New "Loyalty Metric" Tries To Change The Conversation But Adds Nothing New

Last week, an article caught my eye claims that exceeding customer expectations (which 89% of executives believe creates positive impact to business results) actually has little effect on bottom line. Rather, that service interactions are four-times more likely to result in a negative outcome than a positive one.

The authors, the Corporate Executive Board’s Customer Contact Council, believes that exceeding customer expectation results in virtually no gain in customer loyalty. Further, that service and support centers have little stake in building customer loyalty at all. The Council believes that instead of Customer Satisfaction, one should ask a single question to determine the Customer Effort Score, a proprietary metric. This metric, the authors believe, more accurately measures the customer's reaction to a service event, by measuring the customer's effort during the event.

My View:

My reaction here is pretty blunt. I think this research is garbage, from professional and personal experience. Somehow this magic question (that the Council doesn't reveal presumably unless you buy the research) will unlock the driver of dissatisfaction. Good answers yield good results; bad answers get bad results.

I believe companies that position themselves as premier service organizations need to establish ways to measure all drivers of satisfaction...finding "Perfect Knowledge" of their customers needs. Effort put forth by the customer can be just one measure. If a company delivers well across all drivers, then the customer is loyal--resulting in retention, references for others, and cross-sell opportunities. If you fall flat on that one measure, the customer will be unhappy.

Personal example today: two of my home computers had to have some work done, and the settings for the wireless network were deleted. I called my cable operator that also maintains our internet access and told them my issue. He said he would walk me through the process. So instead of fixing it on his end, he walked me through the multi-step process and within 10 minutes both computers were operational. My effort--full participation which I wasn't expecting. My satisfaction? Complete.

At the end of the day, service providers need to understand their customers needs, deliver to those needs, measure how they are doing meeting those needs, and fix anything that is broken. The result from exceeding customer expectations is a multiplier of benefit...customers stay, tell others, and buy more!

To link to my response to the posting on another blog, go to http://experiencematters.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/meeting-expectations-is-not-the-goal/

Healthcare Company Objectives: To Be Prettiest Pig On The Truck

A bit of disturbing research was recently published by Forrester showing that customer satisfaction of the health plan industry is poor and heading lower. Should that surprise anyone? No...not with prices rising, co-pays and deductibles increasing, and coverages more restrictive than ever. Here are some of the results from the Forrester research from Bruce Temkin in his blog "Customer Experience Matters":

In Forrester’s 2008 Customer Experience Index (CxPi), we ranked 113 companies across 12 industries. I recently published a snapshot of the health plan industry looking at the results from the eight plans on the list (Aetna, Anthem (BCBS), CIGNA, Kaiser, Medicaid, Medicare, TriCare, and United Healthcare). Here’s some of what we found:

--Experiences are “very poor” and getting worse. As a group, the eight health plans ended up with a “very poor” rating of 51%; the lowest score of any of the 12 industries we examined. Making matters worse, the industry dropped three percentage points from the 2007 CxPi results.

--Kaiser led the pack. With an “okay” score of 70%, Kaiser led all health plans. All of the other plans ended up with ratings of either “poor” or “very poor.”

--Medicaid is as bad as it gets. With a terrible rating of 38%, Medicaid was the lowest scoring plan. It also ended up in next to last place across all 113 organizations in our rankings.

--Only Kaiser improved. When we compared the 2008 results with those from 2007, only Kaiser showed an improvement. CIGNA and Medicaid, on the other hand, declined the most.
Some big shifts in CxPi components. There were five double-digit changes in the scores for the three underlying elements of the CxPi: Kaiser’s improvement in being easy to work with and enjoyability, Anthem’s decline in enjoyability, and both CIGNA’s and Medicaid’s drop in being easy to work with.

My view:

The Health Benefit industry is headed toward a cliff, with people paying a lot of money and not feeling like they are getting the service they are paying for. There are lots of reasons for dissatisfaction, many of which are not related to the service itself, but many are--such as the "easy to work with" category."

Service has not been a priority for these firms in the past. Controlling costs has been. I have heard management at healthcare companies say that their goal is to provide service that is just good enough, but not great, thinking it will be too expensive to provide service that makes clients/employees happy. The phrase "prettiest pig on the trust" describes their goal...not a lofty objective.

Further, health plans are viewed as marquee benefits for companies. Can you imagine spending millions on a "benefit" that no one is happy with? Companies will soon see that the money spent is not worth the aggravation, and look for other ways to provide coverage...like cheaper Consumer Directed Health Plans....or no coverage at all.

