increase their profitability by having the comsumer do the work and not paying for it.

Although this is probably true, there may be another way to look at it.

I believe there are times when reduced costs may also improve customer service and satisfaction. It all depends on the situation and the customer. I use ATMs and online banking almost exclusively. I like it. I don’t have to deal with lines and I can do it when it suits me. However, I remember when the ATMs first came out, we all thought the banks were trying the cover up their greedy need to reduce costs in the clothing of “customer convenience”. Actually, the banking industry was not driven by the consumer’s best interest (sorry to say they rarely are- I have bank issues). However, it turned out to be a pretty good thing. Why? Basically, automated systems are more reliable than people, and once we get the process working right, they don’t get tired, go on break or develop an attitude when under paid.

Change doesn’t usually feel good, especially when the intended benefit is for someone else. However, we should give ourselves more credit as consumers. We are powerful and if we don’t think something is good for us, we’ll usually reject the change.

To the extent the change brings about improvements in consistency and efficiency, we may want to say hello to the kiosk instead of a person. As long as when we need a person, or are unable to deal with a machine (my Mom hates machines), we have a choice.

This is an important distinction: People must be closely behind the automated process providing a human alternative as necessary. Ultimately, people must take care of people !

Think about some of the shifts we have come to depend on.

• self check-in kiosk at the airport ( I prefer the kiosk, I know what it does, I get in and out in 2 seconds, it makes my travel easier)
• online shopping – I remember when we thought this would never work – some think it still doesn’t – I haven’t been to the mall in at least a year.
• Pour your own soda/coffee at the convenience store – I prefer to pour my own, just the way I like it -not too much ice, please.
• Online and ATM Banking – no line, no problem.
• Pumping your own gas -Ok, there is nothing good about pumping your own gas. This was a bad idea !

I’m not saying that getting rid of people is a good thing, but making process better is. If we can reduce a few variables and improve the quality of our lives through science, I say thank you. I can get my human interaction somehow, I don’t need to do it at the bank.

To the extent that technologies are not ready for primetime, or they don’t add value to my experience, then keep it. This is about my experience not your cost reductions !

Committed to XCS !

I was adjusting the FAQ portion of the blog and I came across one of the simple reasons we are doing this work. I thought I would post it, since it usually brings about considerable thought and good discussion.

The question is: Why is it that most business leadership is usually inconsistent and less than impressive in its commitment to customer satisfaction programs?

I won’t beat around the bush to give you my opinion and hope you will give us yours.

I believe reason for the inconsistency in customer centricity comes from the fact that most business leadership find customer centric programs to be short term expenses for unquantifiable, long-term results.

If we are able to show them that the short-term expense provides quantifiable short term results, I believe they will commit to changing their business and in turn changing the world.

The XCS methodology does just that.

Today I was discussing the underlying tenets of customer satisfaction with a couple of colleagues. We came out of the discussion with . . “the difference in XCS comes from treating customers like people as opposed to objectifying them as “customers, accounts, etc”. It sounds overly simplistic, but it’s true.

The discussion lead to a methodology by the Arbinger Institute that rang a chord with me. The methodology, as explained by my colleague, provides a better ability to control our “way of being” as opposed to controlling our actions.

It occurred to me that often our actions fall short of customer’s expectations because we are are simply acting (following the expected customer satisfaction practices) possibly lacking inner honesty. We are missing the proper “way of being”.

There are 2 ways to see people, he explains:

1. as Objects and
2. as Human beings.

You might think that one naturally treats people as human beings, but many times we don’t.

As we were in the discussion, our waiter came to the table to fill up our water glasses. I noticed that one of us acknowledged the waiter with eye contact and thanked him for the service. Then I thought – it wouldn’t be uncommon for me to simply move the glass as to make it accessible to the waiter, and accept the service without acknowledgement. This is an example of objectifying the waiter.

When we objectify people, he further explains, we can see them as:

• Vehicles (sources of wanted activity)
• Barriers (those people that stand in the way of what we want to happen),
• or Indifferently

The very nature of objectifying people makes us the center of focus – HOW DO THEY AFFECT ME?

This makes XCS impossible. I cannot think of the customer’s point of view, assess their expectations and exceed that expectation with a “service mindset” if I am focusing on how he or she affects me.

XCS is about treating people like human beings. Seeing their humanity before we judge how they may or may not affect us.

This is not so easy, but if we can do it, we will gain the respect and loyalty of our customers.

Customers are people too.

People want to do business with People, not companies.

Ok, here is some proof . . . .

The Consumer Electronics Association carries out a large survey every year, in which two of the many questions are:

1) Are you Extremely Satisfied, Satisfied or Dissatisfied with the brand of your purchase?

and,

2) Will you Definitely buy the same brand the next time you need another similar product?

Take a look . . . . .

about 1% of dissatisfied customers say they will definitely purchase again. This makes sense.

But, only 8% of satisfied customers say they will buy the same brand. I was surprised when I first saw that statistic.

The real surprise is that 70% of customers who’s expectations were surpassed, pledged to buy again. WOW!!

Thats an 8.75 X increase in propensity to repurchase between customers who are “satisfied” and those who are “Extremely Satisfied”. I want some of that !

Giving customers more than they expect, transforms a financial transaction into an emotional event which creates a bond with the brand.

POW ! LOYALTY !

No brainer, right?

Ok, I’ll say it . . . I think most of corporate America would rather play golf !

Most of us have seen the light with regard to the business benefits to being GREEN.

However, environmental conciousness is a small part of the value chain.

Some companies have wider reach across the entire value chain and as such have a larger opportunity and responsibility to positively affect more people/customers.

The ultimate customer satisfaction play affects all of us.

Take a look at http://www.storyofstuff.com/ and see if it gives you any ideas for mass differentiation of your brand.