How are outcome, value and customer experience related?
Jim Lever
Customer Care Extraordinaire
The customer experience has everything to do with the perceived value of the goods or services encountered. The greatest product in the world may go unbought or underutilized if the customer had to purchase in spite of the customer experience. Most customers will not buy due to an unfortunate experience, and there is not a clearer harbinger of outcome than sale/no sale.
I'm confident that many if not all reading this have purchased a product in spite of a terrible customer service reaction. By terrible I mean that the purveyor was inattentive, rude, unavailable, unhelpful or any and all of the above. If the need for the product is instilled by need, advertising, or perceived desire we go ahead and buy the thing even though we may mutter "this is the last time I do business with these..." on the way out.
Mihai Lefter
Service expert
From a goods or service supplier it's like building a pyramid. At it's base you have the customer experience(based on awareness, discovery, purchase, use of the specific product/service), than you have the value(in my perception this means the sell price of the product including production costs) and on top is the outcome(net profit). all these are correlated as it is unlikely to have profit if the customer experience is terrible or the production costs are too high.
Lee Williams
Managing Director & Customer Champion at Text Your View
Value is determined through an experience or a series of experiences which are made up of the outcomes from processes.
Customers experience is made up from outcomes. However this experience is not limited to touchpoints with a specific company.
Outputs are tangible an normally measured by a business, however not all of them have an outcome for the customer. Outputs are always business measures, outcomes are customer measures. Outcomes are both tangible (functional) and also intangible (emotional) in terms of the customer experience. An emotion is not an output from a process but it is an outcome. This is one of the clear differences.
Value is generally delivered by both processes and people. However there are other elements of the value proposition as well, such as product innovation, brand, bundling, product associations (merchandising) etc. Aspects such as Physcial Evidence, i.e. the look and feel of your office building or shop impact the customers experience.
Bob Zabiyaka
Marketing Manager at BPMonline
If by value you mean Customer Lifetime Value, than the relation between CLV and CE is quite straightforward :) The great example is SaaS companies - if the company doesn't meet customer's expectation he/she leave this company ASAP.
Doug Morse
Customer Experience Strategy Executive
I am not sure what the real question might be that you are asking. There can be a lot of answers. For our clients,when we talk about Customer Experience we do talk about Value and outcomes that result from CE strategies. The value is a direct result of outcomes.If you can deliver successful outcomes to your customers it co-creates value. In "Service Dominate Logic" one of the founding principles states that a product"s value is only in the intended outcome. For example you sell someone an APP but if the APP does not do what the customer expected it to do, it has little value. To the extent that a product exceeds expected outcomes then the value to customer is increased and also creates a better Customer Experience.
Strategically speaking, our work shows how customer focused outcomes is (or should be) the driver for much of the CE work. It closely ties in VOC, use of VOC and expert knowledge that can provide outcomes that customers NEED that they may not know they want. Expert VOC programs understand what problems customers need solved and solving those creates value because the outcome exceeds the customer expectation. If you create successful customer outcomes, you build great customer relationships and loyaly. All of this will creat internal value (financial ) or brand value.
For brevity, this was just one example. Our CE strategy framework looks across 7 core business focus areas designed to deliver greater value by driving to improving customer outcomes. This CE framework is all about creating value for all players.
If your questions becomes more specific, I can certainly go into more detail. Hope this makes some sense. it is a complex topic.
Joseph Kamiru
Telecommunications Marketing at Safaricom
Customer experience is usually an end to end process through the various touch-points and associated channels across the entire customer lifecycle. So it is not a one off event at a specific touch point since each touch point is unique and contributes to the overall customer experience. The process on the other hand puts the customer on one end and the business supplier on the other in the value addition process…...what is referred to as the customer- supplier relationship. The outcome is the result…a win-win situation i.e…a satisfied customer and a profitable business.
Maz Iqbal
Customer Based Strategist
Customer hire products/services to get a job done. Put differently, they hire products and services to achieve specific outcomes. The classic example of this is that people buy drills to get an outcome: holes in various substances.
