Success of Fast Food Restaurants Starts With How Customers Order Their Food

A few years ago, I took my operations management team on a field trip in downtown Hartford, Connecticut. The destination? Fast food restaurants. The purpose? To experience how process design impacts customer experience, and ultimately the success of the establishment.

Our first stop: McDonalds. The five of us crammed into a tight crowded area, spreading out into separate lines in front of a register. The five order takers were busily moving their specific lines as fast as they could, but large complicated orders were clogging up the line, slowing the pace. While the order was being filled, people milled in front of the register waiting. And when the food arrived, people would grab napkins, stirrers and straws from containers at the register. The result: A crowded mess and unhappy customers.

Lesson learned: In that location, McDonalds probably did 75% of its overall business during lunch, yet it was clear that the lobby was just not big enough. The separate lines for each register, the lack of space for waiting customers, and the fulfillment of napkins at the same place made the purchase experience completely problematic.

Our next stop: Wendy's. When we entered the restaurant, there was a feeling of order...a single line organized with rope barriers guiding people. When a register opened, the next person in line moved to that spot. When the single line became long, a Wendy's person came out and took orders for each person in line, giving them a slip of paper to hand to the register clerk for faster ordering and payment. Once an order was given, the customer shifted to the side where condiments and napkins were available, making plenty of room for the next customer. Once the order was ready, the customer was called, and the food was given. The result: a fast and responsive system.

Lesson learned: Given that orders are not uniform, the Wendy's line systen eliminated the unlucky line selection from the process. As well, the ordering and the fulfillment process were separated so as to keep the flow moving. Lastly, when the line queued up during rush hour, Wendy's employees came out from behind the counter to take "pre-orders" so that when the customer made it to the register, the transaction was sped up dramatically.

Our last stop: Sbarro's Italian. This food setup is cafeteria-style, in that customers take a tray and single file move their way through the selections. Seeing and smelling the food was a lot different than just ordering from a board. HYowever, the speed of this process was totally dependent upon the orders of the people in front of you. If you just wanted a slice of pizza and a fountain drink, the speed of your order may be a minute if the line is short, but 10 minutes if the person in front of you ordered four calzones. The result: the potential for extreme delay.

Lesson learned: Single queues with variable service times may be the easiest of all processes to set up, but have the real potential to clog up. Here you are only as fast as the slowest order.

My View:

Commitment to service is more than just enthusiastic employees and encouraging posters. Sometimes the commitment is also in the thoughtful design of the service delivery itself.

These three restaurants were within a block of each other, competing for basically the same clientele...the business employee. The criteria--good food in quick delivery--was the same for all three. Yet, each designed its delivery differently...and according to my operation management team, with different results.

Wendy's clearly understood and designed its process to deliver. Its single line system with different areas for ordering and pickup sped up the process. Its contingency plan to take pre-orders enabled the process not to get bogged down the volumes increased.

McDonalds was poorly designed, from process to lobby space. The entire experience left the customer wanting better.

And Sbarro's restaurant, while showcasing its food, created a potential for severe bottlenecks, especially for those ordering quick items. When a slice and a Coke take 15 minutes to order, no matter how good the food is, the customer will be unhappy.

When a company makes the commitment to deliver permium service, understanding how it is delivered and the impact on satisfaction is critical. Then the company can design its processes to deliver. This is one of the themes within "Perfect Service."

Get Rid Of Automated Voice Response Systems; Let Call Center Reps Service Your Customers!

Bill Taylor, co-founder of FastCompany Magazine, recently blogged about a particular customer experience that we all face--and we all hate. That of the Automated Call Centers or Voice Response Systems. These are the mazes of telephonic options callers are forced to navigate in order to either get an answer to their query or to talk to a customer service representative.

Everyone hates them. To read his blog article:

http://blogs.hbr.org/taylor/2010/11/press_3_if_automation_is_makin.html

Despite efforts to make them "human-like" or friendly, their function continues to be to try to filter away all unnecessary calls that humans are required to take. Despite their universal distaste, there is not a company in the land that does not utilize the technology. Why? The cost of an automated call is pennies compared with the dollars it takes for a human response.

Taylor believes we have it all wrong. Instead of thinking about call centers as expenses to be minimized, leading to more automation efforts, he thinks businesses should view them as business centers that are there to enhance the business through service.

"It's worth noting that some of the most successful, advanced, cutting-edge consumer brands I've gotten to know over the last few years explicitly reject the idea that that customer service is a cost to be cut rather than an strategic advantage to be honed," Taylor writes.

My View:

For years, the Automated Voice Response system has been used for two purposes: 1. To route calls to the correct location, and 2. To answer routine questions in a fast and efficient manner.

With the advent of convenient centralized toll-free 1-800 numbers, companies need to be able to get callers to their needed departments. This need still exists.

However, the second purpose, to deliver routine information, has become obsolete as the Internet is clearly a superior choice for users. Therefore, account balances, transaction statuses, trade instructions, and more are no longer needed on the telephone system. In fact, they are now negative in that call tree menus are way too long and impact customer satisfaction. My wife just called the State Department of Consumer Protection for a business matter and endured nine levels of menus before she was able to speak to the correct person. Frustrating, even though she got the answer she wanted very quickly from the person.

