jim.shamlin.com

8: Talking the Walk

View the warning on the contents page regarding "facts" presented by this author.

In a competitive marketplace, the relationship between customer and vendor is more egalitarian than in ages past, when a company enjoyed a functional monopoly on a given product and could be more autocratic in dealing with its customers. Businesses who "don't listen" and "don't care" also don't compete and don't survive when there are other vendors that do. Still, many firms have been reluctant to shift from the perspective and practices of the age when they held power.

Given the amount of technology available today, it stands to reason that we should be living in an era where customer satisfaction was at an all-time high. Yet "some studies" have shown that almost 70% of customers who switch to another firm do so because of "a perceived attitude of indifference the company displays toward them."

(EN: There is a flaw in the logic as the statistic measures the reasons for defection rather than amount of defection. So it could be that a greater number of customers are satisfied and loyal overall, and the smaller number who are leaving cite indifference as the reason in greater percentages. I've not been able to find or recall a specific study, and won't use the author's tactic of making a vague suggestion that "studies" support the point, but given the emphasis on customer satisfaction over the past few decades, I expect the numbers would bear out that there is greater loyalty now than in the past.)

He also suggests there is a "proliferation of books and articles" about customer care that revolve around dealing with angry customers or defusing hostile relationships, and takes this as evidence that there is a widespread problem of disgruntled customers.

(EN: Again, a logical flaw. If more executives are buying books on the subject, it doesn't mean the problem is greater than in the past, but that concern for solving the problem is greater. That is to say that the problem may have been much worse in the past and executives of that era simply didn't care enough to seek information on improvement.)

Point of fact: technology has often made the situation much worse. Consider the use of the telephone for providing customer service, which saves the company considerable expense in having staffed field offices and gives the customer the "convenience" of getting bad service from their own home. The author goes into an extended rant (clumsy navigation of voice menus, dealing with an employee who doesn't speak English well, bouncing from one department to the next, and ultimately not getting the help you needed in the first place), but it's common knowledge and a common experience that telephone service is simply awful and has not gotten better as technology has progressed.

With that in mind, the present chapter means to focus on communication with then customer, primarily through the spoken word and interactive conversation.

Creating rapport

"Business is all about relationships" is a common maxim, and there are many books on the topic of customer relationship management that advocate developing a close relationship that borders on seduction.

The problem is, customers just aren't into it: they want to do business with you, but they don't want to elope with you, become a "member" or part of your "family." There is a social element to interacting with people, but a "professional relationship" is a concept that has always entailed a boundary as to how much we are willing to be involved with others with whom we interact for commercial reasons.

As such, the author proposes that business is not about relationships, but about rapport. The two are closely linked, and there is rapport in any relationship, but one need not have a relationship to have rapport: one need only understand the needs and interests of the other party in terms of the business at hand.

There is a happy medium to be reached between the old-school approach of being remote, aloof, and even arrogant when dealing with customers and the current way of thinking that seems to advocate the opposite extreme of being cloying, seductive, and intrusive.

The appropriate level of rapport sets out to achieve three main objectives:

1. Create a positive and pleasant interpersonal experience
2. Develop trust between the brand and the customer
3. Gain a long-term commitment from the customer

Very few companies get this right, which is why very few brands win much admiration or devotion from their customers.

In fact, many get it wrong. "Studies have shown" that customers will avoid a brand, no matter how good the product might be, because they have had bad experiences with the people who represent the company. In "other studies," it has been shown that a customer who is loyal will remain so if there are a few bad incidents in an otherwise positive chain of experiences.

And for that matter, the sum of all experiences is of greater significance that any experience in isolation - again, each encounter is perceived based on the customer's concept of a brand, based on their past exposure to it. Brand experiences are built up over time, each interface contributing to the overall impression the customer has of a firm - either reinforcing or contradicting previous experiences.

As such, a firm cannot create a loyal customer in the course of a single experience, nor can it do so by means of a loose series of experiences that are inconsistent and send conflicting messages. Again, consistency is key.

Listen and respond

The author dismisses the existing body of theory about communication as being "very outdated" an inapplicable, as they depend on a linear model. He likewise dismisses the field of psychology an the ractics they prescribe for gaining trust - the "mirroring" technique is especially ludicrous and, in his experience, entirely ineffective.