In the process of hiring and using products and services customers experience. There is the experience of search, of evaluation, of decision, of making your way to the store, of making your way around the store to find what you are looking for, asking for help, talking with store staff, paying, using the product and so forth. Each of these 'interactions' leaves a footprint if the experience is memorable (positive or negative). If it is not then these interactions fade into the background as they do not leave a strong enough trace. Collectively these interactions also constitute an experience. This is what is labelled as Customer Experience.
If you do it right then in helping the customer get her outcome and in co-creating positive memorable experience you have created value for the customer. And most customers will reciprocate by paying you an economic rent (the price), by buying from you again, by talking positively about you (leaving recommendations) and recommending you. That in turn creates value for you. First, from the customer herself and then from the stream of new customers that delivers to you.
Do this enough times and you build a reputation as a brand that customers can count on to get the job done and which leaves them feeling good about themselves and you. And you prosper - until you fall: that usually happens when there is a disruption and it does not matter how good you were in the buggy market because the market is now for cars!
Jorge Restrepo
CEO & Chief Analyst, EurekaFacts Research & Analysis
This could also be seen slightly differently. The customer experience (emotional) and outcomes will be processed rationally to arrive at perceived value and at least partially drive repurchase, price preference and w.o.m. Behavior. The order of these drivers and their direction will impact all relevant strategy and tactics.
Paul Ward
Partner at Avos Global Media
I think that the farther away a product or service veers from sheer utility (the drill example), the blurrier the distinction is between outcome and experience. For example, buying a luxury item can create "value" as much from the experience of buying and, say, wearing, as from the quality and utility of the item.
There is no question that the scorecard of rational and non-rational components of the customer's experience throughout their relationship with the company/product/service is the "value vector". Depending on the importance of different elements (weightings), you'd be able to develop strategies. So looking for clusters of customers whose weightings are similar can help you provide solutions at some scale. OTOH, for certain high-touch brands, or at moments of truth for the customer, an individual approach is most appropriate. The book Human Sigma covers these general principles nicely.
Showing posts with label LinkedIn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LinkedIn. Show all posts
29 November 2010
Brand experience from LinkedIn
Is brand experience emotional, rational, or both? Any examples?
Sally Durcan
Managing Director at Hotcow
Brand experience is definitely emotional - just as long as the core message corresponds accordingly.
Check out our recent world record event with telecoms company Powwownow. We made this event emotional by asking people to join a three-way and showing celebs already doing it - giving people an understanding of how the brand could fit with their lifestyle.
We will have a full case study up soon but in the meantime, see our blog for details and video highlights!
http://www.hotcow.co.uk/Buzz-Blog/are-you-up-for-a-three-way.htm
Carl Lyon
Managing Director The QoE
This will depend on the purpose of the brand, for example mobile operator 02 have a mainly emotional brand as purpose is to enhance life experience. While the utility company National Grid have a rational brand as the purpose is to transport gas and electricity safely.
Keith Fiveson
Customer Experience Officer
Brand experience is both logical and emotional, IQ and EQ, physical and ethereal, connection and communication in unexplainable, rational and non-rational, predictable and unplanned moments of truth.
Marcos Sanchez
Computer Software Professional
There's clearly an emotional aspect as evidenced in this blog I recently read from a startup in the CRM space http://www.nimble.com/blog/2010/11/06/people-wont-remember-what-you-did-or-said-but-they-will-remember-how-you-made-them-feel/
Paul Ward
Managing Partner at Avos Holdings, LLC
Daryl, check out Human Sigma. Much discussion of fMRI in there regarding the locations in the brain that are stimulated by well-loved brands.
However, I suspect your question is not empirical, but regards the entire customer's view of a brand. There is a good deal of "rationalization" that happens in the buying and owning process, wherein a person whose true motivations are emotional attribute rational justifications to their purchase intent or enjoyment of the product. Take a PRIUS. A "green" car. You make the purchase (which is pricey, causing pain) but you get pleasure from "knowing" that you're doing something for the environment. Even better, the dashboard constantly reminds you how the car uses its battery and what your rolling average MPG is. (No pun intended on rolling average.) This "rationalizes" the sacrifice. It's the sacrifice that keeps on giving back.
So is this brand emotional? Rational? Both? I would argue it is 90 percent emotional, but 90 percent RATIONALIZED (that is, reasons are invented to give meaning to the suffering). If the car cost $5000 USD, it would be much less of an emotionally-laden brand.
