Customer service paradoxes: the social web vs. call centers
All companies that sell their products in consumer markets have customer service departments. Historically, these departments have tended deal with their customers on a mass basis and in a highly systematized way, largely because, in communications terms, markets have been one-way streets.
In a traditional market, the principal function was sales. Post-sales service was only relatively important. At the end of the day, it was the brand that held the power in the communication equation: it could organize advertising campaigns in the media to reach its customers en masse, while customers’ were limited to making complaints that would have limited impact. Obviously, the issue could not be completely ignored; failure to address issues could damage the brand, but in general, the situation was largely under control. The customer who wanted to make a complaint, or had a problem, or wanted advice, accepted this asymmetric relationship through a call center that often involved long periods of waiting, and that rarely answered the question in hand, and that was governed by strictly defined rules that limited the amount of attention the customer could expect to receive. If the problem was not in the book, it would not be addressed by call center staff, who would politely apologize and move on to the next call.
But the appearance of the social networks changed the communications balance. Suddenly, unsatisfied customers could create big problems for companies by publishing their complaints through the social media, which would often go viral, reaching a much bigger audience than any television advertisement. Anybody who came across such a case, and who identified with it, would then spread the word further, taking a much more active role than somebody who simply watches an advertisement. Brands began to wake up: if complaints about them were all over the internet and the social media, it was clear that their products were not recommendable. The Suck Index appeared in the United States, allowing customers to search for a brand with the word suck and to compare it with the number of times its rival had been described as such, thus establishing a metric measuring the quality of its customer service.
Some brands began to develop parallel customer service departments based on the social networks. Today, a great many brands are on sites such as Twitter and Facebook, using their walls and timelines to develop customer service activities, often using special teams, either in house or outsourced. Other companies are pursuing the concept of the contact center, using operators to answer questions through an ever-wider range of channels.
All these brands have held on to their traditional customer service channels, using the social networks in parallel for those clients who prefer to use them. And this is where the paradox comes: while a call to a traditional call center usually leads to an encounter with a highly unmotivated person, subjected to tough and discouraging guidelines, with virtually no freedom of action, using the social networks brings you into contact with much more motivated people, able to break the rules and show that “go the extra mile” to try to satisfy the customer’s needs.
So while the traditional call center is increasingly being relegated to use by customers unable to express themselves beyond complaining to a few friends and family members, the social networks have developed with the principle function of preventing possible public relations disasters. An unhappy customer who calls up is simply another customer. One that uses the social networks to complain is something else all together, and potentially a problem that can generate negative publicity, brand damage, sales loss, and lose the company other customers.
How long can this paradoxical situation last in which one customer gets more attention than another, depending on the communications channel they use? Can a company aspire to give all its customers the same level of attention that Facebook or Twitter offer, compared to their call center? What happens when the person who is poorly attended on the phone has a powerful presence on the social networks, and was simply using the phone out of convenience?
If you use the telephone you can also pay more for the call, as well as having to deal with recorded messages and long waiting times, only to deal with somebody who behaves like an automaton. If you contact a company via Twitter, the encounter is quicker, more cordial, and sometimes even inspiring. While in a call center to wait minute after minute in the hope of speaking to somebody, on Twitter, the whole experience glides along. There are any number of anecdotes out there.
The big brands are going to have to give some serious thought as to how to reboot an increasingly decrepit system. The nub of the issue is that we now have a more even power balance, which is obliging companies to be more transparent and diligent about a factor that has ever-greater importance in whether we choose this product or that one: the service we can expect if there is a problem with it. Brands that are able to show they are in touch with their customers via the social networks via the social web will be seen as more attractive than those that continue to keep customers at arm’s length via traditional call centers.
Cosmetic changes of the “now we’re on Twitter” type won’t wash. The social web is the new customer service number. Make sure you are there to answer the call.
(En español, aquí)
