Submitted by Charles H. Green (not verified) on Mon, 02/05/2007 - 8:07pm.
You're quite right about the hazards of running a very cost-focused customer service operation. FOr one thing, as you point out, you often don't know when you're talking to a friend of the boss. And, you often don't know whether the person you're talking to has the power to refer you to many others.
Running customer service with rigid timelines has two big things wrong.
First, it assumes customer service ought to be run as a cost center. In truth, it ought to be partially funded by marketing, as an opportunistic lead genearation part of the business.
Really good people interacting with customers, given education and empowerment, are in the best position of all to make snap judgments about where to extend time and attention, and to make exceptions. No policy in the world can substitute for good judgment on the front lines. Rewarding people on narrow efficiency measurements, and running the operation like a cost center, sends all the wrong messages.
Second, as mentioned above, running custoemr service as if it had no marketing implications hurts revenue. The extra time spent on a person can have huge ripple ramifications. An enlightened company would either co-fund the customer service function, or staff it itself part time, or in some way or other get involved. Instead, too many companies kid themselves that cold, fill-in-the-multiple-choice service analyses fulfill the function. Nothing succeeds like really talkign to customers.
Reply
Seeds from the blogworld
We search the business blog world looking for posts that illustrate principles, or "Seeds", that if followed, or "planted", will help small businesses grow. We list them here for your convenience. Enjoy.
You're quite right about the hazards of running a very cost-focused customer service operation. FOr one thing, as you point out, you often don't know when you're talking to a friend of the boss. And, you often don't know whether the person you're talking to has the power to refer you to many others.
Running customer service with rigid timelines has two big things wrong.
First, it assumes customer service ought to be run as a cost center. In truth, it ought to be partially funded by marketing, as an opportunistic lead genearation part of the business.
Really good people interacting with customers, given education and empowerment, are in the best position of all to make snap judgments about where to extend time and attention, and to make exceptions. No policy in the world can substitute for good judgment on the front lines. Rewarding people on narrow efficiency measurements, and running the operation like a cost center, sends all the wrong messages.
Second, as mentioned above, running custoemr service as if it had no marketing implications hurts revenue. The extra time spent on a person can have huge ripple ramifications. An enlightened company would either co-fund the customer service function, or staff it itself part time, or in some way or other get involved. Instead, too many companies kid themselves that cold, fill-in-the-multiple-choice service analyses fulfill the function. Nothing succeeds like really talkign to customers.