So you are suggesting that we justify emotion with logic? It's also mentioned in Blink if I remember correctly.
Paul Ward
Managing Partner at Avos Holdings, LLC
Yes, that's exactly true - we "rationalize" our attachments and decisions, even though they are fundamentally emotional. This creates a challenge with VoC programs, which often are survey-driven, and of course surveys are a cognitive tool. It takes some skill to elicit the emotions driving consumer decisions, and often surveys cannot do it. OTOH, some techniques can quantify aspects of consumer perception that are emotionally based without asking questions directly about emotions. For example, Intel used to (and still may) confront consumers in tech stores about to buy a computer with an Intel processor, and would offer them an identical computer but WITHOUT an Intel processor (featuring a competing processor). They would continue to offer that identical computer at a lower and lower price until the consumer agreed to take it. The price differential is the de facto "what I'm willing to pay for Intel". Factored over dozens or hundreds of similar tests, the intangible value of the brand can be determined. Very clever.
The downside of the test is that, once a computer has been selected with Intel inside, there is a cognitive bias to hold onto that computer because of its symbolic role as a choice. This has nothing to do with Intel.
A more comprehensive test would factor out this "I made my choice and I'm sticking with it" cognitive bias by having Intel confront someone buying a computer WITHOUT an Intel processor inside (featuring a competing processor), and asking them one of two questions:
1. "If I offered you an identical computer with an Intel processor for the same price, would you trade?"
2. "If I offered you an identical computer with an Intel processor for price X, would you trade?"
X could be higher or lower. In the case of 1, you could determine with a lot of trials the impact of the "I made my choice and I'm sticking with it" cognitive bias on the first test described above. This can let you factor out that bias to get closer to Intel's intangible value.
In the case of 2, if you offer a lower price, this will also help you quantify the "I made my choice and I'm sticking with it" cognitive bias. As for offering a higher price, now you have another potential cognitive bias: "I prefer a good value." People having made a cheaper choice may just not be able to justify paying ANYTHING more. OTOH, if Intel indeed has a strong brand, then one might expect there to be a premium they would pay above their existing choice which would be acceptable. My prediction is that this premium, in this circumstance, would be less than the "intangible value" premium in the very first test I described at the top. That's OK - it gives you a range for Intel's brand value.
But let's not forget the other lesson here. If Intel is focused on eliciting a quantification of its intangible brand value using tests like this, it is missing half the lesson. Intel - and all companies - must appreciate that non-rational cognitive biases have a HUGE IMPACT ON SALES AND BRAND VALUE. The question is, how do you operationalize these biases in branding, experience, and value proposition?
These answers are critical. These are the domain of CEM professionals.
Rick M.
Brand & Culture Architect
I would certainly say that Brand experience has to have the logical value (the feeling that you solve something in the consumers life) but is much more about emotion.
Behavioral change (not just a single action) takes place because of emotion. This is the true meaning of a 'brand experience'. Brands build loyalty, so the experience should provide the consumer with value (to get them in the door), a vehicle they can relate to (to get them engaged), and a feel good feeling that they not only never want to forget, but one that they also wish to become ambassadors for.
Without those elements it's just marketing.
Sally Durcan
Managing Director at Hotcow
Brand experience is definitely emotional - just as long as the core message corresponds accordingly.
Check out our recent world record event with telecoms company Powwownow. We made this event emotional by asking people to join a three-way and showing celebs already doing it - giving people an understanding of how the brand could fit with their lifestyle.
We will have a full case study up soon but in the meantime, see our blog for details and video highlights!
http://www.hotcow.co.uk/Buzz-Blog/are-you-up-for-a-three-way.htm
Carl Lyon
Managing Director The QoE
This will depend on the purpose of the brand, for example mobile operator 02 have a mainly emotional brand as purpose is to enhance life experience. While the utility company National Grid have a rational brand as the purpose is to transport gas and electricity safely.
Keith Fiveson
Customer Experience Officer
Brand experience is both logical and emotional, IQ and EQ, physical and ethereal, connection and communication in unexplainable, rational and non-rational, predictable and unplanned moments of truth.
