Social Media to Blame for Insincere Customer Experiences?

In an era of hollow celebrity endorsements and exaggerative promotional copy, the pure, unadulterated reality of a quality customer experience makes for an invaluable branding opportunity.

Inherently important, that notion is even more meaningful amid the rise of social media. By linking satisfied customers to millions throughout the world, social media networks prevent the bright light of a delightful experience from fading once the actual call comes to an end. The whole world becomes a stage for a brand’s customer-centricity, and brands thus have an unparalleled opportunity to prove they truly walk the talk.

Unfortunately, now that the cat is out of the bag, this significant strategy for building brand loyalty has become the enemy of customer-centricity.

Like a candy bar dangling on the edge of a vending machine, social media is far too appealing for most marketers to ignore. Despite carrying virtually no cost, it provides direct access into the lives of thousands, if not millions, of target customers. When it comes to leveraging that reach for marketing endeavors, hesitation is simply not an option.

But in so rigorously pursuing that opportunity, far too many marketers blind themselves to the reason social customer engagement is so effective. Instead of recognizing its role in connecting a brand to its customers and then allowing the greatness of that engagement to trickle through the system, marketers want to skip ahead to the end. They want to cash in on the "viral" branding elements of social media without focusing on building experiences that warrant such sharing.

And that spells trouble for a brand’s customer management function. When branding—rather than the needs of the inquiring customer—becomes the chief aim of a customer interaction, it fundamentally changes the manner in which agents approach the issue in question.

Consider the process of applying for a job. When one puts his resume and cover letter together, he can undoubtedly incorporate creative ideas that would make his friends smile and generate a favorable buzz on social networks. But at the end of the day, the only opinion of importance is that of the employer, and if the employer is not impressed, the candidate will not receive the job. Period.

The fact that a candidate’s friends and Twitter followers liked his idea for the application will not convince an unimpressed recruiter that his decision to issue a rejection letter was incorrect.

Because customer service engagements are supposed to be evaluated against the central, binary question of whether or not the specific customer was satisfied, a successful social communication should similarly operate with only the customer’s needs in mind. And when the customer feels slighted by the brand, he will not turn his frown upside down simply because the company’s Twitter followers were impressed with how the brand responded.

Granted, it is not as if the two focuses will inherently produce mutually-exclusive results. Just as it is very reasonable that a resume worthy of viral sharing will also impress the specific employer to whom it was delivered, social customer service worthy of discussing online will conceivably impress the specific customer to whom it was offered.

But the two outcomes will not always be identical, and that means there will be instances in which the company’s decision to focus on branding will produce an undesirable outcome for the customer. A customer-centric organization simply cannot tolerate that possibility.

Unable to subscribe from e-mail campaign I deemed unsolicited, I recently contacted the responsible organization on Twitter in search of a resolution. The brand responded very quickly, noting that the team would manually remove my name from the list.

At first, I was thrilled. In a customer experience environment that praises companies for responding to as little as 50% of social inquiries, here was an organization apparently committed to serving the customer. It recognized social media as a legitimate customer support channel and committed itself to resolving the issue as soon as possible.

Then came the unexpected. The next morning, I received another unsolicited mailing from the organization—it had not unsubscribed me after all. Frustrated, I reached back out on Twitter to confirm that they had not resolved the problem they promised to fix.

A short while later, a representative responded that the customer service team does not work on weekends and that the manual unsubscribe could not be completed until Monday.

Admittedly, this problem seems trivial—after all, with email inboxes overflowing with spam for erectile dysfunction medications, secret inheritances and sexy singles in Boston, what is one more unwanted email? But the issue here is not so much about the magnitude of the suffering—it is about the mindset responsible for the situation. It is a crystal clear demonstration of how a commitment to customer service for branding purposes can lead to a disappointing customer experience.

For starters, consider the staffing issue. The organization obviously cares enough about its social media presence and brand reputation to monitor its Twitter account on weekends, but when it comes to the more relevant driver of customer satisfaction—customer-centric service—the brand feels no pressure to operate outside the walls of Monday and Friday. How does this facilitate a strong customer experience?

Response time, in general, also reflects the negative side of branding-based customer service. It was apparently more important to let the world know it was fixing the issue than actually fixing it—it demonstrated significant urgency in responding (and thereby stopping the spread of a customer complaint) and decidedly less so in resolving the issue. This is essentially customer service in reverse.

Then there is the issue of communication clarity. In promising to unsubscribe me, the organization gave me no reason to anticipate a wait—as far as I was concerned, I was never again going to receive an email from this organization. As it turns out, the company was not in a position to immediately deliver that resolution, and yet it felt no need to tell me otherwise. Rather than making sure it met my—the customer’s—expectations, its key priority was to assure social onlookers that its company addresses support inquiries with swift resolve. But I thought I was the one who mattered most?

From all such perspectives, it is clear that the brand’s ultimate goal was to look like it was good at customer service. Actually being good was a secondary objective.

And this is hardly the only brand to do so. Far too many businesses are content to offer fast, generic responses but then leave the "tough stuff" for another day or another rep. Appearing to care—not actually caring—is the goal due to the belief that customers judge organizations by perception rather than experience.

To some extent, there is some merit to that notion. I have seen many companies land on "best social customer service" lists that, though very responsive, offer nothing more on social than generic, PR-friendly responses.

But when it comes time for a customer to evaluate his loyalty, which will ultimately weigh more? The perception of customer-centricity that comes from an active Twitter stream of responses to customers or the first-hand knowledge that the company does not actually deliver for those customers with whom it engages socially?

And who do you think is more likely to share their experiences as a brand ambassador?

Social is a tremendous atmosphere for brands to show off their customer centricity, and its marketing value should not be taken lightly. That is exactly why brands need to ignore "awareness" when serving customers in the digital realm and focus squarely on quality of service.

For it is only when they do that—and they deliver sincere, desirable support for customers—that the true branding benefits will be uncovered.