That is, unless a company, like Kaiser, steps up and shows you can provide service at a satisfactory way, and make the case that it benefits the company to have good service for its helathplans. There is clear opportunity for health benefit companies to step up here....and differentiate based on service....Perfect Service!

Customer Service Reputation Can Be Tarnished/Enhanced In So Many Ways

I have been reading a couple of items recently about the customer service delivery of several companies written by users of the services--

First the good: Apple

Karn Bulsuk in his Full Speed Ahead blog http://karnbulsuk.blogspot.com/2009/05/lessons-from-apple-on-customer-service.html has written about his experiences with his new I-Touch which when ordered was special delivered to him ahead of promised date, and when it broke unexpectedly overseas, he was able to get it fixed with no questions asked. He was very impressed and summarized his experiences--

Apple has shown us that good customer service involves:

• Under promise and over deliver: Apple told me 3-4 days, but managed to get it done in less that time, which was a pleasant surprise because I didn’t expect it to be done so soon.
• Accepting the product as defective, without arguing with the customer or making them feel if you are cross-examining them.
• Have conveniently located offices, and design them well to make sure your customer feels comfortable.
• Listen to your customers: if you say something will happen or you will do something, make it happen.
• Smile.

Seems pretty basic, but now Karn's experience will be told to thousands of others. The result: Apple's reputation will continue to shine and people will continue to pay premium dollars for its products.

Now the bad: Nationwide

It appears that for whatever reason--purely for information or for sales lead generation--people ask questions on networking sites about experiences with different companies. The responses tend to be negative, since it is human nature to complain rather than to praise.

On LinkedIn, the networking site for businesspeople, a recent question was posted in one of the group discussion sections:

401k Platform Provider Issues: Who is having problems in the 401k market place ?
401k Platform Providers have issues from time to time. Whether its poor service, dropping or changing product lines, client neglect, or raising fees, employers can get poor treatment and seek to find a new 401k platform provider. Has anyone come accross a pattern of plan outflow from a particular 401k provider ?

There is no question about the intent of the questioner...who happens to be a broker from SmithBarney...although his motives are not clearly stated. He is prospecting.

In the first day of the question, he has three leads with more undoubtedly coming. Here is one response:

I find the Nationwide call center to be extremely unhelpful. I have heard they are taking steps to change it, but I've had many complaints from clients and participants.

Ouch...while the broker has gotten a lead, Nationwide has gotten a blackeye. Left unresponded, the perception from readers is that Nationwide delivers inferior service.

There are other examples which I will post upcoming....

My View: Companies that compete on services for competitive differentiation should care about what people are saying about their services, and deliver in such a way that leads to unsolicited compliments. Further, companies should encourage their clients to talk. And if one hears about any issues, companies need to address them forcefully. Nationwide management should address the comment with the LinkedIn poster directly (take care of the situation) and then post a rebuttal. This will muddy the "unanimous" feeling of the complaint while the company determines the root cause of the call center issue.

Great Read About Customer Satisfaction

Bruce Temkin from "Customer Experience Matters" blog recently hit a milestone with his 366th blog post. He summarized many of his recent posts in a recent article. This is one of my favorite blogs to read because Bruce takes the research he and Forrester gather and publishes his views about them. While not directly related to the Benefits Business, many of the lessons are universal.

Here are some snippets that I selected from Temkin's summary:

The maturing of customer experience. Forrester’s second annual Customer Experience Index that rated 113 organizations across 12 industries showed that there’s a lot of opportunity to improve. This also showed up when consumers rated Web, phone, and in-person interactions in Experiences That Satisfy Consumers, 2009, The good news is that customer experience management is definitely maturing which I highlighted in the following posts: Customer Experience Grows Up, Six Trends Reshape Voice Of The Customer Programs, and The State Of Customer Experience.

Customer experience correlates to loyalty. In Customer Experience Correlates To Loyalty, I found that customer experience correlates to three key elements of loyalty: willingness to repurchase, reluctance to switch, and likelihood to recommend. And the correlations got even stronger since 2007. I dug a bit deeper into the data in More Info On Customer Experience And Loyalty.

Building a customer-centric culture. Culture is a key ingredient for good customer experience — so I introduced the 6 C’s Of Customer-Centric DNA. And it’s also why I told execs that they need to Invest In Culture As A Corporate Asset. Other posts that looked at culture included: The Cultures Of Best Buy, Google, GE, And Semco, WL Gore Succeeds Without Employees, At Four Seasons, Customer Experience Is Everyone’s Business, and Execs Need To Focus More On Culture.