Marcos Sanchez
Computer Software Professional
There's clearly an emotional aspect as evidenced in this blog I recently read from a startup in the CRM space http://www.nimble.com/blog/2010/11/06/people-wont-remember-what-you-did-or-said-but-they-will-remember-how-you-made-them-feel/
Paul Ward
Managing Partner at Avos Holdings, LLC
Daryl, check out Human Sigma. Much discussion of fMRI in there regarding the locations in the brain that are stimulated by well-loved brands.
However, I suspect your question is not empirical, but regards the entire customer's view of a brand. There is a good deal of "rationalization" that happens in the buying and owning process, wherein a person whose true motivations are emotional attribute rational justifications to their purchase intent or enjoyment of the product. Take a PRIUS. A "green" car. You make the purchase (which is pricey, causing pain) but you get pleasure from "knowing" that you're doing something for the environment. Even better, the dashboard constantly reminds you how the car uses its battery and what your rolling average MPG is. (No pun intended on rolling average.) This "rationalizes" the sacrifice. It's the sacrifice that keeps on giving back.
So is this brand emotional? Rational? Both? I would argue it is 90 percent emotional, but 90 percent RATIONALIZED (that is, reasons are invented to give meaning to the suffering). If the car cost $5000 USD, it would be much less of an emotionally-laden brand.
So you are suggesting that we justify emotion with logic? It's also mentioned in Blink if I remember correctly.
Paul Ward
Managing Partner at Avos Holdings, LLC
Yes, that's exactly true - we "rationalize" our attachments and decisions, even though they are fundamentally emotional. This creates a challenge with VoC programs, which often are survey-driven, and of course surveys are a cognitive tool. It takes some skill to elicit the emotions driving consumer decisions, and often surveys cannot do it. OTOH, some techniques can quantify aspects of consumer perception that are emotionally based without asking questions directly about emotions. For example, Intel used to (and still may) confront consumers in tech stores about to buy a computer with an Intel processor, and would offer them an identical computer but WITHOUT an Intel processor (featuring a competing processor). They would continue to offer that identical computer at a lower and lower price until the consumer agreed to take it. The price differential is the de facto "what I'm willing to pay for Intel". Factored over dozens or hundreds of similar tests, the intangible value of the brand can be determined. Very clever.
The downside of the test is that, once a computer has been selected with Intel inside, there is a cognitive bias to hold onto that computer because of its symbolic role as a choice. This has nothing to do with Intel.
A more comprehensive test would factor out this "I made my choice and I'm sticking with it" cognitive bias by having Intel confront someone buying a computer WITHOUT an Intel processor inside (featuring a competing processor), and asking them one of two questions:
1. "If I offered you an identical computer with an Intel processor for the same price, would you trade?"
2. "If I offered you an identical computer with an Intel processor for price X, would you trade?"
X could be higher or lower. In the case of 1, you could determine with a lot of trials the impact of the "I made my choice and I'm sticking with it" cognitive bias on the first test described above. This can let you factor out that bias to get closer to Intel's intangible value.
In the case of 2, if you offer a lower price, this will also help you quantify the "I made my choice and I'm sticking with it" cognitive bias. As for offering a higher price, now you have another potential cognitive bias: "I prefer a good value." People having made a cheaper choice may just not be able to justify paying ANYTHING more. OTOH, if Intel indeed has a strong brand, then one might expect there to be a premium they would pay above their existing choice which would be acceptable. My prediction is that this premium, in this circumstance, would be less than the "intangible value" premium in the very first test I described at the top. That's OK - it gives you a range for Intel's brand value.
But let's not forget the other lesson here. If Intel is focused on eliciting a quantification of its intangible brand value using tests like this, it is missing half the lesson. Intel - and all companies - must appreciate that non-rational cognitive biases have a HUGE IMPACT ON SALES AND BRAND VALUE. The question is, how do you operationalize these biases in branding, experience, and value proposition?
These answers are critical. These are the domain of CEM professionals.
Rick M.
Brand & Culture Architect
I would certainly say that Brand experience has to have the logical value (the feeling that you solve something in the consumers life) but is much more about emotion.
Behavioral change (not just a single action) takes place because of emotion. This is the true meaning of a 'brand experience'. Brands build loyalty, so the experience should provide the consumer with value (to get them in the door), a vehicle they can relate to (to get them engaged), and a feel good feeling that they not only never want to forget, but one that they also wish to become ambassadors for.
