Giving a Chat: What Online Chat Failures Say About Multi-Channel Customer Support

Think what you want about online customer chat, but there is one reality you simply cannot ignore: in today’s era, it makes sense.

No, the technology is not all that cutting-edge in a socially-driven online atmosphere. And, no, it has never flirted with the status of becoming customers’ most preferred means of reaching brands.

But in a world in which laptops, tablets and mobile phones are never more than a few inches away from a customer’s hand, in a world in which instant results have never been more gratifying…it simply makes sense as an offering.

Chat’s obvious, irrefutable value as a customer communication tool makes brands’ failure to properly utilize the medium all the more vexing, and it is due to that frustration that virtually every customer management analyst has a "why chat sucks" article in his portfolio.

Chat is not the only channel wreaking havoc on the user experience, but it is one of the few for which "best practices" seem so obvious and attainable. Uncertainty about how to approach social is a reasonable enough excuse for lagging performance in that channel, but when it comes to something as simple as chat, there are clear right and wrong ways to do it.

Brands, more often than not, are guilty of driving down those errant paths.

Beyond underscoring why chat itself is being damaged by such poor performance, an analysis of failed chat interactions also reveals the need to understand the intricacies of each medium when providing "multi-channel support." Specific elements of the phone or in-person experience do not properly translate to the chat realm, and while it is important to maintain brand consistency no matter where the interaction takes place, it is equally paramount to develop a build a unique experience appropriate for each specific channel.

From seeing how trends and "best practices" from other realms fail to translate to the chat realm, observers witness why each channel experience needs to be customized to the specific expectations and needs the customer has when interacting in a given medium.

I’m Already Qualified

One of the most valuable components of chat is its integration into the existing web experience. Whereas in-person and telephone support channels require qualification to identify and understand the user’s situation, chat exists in an environment that should make such excessive qualification unnecessary. This should both save time (since the customer will not have to scramble for account details while interacting with the agent) and improve the accuracy of support (since the details of a customer’s relationship with the brand and specific problem are documented in the transcript).

Brands often fail to take advantage of this opportunity and instead approach chat interactions like typical phone interactions. Even if the chat window first prompts the user to explain his situation, most chat representatives enter the conversation with zero understanding of the problem—they ask the user to restate what he already typed.

Brands also rarely seize proper opportunities to link the chat system to user accounts, asking users to independently verify information from their accounts. Often, these verification requests are just as tone-deaf and convoluted as they are on the phone, running completely counter to the advantageous nature of the chat environment.

Customers turn to online chat to avoid some of the qualification pitfalls and annoyances of other support realms. And yet if the brand is not going to frame its chat strategy from a similar perspective, it is completely defeating the purpose. It is wasting its own money, and it is wasting its customers’ time.

Lesson: Different channels lend themselves to different support processes. If brands do not recognize those differences when building systems and creating strategies, they are not successfully delivering multi-channel customer support.

Manage Your Knowledge

Many agents struggle with the English language. Many customers struggle to articulate their inquiries in ways that align with the knowledge management systems. Both, ultimately, contribute to a breakdown in customer communication that results in inefficient, unsatisfying support interactions.

Chat, in theory, should avoid this pitfall. Everything about the conversation is documented and easily navigable for the agent, theoretically enabling him to a speedy, accurate response. Instead of having to clarify questions with "So, if I understand correctly" or "What you’re saying is," the agent can simply look to the chat—get a sense of the key words and information—and proceed with resolution.

Puzzlingly, so few chat agents seize this opportunity. Instead of taking advantage of text’s superiority for customer support, they again return to "phone protocol." They reiterate information even when the customer delivered it in the clearest, most understandable language possible ("so, if I understand correctly…"). They consistently try fitting the text into one of their knowledge management "buckets," an effort that comes across as particularly transparent and wasteful in the world of text.

While it is conceivable that an agent might want to clarify whether he truly understands a customer’s issue on the phone, when he does the same for an articulately-written chat response, he comes off like a cartoon character. He comes off like someone whose job is not to think but simply to copy and paste the user’s information into a self-service portal.

Troubling about that logic is that if a customer sees value in using online chat, he likely has already contemplated using web self-service. He turns to chat for a similar, but more personalized and resolute support opportunity, and if he is not getting that from the agent, he is not receiving the customer service he deserves and desires.

Customers select channel based on a number of criteria, ranging from convenience, to accessibility to likelihood of resolution. One of the most prominent decision factors is personalization; the "human" touch is demanded any time there is a live interaction between a customer and an agent, not simply when the interaction takes place in person or on the phone.

Live chat makes it easy for the agent to deliver personalized care without losing track of the information he needs to provide support. Knowledge management and agent training strategies need to be built around this notion—live chat agents are expected to think uniquely about each situation, and the organization must condition and support that thought.

Lesson: The rise of new channels, particularly web-based ones, is not a license to scale back the "human" element of customer care. Rather, based on the intricacies of the channel, there might be a greater expectation for unique, personalized, efficient care. When introducing support in a given channel, brands must focus not on why the channel benefits their business but instead how it can be used to benefit customers.

Handling the Time

The aforementioned emphasis on personalized online chat support must not be mistaken for a reduced emphasis on efficiency. While this might be the age of customer relationships and thus an age of reconsidering whether metrics like average handle time should dictate call center strategy, the greatest priority is still giving the customer what he wants.

The Internet is generally seen as a more convenient alternative to live interactions, and chat is therefore seen as a convenient alternative to the time-consuming phone channel.

Why, then, am I currently looking at a Time Warner Cable chat window that says I am "fifteenth" in the queue? Fifteenth. As in one five…th. Call center support can be annoying, but rarely is it this egregious.

And why, given all I wrote above about knowledge management and qualification, will the chat session—if it ever happens—take four to five times longer than is needed to address the issues? Why will the support agent blatantly stall as he helps other customers or looks up information that is not properly provided to him? Why will he not be mindful of my time and its value?

Whereas there is room for relationship-building and upselling in a live phone conversation, chat is generally about quick, convenient support. The "strategic call" excuse that many managers use to justify poor average handle time, sometimes mistakenly, absolutely does not apply here. Efficiency and efficacy matter greatly.

An interest in engaging with a brand is not a license to have my time consumed with slow service. The service should be as fast as possible; if the handle time for the interaction takes longer than expected, it should be because a substantive, valuable conversation is taking place. Not because the chat agent is giving the customer the runaround as he tries to get his ducks in a row.

Lesson: Contact center leaders are wisely aligning their performance management strategies with the voice of the customer. But because customers approach each channel with different priorities, expectations and values, that voice will be different in each channel. So, too, must the performance management strategies.

The switch from "transactional" to "strategic" calls is a laudable philosophy, but it only makes sense as a guiding light if the customer supports that transformation. Perhaps many are when it comes to their dealings with phone agents, but it is not definitively true that they are approaching chat, social and email the same way.

It is also important to understand what a particular metric measures. An increase in average handle time does not necessarily mean callers are receiving a warmer, more comprehensive, more resolute experience. It could simply mean the agents are being inefficient and wasting their time.