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.

Obama Speech May Have Gone Over Head Of Many In Televised Audience -- That's Okay!

Saw this news item about President Obama's recent televised speech about the Gulf Oil Crisis:

(CNN) -- President Obama's speech on the gulf oil disaster may have gone over the heads of many in his audience, according to an analysis of the 18-minute talk released Wednesday.

Tuesday night's speech from the Oval Office of the White House was written to a 9.8 grade level, said Paul J.J. Payack, president of Global Language Monitor. The Austin, Texas-based company analyzes and catalogues trends in word usage and word choice and their impact on culture.

Though the president used slightly less than four sentences per paragraph, his 19.8 words per sentence "added some difficulty for his target audience," Payack said.

In order to clearly convey your message, one must always keep in mind your target audience and the tone of the message you are trying to communicate. It is inconceivable that President Obama's staff did not purposely craft and deliver this speech as intended.

My View

Without opining on the state of American education, general guidance is to craft important messages at a 6th grade level. And without expressing a view on clearly divisive politics, I believe President Obama purposely took a different tact.

Why? I think that the Gulf Oil Crisis is a serious and complicated issue, one that requires careful description, planning, and messaging. The President needed to communicate to multiple audiences in an even-handed, yet compassionate way. While BP is an obvious villain in this episode, it is also a necessary partner in the fix, both in terms of capping the "spewing" oil and in funding the cleanup.

The President knows that using flip or overly simplistic antagonistic rhetoric will not remedy the situation any faster. The day following the speech, Obama met with BP officials and secured $20 billion for a recovery fund.

It is expected that citizens impacted by this disaster are angered. Those directly representing them must also express outrage. This outrage can be easily described in language concepts that are simple, emotional, and elementary.

However, when the senior leader speaks during difficult times, he or she must always be mindful of the exponential impact of his or her words on those listening. Those words must be consistent, factual, empathetic, but solution-based and hopeful.

To do this, President Obama stepped up the level of communication in his speech. He sounded like he understood the complicated issue, tried to put it in perspective with examples of other disasters, and was working all angles to minimize its impact. I think there has to be some comfort that the leader is in charge, even if the message sounded more professorial than preacher.

Senior leaders must understand their audiences, but should not simply communicate in simple terms. Rather, thinking through the intended outcome, and then crafting an appropriate message and medium is preferred.