Both approaches are appealing in that they suggest it is possible use conversation in a linear, controlled, and efficient manner. To get the other party to agree with you and do what you want them to do.

Based on his own experience, there is nothing you can do to manipulate or trick a person into trusting you for a sustained period of time. You have to actually listen to them, understand what they are saying, and respond in an appropriate manner.

The author gives an extended example of accepting an offer for a credit card, then getting a better offer three days later, and calling in to get switched to the better offer. It goes on for quite a while, mashing together elements of bad business policy (poor management of mailing lists, refusal to an offer, etc.) with poor conversational interaction (putting the customer on hold, citing company policy, and other things that send a clear message the customer is subordinate to them, unimportant, and will not be served).

A separate example is given later on of "a friend" who took a high-definition television back to the store where he bought it and was pleasantly surprised that they accepted his return without inspecting it. He expected them to make him wait while they would look it over, test it, and prove to him that it was OK and he shouldn't expect a refund. What he got was prompt service, "If you say it's faulty, then it's faulty," an apology, and an immediate offer to refund his money or help him fid a replacement.

In terms of listening to the customer, respecting him, and trusting him, this is the exact right approach to take - and so many retailers do exactly the opposite that it sets a low level of expectations. While the company may have lost money on the returned item (EN: more likely, they were able to return it to their own supplier for credit), they gained a loyal customer, and the author's friend claims to have told "at least a hundred people" about the brilliant service he had received.

Reasons for customer contact

Customers seek to communicate with a company for a very limited number of reasons. Five of the most common ones are:

• To obtain information about a product
• To purchase the product
• To inquire about a delivery
• To get after-sales or technical support
• To express dissatisfaction and seek redress

This applies to telephone contact, written correspondence, and even face-to-face meetings. In each of these instances, the customer has a specific objective - and ultimately, their satisfaction with the interaction - is in the achievement of this objective.

Unfortunately, companies respond in inappropriate ways, as they are concerned with their own goals: if the customer wants anything that does not give them a profit, they will attempt to prevent the customer from achieving their goal. Even when a customer wants to do something that will profit the business, their clumsy attempt to facilitate can prevent the customer from doing exactly what they want the customer to do.

One example is the "crazy ritual" one experiences at many retail stores: a salesman leaps on a customer the moment they walk into the door, asking "Can I help you?" The customer must tell them "No thanks, just looking" before they can proceed into the store.

(EN: This seems more common with high-ticket items such as furniture, appliances, and automobiles: a salesman jumps on a customer very early, then hounds them the entire time they are on the premises. This is often attributed to the salesman wanting to ensure he gets the commission, rather than one of his peers, when the customer is ready to purchase, but creates a highly uncomfortable experience for the customer.)

Communication checklist

Having dismissed current bodies theory about communications, and having no cogent or systematic approach of his own to offer in exchange, the author recourses to the crutch of providing a random list of do/don't items:

