We are not a cable news station, and we do not cover politics. Without incentive to support one perspective, we are able to explore all elements of an issue and provide readers with legitimate guidance.
We talk about how efficiency metrics paint an incomplete picture of the customer experience, but we do not ignore their ongoing relevance for contact center operations. We acknowledge the need for brands to communicate with their customers via social media, but we do not dance around the question of whether the ROI it actually delivers warrants the excess of hype.
If there is one bias or slant on Call Center IQ, it is supportive of the view that businesses need to put the voice of the customer at the center of their strategies.
Far from controversial, the perspective serves as an immortal benchmark for how executives must develop their businesses. Whether it concerns customer support, product development, employment culture or anything in between, all organizations suffer from at least one internal bottleneck on customer-centricity, and the journey to overcome those bottlenecks are universal and endless ones.
Bias in favor of customer-centricity, therefore, is tantamount to bias in favor of logic and common sense. "Fair and balanced" analysis refers to the identification of specific avenues for achieving customer-centricity rather than to the actual notion of customer-centricity.
Or so we thought. Recently, various customer management publications have interpreted a study in a way that attacks the very foundation of getting close to the customer. Whereas interest in acquiring customer feedback is typically considered an end with the debate focusing on the means, multiple publications are now posing the idea that inviting customer feedback could be a bad thing. They suggest that allowing an open forum for customer complaints could be a surefire way to damage relationships.
So, was our fundamental assumption about customer management wrong? Are we, in fact, slanted enough to warrant an attack from Will McAvoy on "The Newsroom?"
Not if one actually analyzes the research driving such articles.
"Inviting customer complaints can kill businesses," the most recent of such pieces, is bold in its titular claim: when brands give customers the opportunity to complain, they might risk undermining their relationships with those customers.
Unfortunately, the only thing greater than its boldness is its misdirection.
The related study, which was released by the Journal of Marketing earlier this year, was designed to test how consumers assess blame when a product malfunctions.
Asked to use a blender that, unbeknownst to them, had a mechanical flaw, the subjects were divided into groups. After the product failed to work, the members of one group were led to believe that they personally were responsible for the issue, while the other was told to chalk the situation up to a manufacturing issue.
These groups were then further split, with only some receiving the opportunity to complain to the manufacturer.
After getting the chance to complain, those subjects led to believe the failure was their fault rated the product less favorably than those who stewed in silence.
On the other hand, when those subjects convinced the manufacturer was at fault complained, they generally walked away with a more favorable opinion of the brand than those who did not have said interaction.
The real conclusion of this data should be simple: customers expect brands to assume responsibility and accountability for product failures. When things go wrong, they do not want the agent to throw the issue back in their faces—they want the agent to shoulder the blame and determine an appropriate resolution.
[eventPDF]
Yet far too many media outlets are focusing only on the first half of the story; that complaints from customers believed to be at fault for the problem produce a negative perception of the brand. Rather than being chalked up to common sense—who likes to be blamed when a product he "bought" does not work?—it is being cited as proof that letting customers vent might not be so positive.
Driving this misinterpretation seems to be a fundamentally-misguided understanding of what drives customer relationships.
Even before the media had its opportunity to analyze the report, the study’s co-author Darren Dahl explained, "It's commonly assumed that giving customers a chance to voice grievances allows companies to maintain relationships."
By whom is that commonly assumed?
The claim within the customer management community has never been that providing a forum for grievances is a ticket to customer loyalty. In fact, agents are criticized for being destructively un-customer-centric when they serve as a sounding board for complaining customers rather than as problem-solvers who take ownership over a situation.
If letting customers vent was all it took to win them over, no company ever would have needed to actually staff its social media accounts.
The actual claim among customer management leaders is that an open communication forum with customers provides an enormous opportunity to create relationships with customers. But the onus is still on the brand to seize that opportunity, and the surest pathway to seizing it is to empathize with customers, assume accountability for finding a resolution and then actually deliver that resolution on the first contact.
The customer management "blame game" is a notoriously dangerous one. Customers do not call contact centers expecting an impartial judgment on who is at fault. They call because they want a solution to whatever is troubling them. A brand’s failure to accept responsibility for fixing the problem will inevitably cripple the brand’s drive to pursue a resolution.
By revealing that those customers blamed for causing the blender issue themselves were more likely to hold brands accountable, the study affirms this reality. Customers are not going to say, "You know what—you’re right—it’s my fault this product isn’t working. I’m therefore fine with it not working." Whether or not they know in their hearts they are to blame, they know the brand disproportionately controls the ability to find a solution, and they expect the brand to follow through.
Dahl’s conclusion "that companies shouldn't just let people sound off. They need to be stroking egos, as well" destructively simplifies the issue. Yes, "ego stroking" is helpful in building a relationship, but the real ticket to customer satisfaction is a brand’s demonstration of enough concern that fixing the problem is the only workable option.
If the question of blame matters at all to a brand, it is not demonstrating that concern. It is not building relationships. And, true, it should not open itself up to customer complaints because it is not serious about customer-centricity.
But if a brand will use every bit of feedback, whether a vicious complaint or a glowing compliment, then it needs to keep the communication door perpetually open. If a brand cares about its customers, knowing how they truly feel and what they truly want can never be a losing proposition.