Without those elements it's just marketing.
10 August 2010
Emotions from LinkedIn
When do we have emotions? Before or after the experience? And what's the relationship among emotion, expectation, and experience?
Jack Springman
Vice President at Inforte, A Business & Decision company
We have expectations of what an interaction will bring. We will judge the experience relative to our expectation and the outcome of that will be emotion - delight if the experience exceeds our expectation, disappointment if it falls below.
There will always be some degree of emotional engagement prior to experience - hopes and expectations are frequently linked, there is often a degree of aspiration. This is what most brand marketing tries to achieve, but I believe it is very minor compared to the emotion developed post the experience should it differ markedly from what we expect.
Suet Yu
General Manager at Hong Kong CSL Limited
emotion is always there! just "when" and "how" you evoke it to the best extent to be impactful to customer and yet to bring in positive value to both customer & your business.
Paul Ward
Managing Partner at Avos Holdings, LLC
The question is how to shape emotions and how to deal with emotion-based customer attitudes and issues. This is cognitive science, behavioral economics, branding, and continuous learning.
Framing, for example, is very powerful in shaping an emotional response. Active listening is very powerful in dealing with service failures.
Alan Bergstrom
Chief Strategy Officer & Principal at Brand Insights, LLC
A UK-based consultancy, Beyond ,have identified 20 emotions that either drive or destroy value during the customer experience. These emotions have been validated by independent academics. The tool, or diagnostic they use to measure how these emotions "play" during company-specific or brand-specific customer experiences is documented in a unique "Emotional Signature". They can compare company-specific customer experience "emotional signatures" against industry and overall business indices. The work is explained in the company's third book, "The DNA of Customer Experience". You can view a recent webinar on the subject ( http://www.beyondphilosophy.com/thought-leadership/webinars/webinar-customer-loyalty.php ) and read white papers ( http://www.beyondphilosophy.com/customer-experience/articles.php ).
Daryl Choy
@Suet: great to see you here. If emotionless is a kind of emotion, then yes emotions are always around. So back to when... when really? Before the customer experiences the experience, or after? Or as you said... any time?
@Paul: Is the "how" when-driven?
@Alan: That's a great book isn't it? But what exactly is the relationship among emotion, expectation and experience? Does emotion affect experience? Or does expectation affect experience? And there is no relationship between emotion and expectation?
Jack Springman
Vice President at Inforte, A Business & Decision company
We have expectations of what an interaction will bring. We will judge the experience relative to our expectation and the outcome of that will be emotion - delight if the experience exceeds our expectation, disappointment if it falls below.
There will always be some degree of emotional engagement prior to experience - hopes and expectations are frequently linked, there is often a degree of aspiration. This is what most brand marketing tries to achieve, but I believe it is very minor compared to the emotion developed post the experience should it differ markedly from what we expect.
Suet Yu
General Manager at Hong Kong CSL Limited
emotion is always there! just "when" and "how" you evoke it to the best extent to be impactful to customer and yet to bring in positive value to both customer & your business.
Paul Ward
Managing Partner at Avos Holdings, LLC
The question is how to shape emotions and how to deal with emotion-based customer attitudes and issues. This is cognitive science, behavioral economics, branding, and continuous learning.
Framing, for example, is very powerful in shaping an emotional response. Active listening is very powerful in dealing with service failures.
Alan Bergstrom
Chief Strategy Officer & Principal at Brand Insights, LLC
A UK-based consultancy, Beyond ,have identified 20 emotions that either drive or destroy value during the customer experience. These emotions have been validated by independent academics. The tool, or diagnostic they use to measure how these emotions "play" during company-specific or brand-specific customer experiences is documented in a unique "Emotional Signature". They can compare company-specific customer experience "emotional signatures" against industry and overall business indices. The work is explained in the company's third book, "The DNA of Customer Experience". You can view a recent webinar on the subject ( http://www.beyondphilosophy.com/thought-leadership/webinars/webinar-customer-loyalty.php ) and read white papers ( http://www.beyondphilosophy.com/customer-experience/articles.php ).
Daryl Choy
@Suet: great to see you here. If emotionless is a kind of emotion, then yes emotions are always around. So back to when... when really? Before the customer experiences the experience, or after? Or as you said... any time?