• Create a "Brand Lexicon." This is a booklet of specific phrases to use when communicating to a customer. It is the conversational equivalent of a brand identity manual, geared to ensure that people are all saying the same thing to the customer. It is especially important for verbal and written communication, where inconsistency raises suspicion of dishonesty.
• Avoid "linguistic threats." When you deny, argue, or dispute what the customer has said, they become defensive and upset and see you immediately as an adversary. The customer may not always be right, but any disagreement should be handled with the utmost care that you understand their perspective and gently disagree.
• Listen to what customers are saying. A close second to the linguistic threat in its potential to create a hostile situation is to simply ignore something the customer has said and carry on as if they had not said it at all. The customer knows what they said, expects a response, and grows increasingly agitated, not paying attention to what you are saying until you acknowledge and respond to what they have said.
• Be attentive to emotional cues. If a customer is surly or abrupt, you stand little chance of changing their mood with superficial pleasantries. If a cheerful customer is greeted by a grumpy representative, they will likely change their mood to match. It does not work the other way around.
• Keep your promises, or don't make them. The very soul of trust is that the customer can trust you to make good on any promise that you make them. If you make a promise that you have to qualify, retract, amend, or ignore, you have immediately violated trust, and nothing else you say will repair that.
• Don't be a weasel. To avoid breaking promises, many companies train their personnel to avoid making promises at all, which is exactly the wrong approach. The customer wants something done, wants you to commit to doing it, and then to do it. If you refuse to make any promise at all, but simply make vague and noncommittal statements, this does not earn trust.
• Don't scold the customer. A particular problem with large organizations is that they departmentalize and a customer who calls in is frequently told "You called the wrong number" before the call is transferred to the appropriate department, and generally in a tone that communicates the employee, hence the company, is annoyed with them for not doing what they want him to do. The author gripes about this for a good while. (EN: The problem here is not communication so much as operations management and training. To ensure the customer can be served by the person who answers the phone and, if it cannot or will not do so, to ensure a smoother hand-off to a person who can immediately respond to their needs.)
• Don't belittle the customer. Where customers have doubts, negative sentiments, or contradictory opinions about what companies would have them believe, there is the tendency to take a superior attitude, to dismiss their current way of thinking as unintelligent, to mischaracterize their motives, and otherwise to belittle the customer in order to subordinate them and compel them to accept what you are offering.
• Use the customer's name. When people are called by name, they feel recognized and validated as an individual. On the other hand, it can be overdone: if you use their name in every sentence, it seems flaky and sarcastic.

There are a few bullets at the end that deal with automated telephone systems, and that are themselves a collection of random snippets of thought: a "generic robot voice" tells customers they aren't important to you, the vocal quality of the "voice" should match the company's image, the automated system should use the same greeting and vocabulary as live operators Then a switch to voicemail: you don't need to tell them you can't take their call because that's implicit, do not give an excuse for not taking the call as they don't care about the reasons, keep voicemail up to date, set and keep an expectation of a call-back time, etc.

(EN: Frankly, all this adds up to is a "don't do it." The reasons that a company would use an automated voice system or dump callers to voicemail rather than transferring to a live person when someone is absent all have to do with efficiency and not quality: they don't have enough staff to deal with calls, don't want to pay staff to deal with callers, and don't want to be bothered by customers. There never was a convincing case that a voice system was implemented in order to improve the customer's experience - it's always about saving money, and always at the cost of customer service.)

Fifteen Customer Service No-Noes

The author follows a list of random and unorganized thoughts with another list of random and unorganized thoughts. This one comes from "The Telephone Doctor," a consultant who has conducted surveys to compile a list of the "biggest sins" of telephone service, and likely these can apply to any communication with a customer:

1. The operator is having a bad day and lets their mood color the tone of the conversation with a customer
2. The operator merely hangs up on an angry customer
3. The company does not return phone calls or respond to messages in a reasonable amount of time (should be same-day)
4. The operator abruptly puts a customer on hold (very few people will say "no" if you ask permission)
5. The operator puts the customer on speakerphone without asking permission first
6. The operator eats, drinks, or chews gum while they are conversing with the customer
7. The operator puts the customer on hold so they can answer another call, and tells them as much
8. Common courtesies such as "please" and "thank you" are never heard.
9. The operator puts the customer on hold to have a "side conversation" with a coworker
10. The operator responds flatly, with one-word answers, to the customer's questions.
11. The operator uses company or industry jargon that the customer does not understand, then patronizingly explains it to them.
12. The operator advises the customer to call back at another time, when they are less busy, to get service. (If necessary, take the customer's number and give them a call-back)
13. The operator rushes through a call to wrap up business as quickly as possible (EN: Often a problem of a company that presses people to have a certain call volume or close calls within an arbitrary amount of time.)
14. The operator demands that the customer identify "what's this in reference to?" This is generally an attempt to shortcut a conversation to get right to the point (EN: same as #13 in terms of the cause)
15. The operator freely admits to the customer that she hates her job, her boss, or her company.

The author concedes that customer service workers are people, too, and that they have to deal with customers who can be rude or obnoxious. But the truth is that the customer can be rude or obnoxious and the company will tolerate it for the sake of getting their business, whereas the employee whom the company pays to serve such customers will not be tolerated: it is their job to deal with difficult customers and effect a satisfactory outcome to even an unpleasant conversation.