Managing through the recession. I’ve been writing a lot about how to manage in a recession. Here are some of the key posts in this period: Recession Strategies From IDEO And Potatoes, Jeff Immelt On Managing In A Downturn, Turn Hard Times Into Goat Stew, Recession Leadership: Be Real, Communicate, And Look Ahead, Retail Execs Discuss Leading In A Recession, Learn From Home Depot And Macy’s, But Not Office Depot, and Lessons From Condoms And Canned Goods.

Customer service is a critical experience. In Don’t Confuse Customer Service With Customer Experience, I made the point that customer service represents a critical set of customer experiences. That became crystal clear from consumer responses in Customer Service Trumps Price. Who’s doing well? Look at Customer Service Champs From BusinessWeek.

The Apple/Windows customer experience battle. As part of my Customer Experience Index research, I publish snapshots on the results in 12 industries. It turned out that my PC industry snapshotcaused quite a stir. It was picked up by major news outlets, a ton of bloggers, and drove many comments on my blog. I felt the need to clarify my view in another post about the results. Apple even created a Mac ad that referenced the results.

I encourage my readers to check out Bruce's blog regularly!

Companies Must Organize Differently to Deliver "Perfect Improvement"

When a typical company decides to undertake a "quality improvement" program, it creates "quality improvement teams" with members from different functional areas. The team members belong to the QITs in addition to their real job...which hasn't changed. Program progress, if any, is made outside of the true business. Often, these programs collapse of their own weight since people's "real" jobs will take priority.

In the "Perfect Service" approach, "Perfect Improvement" is imbedded into everyone's jobs. One of the taglines my team has used is: Perfect Service--The Way We Do Business.

So what is the best way to organize? I believe a three-way attack of satsifaction data is the best method.

--First, the Client Service team is responsible for improving that client's satisfaction. Each time their client's data arrives, the team must look at the results for satisfaction levels. When levels are less than stellar, the team is responsible for "fixing the situation," ie, assuring the issue is investigated, analyzed, and resolved for that client. Even if the problem is wider than just that client, the client team is responsible for insulating their client from future impact, until the overall "problem is solved."

--Second, the Operations Team responsible for each transaction that is measured is responsible for improving the satisfaction with their respective services. Whenever a client survey arrives for their service transaction, the Operations Team needs to understand the details of the result, and combine it with the results of other clients. The Operations Team is then responsible for "solving the problem." By reviewing their transactions across clients, this team is able to prioritize improvement efforts based on impact to overall client satisfaction.

--Third, Key Satisfaction Teams are organized to review and improve satisfaction scores of specific Key Success Factors (KSFs). Similar to the Operations Team, these teams are responsible for reviewing data across clients and transactions for their specific KSF. This team is then able to prioritize improvement efforts based on impact to overall client satisfaction.

This three-way or "cubed" review and analysis of data allows management to invest in those areas that will have the largest return on investment (in terms of satisfaction). Meanwhile, while business management is investing here, Client Service leadership is making sure the client is made happy right away.

Both Client Service teams and Operations teams are attacking the deficient results as part of their job, and evaluated based on their ability to move the satisfaction needle.

"The Role of Emotions In Buying Health Insurance"

Another expert has opined about the service experience in making health insurance decisions. McKinsey, in its latest quarterly newsletter, points out that a focus on customer satisfaction will drive customers to you. Here is the link to their website, but the research requires a premium membership: http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Health_Care/
Strategy_Analysis/The_role_of_emotions_in_buying_health_insurance_2352

The role of emotions in buying health insurance
Consumers shopping for health insurance today face more choice, complexity, and financial exposure than ever before. In an increasingly uncertain world, what they are really seeking is peace of mind in their choices. Insurers that address the emotional needs and biases embedded in the typical consumer’s behavior will be successful in creating and distributing effective products, earning the consumers’ trust, providing a more satisfying shopping experience, and, ultimately, helping consumers better manage their health.

Further, McKinsey points out that 140 million Americans have discretion in the purchase of health insurance, representing more than $750 billion in premiums. The key point of the research is that while companies view health insurance as an "expense" issue, consumers select based on "peace of mind."

My View
Service providers have an opportunity to step in, understand what will drive peace of mind, and then focus on delivering that service perfectly. I am not sure whether insurance companies will ever be viewed as the honest broker in the information/service delivery, but intermediary service providers can. And there is a lot of opportunity to take marketshare and find profitability in doing it well.