@Paul: Is the "how" when-driven?
@Alan: That's a great book isn't it? But what exactly is the relationship among emotion, expectation and experience? Does emotion affect experience? Or does expectation affect experience? And there is no relationship between emotion and expectation?
29 June 2010
Expectations from LinkedIn
How do you form expectations? Based on past, present, or future?
Alex GOH
Business Support Manager at SingTel
Expectation comes from "Conscious incompetence" or knowing what u don't know. It will definitely be based on past or current benchmark.Current or past set the bar for the expectation.
Paul Ward
Managing Partner at Avos Holdings
Strictly you cannot form expectations from the future, but you can have an expectation about the future based on the past, and the present - which is why in my def of CEM I call the customer's experience (affective, conative, cognitive interpretation) as a provisional disposition. The past shapes an expectation; the present confirms or disconfirms that expectation. But also there are cognitive and other biases and factors that influence the expectations: buying styles, personality type, whether the given touchpoint has been primed (positively or negatively), etc. A very good model for TLCV uses both past sat and current interaction sat in the calculation. I can provide references if you like.
Paul Ward
Managing Partner at Avos Holdings
Highly suggest "Incorporating Satisfaction into Customer Value Analysis: Optimal Investment in Lifetime Value," Teck-Hua Ho, Young-Hoon, Park, and Yong-Pin Zhou, July 2005. It extends Schmittlein's model (1987) of CLV to include satisfaction, with the nice twist of including both a current and a past satisfaction measure so that the TLCV measures can factor in changes in a given customer's satisfaction scores over time.
Alex GOH
Business Support Manager at SingTel
Expectation comes from "Conscious incompetence" or knowing what u don't know. It will definitely be based on past or current benchmark.Current or past set the bar for the expectation.
Paul Ward
Managing Partner at Avos Holdings
Strictly you cannot form expectations from the future, but you can have an expectation about the future based on the past, and the present - which is why in my def of CEM I call the customer's experience (affective, conative, cognitive interpretation) as a provisional disposition. The past shapes an expectation; the present confirms or disconfirms that expectation. But also there are cognitive and other biases and factors that influence the expectations: buying styles, personality type, whether the given touchpoint has been primed (positively or negatively), etc. A very good model for TLCV uses both past sat and current interaction sat in the calculation. I can provide references if you like.
Paul Ward
Managing Partner at Avos Holdings
Highly suggest "Incorporating Satisfaction into Customer Value Analysis: Optimal Investment in Lifetime Value," Teck-Hua Ho, Young-Hoon, Park, and Yong-Pin Zhou, July 2005. It extends Schmittlein's model (1987) of CLV to include satisfaction, with the nice twist of including both a current and a past satisfaction measure so that the TLCV measures can factor in changes in a given customer's satisfaction scores over time.
CSFs in Customer experience from LinkedIn
What are the 3 critical success factors in managing customer experience?
Paul Ward
Managing Partner at Avos Holdings
Good question, Daryl! I leave it to our capable community to chime in. Let me suggest a parallel question: What 3 critical error destroy the customer's experience?
It's a different question, since you have to manage the moments of truth that can destroy brand equity, but you also have to create and reinforce a strong branded experience. It's the difference between "hygiene" (keeping the experience acceptable) and "branded experience" (making the experience deliver brand values that are hard to compete with).
Jennifer Maldonado
Customer Experience Program Manager
OK, I've been watching for a response to this so I'll step up and take the first stab. :)
I think 3 critical success factors in managing customer experience are:
1. Putting yourself in the customer's shoes -- this means truly understanding from their perspective how your product/service fits in... avoid internal lingo when talking to them, use language that is relevant in their world, understand the business reason for what they are asking and don't just deliver like an order-taker what they've requested without analyzing whether that is the best approach for them and/or whether there could be unintended repercussions...
2. Closing the loop -- don't send surveys and/or collect suggestions without doing the obvious: READING them and responding! Even when there is not a solution, acknowledging the frustration and the fact you understand it and will work toward an eventual solution is important. Nothing is worse than taking the time to give your thoughts to a company and never hear back. About a year ago I went to the same coffee shop every day for a week because my son was taking a class in the neighborhood and I worked on my laptop there daily waiting for class to end. There was a sign up with the manager's name and email encouraging input. I emailed the individual with several suggestions (there were many opportunities for improvement!) and never heard a peep back. Walk the walk!