Moreover, Taylor and others argue that a personal conversation is an asset rather than an expense. I wholeheartedly agree. Call center customer service representatives give companies the ability to:

--reinforce the Customer Service experience through caring, expertise and efficient handling of the call;
--identify opportunities for up-selling or cross-selling the company's other offerings;
--identify issues that a customer has with the company's services or products before they leave for the competition;
--collect data about customers' satisfaction with service or product that can be used for future enhancements.

Call centers can be the best asset a company has for satisfaction, retention and growth. Why companies continue to invest in technology to prevent that conversation from happening is short-sighted.

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.

Important Lessons In Collecting Satisfaction Feedback--Purchasing A Used Car From CarMax

After looking at the prices of larger, well-equipped new cars at local dealerships, my wife and I decided it made sense to check out CarMax, where we thought we could find what we wanted at a reasonable price.

Of course, we were nervous about buying used...I always think I am being taken advantage of whenever I am buying a car. The end result is typically an expensive nice car with expensive extra features I don't want and expensive warranties I don't need.....but at least we have a nice car. With a used car, I'm not even sure we'll get that!

So three weeks later, we are driving home in our newly-purchased auto from CarMax. (Yes, I bought the warranty....but the car price was fixed so I knew I wasn't paying more than anyone else...).

My wife was happy that she is now driving a nice car, and I was happy that I didn't have to pay a new car price for the "luxury" vehicle. I was also intrigued by the business model at CarMax and was overall pleased by the process that didn't make me feel like prey waiting to be pounced on by carnivorous salesmen.

So now it is several weeks later, and the CarMax Customer Satisfaction Survey arrives in the mail. When my wife and I sit at the kitchen table this morning to evaluate, I begin to understand that we view the experience very differently. And rating CarMax was not going to be easy.

What Is Being Evaluated?

CarMax's stated mission is to sell "great quality cars at low prices with exceptional customer service." To achieve that goal, the survey states that our "honest assessment" of the buying experience was needed. On the survey is our name, our salesman's name, and some coding presumably tracking back to the purchase...so nothing anonymous here. Also of note is that the survey is from CarMax itself, and not a third party like Dalbar.

My approach to the survey is to evaluate the "buying experience," using past miserable transactions as my benchmark. In that regard, I found the experience positive.

My wife's approach is to evaluate her satisfaction with "the car" as her primary satisfaction criterium, presumably using a problem-free new car as her benchmark. Since her car has been in the shop for a week fixing things we did not see on the lot, she is finding the experience problematic.

Both are legitimate approaches, based on the customer's expectations and definitions of satisfaction. And both viewpoints must be addressed for CarMax to achieve its stated mission.

The CarMax Survey

The CarMax mission can be broken down into three parts: great quality cars, low prices, exceptional customer service. Presumably, satisfaction must be evaluated across all three categories. Of course, CarMax may view the three categories with unequal weighting, such as focusing mostly on "exceptional customer service." If they did, they might be missing something important!

CarMax's survey starts with Satisfaction and Loyalty questions, including the ubiquitous "How likely is it that you would recommend CarMax to a friend or colleague?"

The survey then dissects the buying experience:

• Greeting at the Store
• Wait List
• Selecting A Vehicle
• Product Knowledge
• Communication Skills
• Appraisal Process (in case I wanted to sell my car to CarMax)
• Competitive Performance (versus other dealerships)
• Business Office/Paperwork

Then the survey veers into gathering information about how we became aware of CarMax and our shopping process and past experiences with CarMax, none of which evaluate our experience.

The survey, using a quantitative bubble answer format, leaves no room for explanation. In its instructions, however, the respondent is told he or she may use a separate piece of paper or log onto the website.

Clearly, CarMax has a business formula that is carefuly crafted in its mission statement: great quality cars at low prices with exceptional customer service. I am wondering, however, whether the survey will capture what it is looking for? No survey questions asked about our satisfaction with the vehicle we bought. Only one question asked about the price, and that only in relation to other dealers.

Our response to the survey?

Experience with sales process--Very positive (5 out of 5).
Will we recommend CarMax?--Not at all likely (1 out of 11).
We we buy from CarMax in future?--Not at all likely (1 out of 11).

My View

CarMax has identified the right buttons to push for a great buying experience. Its mission is simple and clear: great cars, low prices, exceptional customer experience. But all of these elements must be working in order for the customer to be truly satisfied. If one of these traits goes awry, then the whole experience is sour.

It appears that CarMax has focused its attention on its service, and has done a great job at making used cars sales a "less risky" and more "professional" transaction. Clearly the sales process has been carefully scripted and choreographed, and its survey asks for evaluation of each step. Good job here.

But it also appears that the other two elements of its mission (price and quality of car) may need additional attention. The best way to understand this is to ask. And CarMax missed the opportunity in its survey.

CarMax customer experience analysts will scratch their heads when they read our survey. It will say:

You did everything great BUT we are not satisfied nor loyal.

And they will not know why.

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/

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!