Retirement/Benefits Markets Suffering From Lack Of "Perfect Service"

There have been a number of articles in Plansponsor.com recently with implications about competitive positioning in the Retirement/Benefits marketspace. In each, I believe there are indications of a lack of overall servicing as well as opportunities to step up and dominate the space. To see these and other articles about the benefits market, link to http://www.plansponsor.com/.

-----------------

From Plansponsor.com on May 8: Interest in Integrated Service (TRO, TBO)Running Out of Steam
While cost savings and efficiency remain the most important reasons sponsors give for bundling (DC and DB plans) in 2008 (mentioned as the most important reason for bundling by 39% and 17% of sponsors, respectively), other key reasons vary by a plan’s bundled status. For example, fully bundled plans place great value on having a single point of contact, while semi-bundled plans place much greater emphasis on the opportunity to improve participant services, according to the report.

As a group, bundled plan sponsors question the ability of providers to deliver a consistent service experience across the bundled offering. Consider that bundled plan sponsors report considerably lower satisfaction levels with their DB providers in 2008 (63% vs. 77% in 2005), but higher satisfaction levels with their DC providers (85% vs. 77% in 2005). Intermediaries echo these sentiments, as only 13% believe that service quality is consistent across components of a bundled package.

From Pionline.com on May 12: Fewer DB execs looking to bundled providers
Fewer defined benefit plan sponsors are looking to outsource some or all of their plans to bundled service providers, according to a Chatham Partners survey.

My View:
This is a classic case of a failed value proposition due to a lack of execution. For years, there has been the promise of integrating retirement plans (DB and DC into TRO), then integrating all benefits (TBO), and then all Human Resource functions (HRO), and then all business service functions (BPO).

There is no question that companies want the simplicity and efficiency of a single-destination service provider. However, as these integrated solutions were sold, the services providers simply did not deliver an adequate product. The result is a blot on the entire concept.

The Opportunity:
Service providers that can fulfill the broken promise of excellent integrated servicing to companies and their employees stand to take significant share of the marketplace. I firmly believe that had companies focused their delivery on employee satisfaction, with the full commitment of a "Perfect Service" infrastructure, benefits integration would be the norm and those firms would be dominating the space.

-------------------

From PlanSponsor.com on May 12: Economic Crisis Accelerates Move To Consumer-Driven Health Plans
A recent study conducted by Workscape, Inc. and the Human Capital Institute (HCI) indicates that in the midst of the economic crisis...some employers are taking measures to mitigate increasing health care costs. Forty-four percent (44%) said they offer at least one high-deductible healthcare plan or consumer-driven healthcare plan (CDHP) to their employees.

My View:
The shift toward a consumer-driven healthcare plan model is inevitable (unless President Obama steps in with a massive overhaul). Shifting more of the "choice" burden to the employee, however, requires education, communication, and counseling/advising services that are just not there. Without access to vital information, employees will be unable to make critical choices that protect their health and wealth in the short-term and in particular the long-term. We have seen this pattern in the 401k plan where financial education and advisory/counseling services have evolved to meet the need...over 20 years!

The Opportunity:
Retirement and benefits companies can carve out an important niche by focusing on the needs of the employee of companies with HSAs and CDHPs. By servicing these employees in an extraordinary way, service providers will enable their company customers to responsibily achieve the utilization and then the savings these plans offer. Opportunity is there for the taking.

----------------------------

From PlanSponsor.com on May 12: Employees Need More Health Plan Information/Services
The 2009 UBA Employer Benefit Perspectives Survey found 81% of employers felt their employees were aware of health cost crisis and emerging trends. The survey also found 77% of employers strongly agree that employees need tools to help them choose the most appropriate plan option for them. Nearly 74% felt that the employer should provide education on health care costs and ways to manage those costs, including 68% who say employees should be given hospital/physician cost and quality info.

My View:
Employers are spelling out the types of service that will make their health plans successful. Not surprising, the views are about the services surrounding the plans, not the plans themselves. As above, the trends toward consumer decision-making is clear, but the information/tools are not available.

The Opportunity:
Understanding the client service need, and then filling it completely, is a way to effectively compete. There are those competitors who will design the plans with the best features, coverages, options; there are competitors who will compete with the lowest prices. I firmly believe there is ample room for a benefits provider to compete with services targeting employees who need help planning for and using their benefits optimally.

---------------------------

These examples show that companies that deliver extraordinary service, and develop a system that focuses on improvement of that service, can fill market holes. I believe it only takes a commitment and then a full-body resolve to develop this competitive advantage. And there is lucrative marketshare to be taken.