3. Employee engagement and empowerment -- happy employees make happy customers. Demoralized employees will have an attitude that bleeds into everything they do. Much better to empower employees to delight customers and deal with the missteps along the way that may arise as coaching opportunities and catalysts for improvement than to handcuff your customer-facing staff to the extent they feel helpless to truly resolve escalations. If they feel effective every day at work and believe they have the power to make a difference, they WILL make a difference.
My $.02.
Tony Bodoh
Business Growth
Jennifer, Great response!
Daryl, I think there are a few ways to answer the question the first is the guiding principles that lead to great customer experiences and the second is the method of executing those principles. I will address the principles.
1. Aligned Passion - Everyone from owner to employee to customer need to have their passions aligned. Stop focusing on growth and focus on expressing your passion and helping your customers express their passion in the most effective manner possible. When a customer realizes that you have given them the tools to express their passion, they will reciprocate by being passionate about your brand.
2. Focus on Giving - Every person who comes in contact with you or your company should feel that you are always giving the best you have to them without reservation and without expectation of getting something in return. The other way to express this principle is to give with love--just because you want to serve your customer. Giving without the "getting" mentality causes prospects to become customers and customers to become raving fans--even if you make a mistake.
3. Humble Confidence - Impress everyone who engages your company with humble confidence. Have the humility to recognize that it takes a team to build anything worthwhile. Give the team due credit. Recognize that everyone makes mistakes. Take responsibility for your mistakes no matter what the consequences. Have the confidence that you have or can find the people and resources necessary to build your dream. Share this faith with your team and your customers. Confidence breeds confidence.
Alex Csergo
Director Asia Pacific & China
Hi Daryl. Seems you have allot of interest within the group on this topic. In my view the answer is dependent on the stakeholder's responsibility for delivering CE. I can respond from a data and analytics side by saying CE management is holistic.
Most CEO's objectives are linked to market share, profits, costs etc. Delivering CE within the enterprise will always be driven by a C level agenda. Therefore internal alignment of CE to internal stakeholder objectives (starting from the CEO) is critical to delivery - that's Tony's 1 & 2. (to me that's a 1).
I mentioned data. Without data you cannot qualify and quantify CE delivery, it remains fuzzy, academic, intangible. Sources of data need to be integrated to created a holistic view. Satisfaction means nothing without an association to revenue, market share, profitability - value. Therefore transaction data, usage data, marketing response data, research (e.g. research VOC/VOM etc - i think that's Jennifer's 1) all these are basic requirements of managing - without data you have no proof. The more you understand about the customer experience drivers cause and effect (internal and external) the more response "levers" you can create linked to strategy outcomes - such as retention and market share. (Data is a 2).
Finally the output. Within the delivery & management you need a way for action (response) to be both integrated and co-ordinated. Jennifer said 'closed loop', Paul said KPI's and matrix management, I think that is also "humble confidence" - knowing that things could be better. This is where testing and improvement, organizational learning etc are important. Typically you will find both operational CE delivery (touchpoint optimization) and tactical CE delivery (brand communication & experiences) in this space.
Once you have all three you have a process for managing CE.
Sherrie Mersdorf
Database Marketing Analyst at Cvent
If you reverse any of these answers, I think you get to the critical errors as well. I'd put not closing the feedback loop and not empowering employees at the top of critical errors. It doesn't matter if you have the vision or the desire if you're not actually doing something with it (closing the loop) or allowing employees to take feedback and run with it (empowering employees). While you obviously need to have executive/management buy in for CEM programs, I don't think not having it will cause the most harm. It just will probably mean the program isn't as successful as it could be. Not closing the loop and not empowering employees could actually result in a worse experience for the customer.
Paul Ward
Managing Partner at Avos Holdings
Good question, Daryl! I leave it to our capable community to chime in. Let me suggest a parallel question: What 3 critical error destroy the customer's experience?
It's a different question, since you have to manage the moments of truth that can destroy brand equity, but you also have to create and reinforce a strong branded experience. It's the difference between "hygiene" (keeping the experience acceptable) and "branded experience" (making the experience deliver brand values that are hard to compete with).
