Great At Delivering Service? The Best Strategy Is To Tell Everyone About It!

This morning I commented on a blog from the Harvard Business Review about "Understanding Customer Experience" written by Adam Richardson. He tries to define what Customer Experience is as well as to document steps to design the experience. He cites the usual suspects when describing companies that get it right--Zappos, Southwest Air, Google, etc.

This list got me thinking. Why do we always go to these companies when listing great service providers? How do companies break through to be viewed as "legendary?" I have cited Zappos, and yet I have never bought a pair of shoes from them. I have purchased numerous items from Amazon.com (Zappos new parent) and have been very impressed with them, but they rarely make the same list. Why?

Here is my comment:

Adam--

I think part of the reason that Zappos, Southwest and others are consistently cited as being prime examples of delivering premier customer experience is because the companies themselves tell you that they are. It is part of their image campaign that starts at the top and cascades down the organization. Even our mentioning those companies enhances their image.

One company I worked for years ago improved its customer satisfaction scores on an industry survey by writing a timely letter to its customers reminding them of the great job our firm was doing for them. In short, we gave them the words that they then echoed on the survey. The result--improved scores.

Companies that "full body commit" to their strategy and service image are more likely to gain this reputation. Have I had the same bad experiences flying Southwest as I have had at Delta? Sure. But I give Southwest the benefit of the doubt for a bad experience or two because I am bombarded with messages telling me they are great.

I would encourage any company that commits internally to designing a premier customer experience (which is vitally important) to spend as much time thinking through the external portrayal of their services. And then to aggressively play offense. If you keep telling me that you are the best, I might believe it, and maybe even tell my friends.

--Christopher W. Myers

My View

You can read the blog here:

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/10/understanding_customer_experie.html

I think, in addition to providing great service, these companies also market themselves as service champions. When you go on the Zappos website, there are dozens of reminders that are in your face telling you about their great service. From awards to customer testimonials to bumper stickers saying "I heart Zappos.com." They tell you they are great, and then we believe them.

Then bloggers and business writers and academians pick up the torch and run with it, citing the extraordinary service.

When companies decide to make the journey to becoming a premier service provider, and commit to designing a uniquely satisfying customer experience, they also need to commit to an aggressive campaign to tell everyone about it. That is almost as important as delivering the experience.

Customer Experience Comes From Focus--Here Is One Company That Is Headed For Problems

Here is a customer service effort that is doomed to fail. Here is the project's obituary.
--------

I was performing a competitive analysis recently on a large mutual insurance company, and came across these paragraphs in its 2009 annual report:

CREATING AN EVEN MORE CUSTOMER-FOCUSED ENTERPRISE

For many of our customers, “service” and “ease of doing business” have become key differentiators and qualities they’ve come to expect in a business relationship. During the past year, we conducted a frank assessment of how (the Company) stacked up in delivering these qualities and concluded that we can do better.

As a result, we implemented a company-wide Operational Excellence Program aimed at assuring that we achieve continuous improvement across the enterprise to enhance service and ease of doing business, while also empowering employees and eliminating wasteful activities.

Our goal is to provide the best possible experience for our customers and to operate as efficiently as possible so that we can provide the highest quality product at the lowest possible price and pass the efficiencies to our policyholders in the form of dividends.

The initial paragraph, written by the company's chairman, speaks about how the firm must strengthen its customer focus in order to maintain competitiveness. It appears that analysis shows it has fallen behind.

The problem begins in the second paragraph when the company's customer service focus begins to smell a bit like a productivity mission. I have observed many "Operational Excellence Programs" and none of them have been centered around improving the customer experience. By the end of the sentence we are introduced to the dual nature of the program--improve service and eliminate waste.

The last paragraph completely muddles the mission by stating that the goal is to provide the "highest quality product for the lowest possible price." And then to pass the financial rewards of all of this new-found efficiency onto policyholders in the form of dividends. Sigh.....

What began as a focused mission to improve customer service instead became an unfocused mess of enhancing products, eliminating waste, and, oh yes, improving service. Since the savings from this program will be passed onto policyholders, there is no question that victory will be declared as costs are slashed, and that customer satisfaction will remain at competitive disadvantage.

My View

This effort will undoubtedly fail. It is doomed from the start. The reason: a lack of focused commitment.

I have written before about a company's need to decide how it will compete, and then fully commit to that course. It is about a "full-body" effort to be the best at some aspect of its competitive landscape, and then to take advantage of that leadership to grow and profit.

It is clear that this Insurance Company is concerned that it is falling behind in its Customer Service standing. Is this bad? Only if the company is competing against other insurance companies on the basis of Service Excellence.

But what is also implied is that the company has cost concerns. Is this bad? It is, again, if the Insurance Company competes based on price and cost. Given the price wars going on in the insurance marketplace, this could be a big concern.

I am the first to believe that improving Customer Service should lead to lower overall costs over time. But to a company to want to be a competitive leader in service, cost leadership should not be the focus.

Even calling your Service Improvement Project an "Operational Excellence Program" is so internally focused that it is laughable. The project should be named "The Customer-Is-The-Center-Of-Our-Life Way of Doing Business."

Instead, the strategy should be to delight your customers so they stay at higher premiums and bring in more customers through unsolicited referenceability. It is not a short-term project that will yield efficiencies that will be available to pay out as dividends. It should be a revamping of the way of doing business. If there are any wasteful practices discovered, the funds should be reinvested in enhancing the service infrastructure to develop differentiable and lasting service leadership. Only when the business effort is successful should policyholders be paid.

That is, if the company really even cares to improve its service. My suspicion is that this is a cost cutting effort in the guise of customer service. I will be watching this company now from a different perspective.