Jennifer Maldonado
Customer Experience Program Manager
OK, I've been watching for a response to this so I'll step up and take the first stab. :)
I think 3 critical success factors in managing customer experience are:
1. Putting yourself in the customer's shoes -- this means truly understanding from their perspective how your product/service fits in... avoid internal lingo when talking to them, use language that is relevant in their world, understand the business reason for what they are asking and don't just deliver like an order-taker what they've requested without analyzing whether that is the best approach for them and/or whether there could be unintended repercussions...
2. Closing the loop -- don't send surveys and/or collect suggestions without doing the obvious: READING them and responding! Even when there is not a solution, acknowledging the frustration and the fact you understand it and will work toward an eventual solution is important. Nothing is worse than taking the time to give your thoughts to a company and never hear back. About a year ago I went to the same coffee shop every day for a week because my son was taking a class in the neighborhood and I worked on my laptop there daily waiting for class to end. There was a sign up with the manager's name and email encouraging input. I emailed the individual with several suggestions (there were many opportunities for improvement!) and never heard a peep back. Walk the walk!
3. Employee engagement and empowerment -- happy employees make happy customers. Demoralized employees will have an attitude that bleeds into everything they do. Much better to empower employees to delight customers and deal with the missteps along the way that may arise as coaching opportunities and catalysts for improvement than to handcuff your customer-facing staff to the extent they feel helpless to truly resolve escalations. If they feel effective every day at work and believe they have the power to make a difference, they WILL make a difference.
My $.02.
Tony Bodoh
Business Growth
Jennifer, Great response!
Daryl, I think there are a few ways to answer the question the first is the guiding principles that lead to great customer experiences and the second is the method of executing those principles. I will address the principles.
1. Aligned Passion - Everyone from owner to employee to customer need to have their passions aligned. Stop focusing on growth and focus on expressing your passion and helping your customers express their passion in the most effective manner possible. When a customer realizes that you have given them the tools to express their passion, they will reciprocate by being passionate about your brand.
2. Focus on Giving - Every person who comes in contact with you or your company should feel that you are always giving the best you have to them without reservation and without expectation of getting something in return. The other way to express this principle is to give with love--just because you want to serve your customer. Giving without the "getting" mentality causes prospects to become customers and customers to become raving fans--even if you make a mistake.
3. Humble Confidence - Impress everyone who engages your company with humble confidence. Have the humility to recognize that it takes a team to build anything worthwhile. Give the team due credit. Recognize that everyone makes mistakes. Take responsibility for your mistakes no matter what the consequences. Have the confidence that you have or can find the people and resources necessary to build your dream. Share this faith with your team and your customers. Confidence breeds confidence.
Paul Ward
Managing Partner at Avos Holdings
Off the top of my head: 1. Pilot studies. 2. Correct link between KPI and matrix management of touchpoints. 3. Branding the experience using "brand DNA" in the innovation, design, execution, and continuous improvement of the most critical touchpoints (critical to the customer and to the brand).
Alex Csergo
Director Asia Pacific & China
Hi Daryl. Seems you have allot of interest within the group on this topic. In my view the answer is dependent on the stakeholder's responsibility for delivering CE. I can respond from a data and analytics side by saying CE management is holistic.
Most CEO's objectives are linked to market share, profits, costs etc. Delivering CE within the enterprise will always be driven by a C level agenda. Therefore internal alignment of CE to internal stakeholder objectives (starting from the CEO) is critical to delivery - that's Tony's 1 & 2. (to me that's a 1).
I mentioned data. Without data you cannot qualify and quantify CE delivery, it remains fuzzy, academic, intangible. Sources of data need to be integrated to created a holistic view. Satisfaction means nothing without an association to revenue, market share, profitability - value. Therefore transaction data, usage data, marketing response data, research (e.g. research VOC/VOM etc - i think that's Jennifer's 1) all these are basic requirements of managing - without data you have no proof. The more you understand about the customer experience drivers cause and effect (internal and external) the more response "levers" you can create linked to strategy outcomes - such as retention and market share. (Data is a 2).
Finally the output. Within the delivery & management you need a way for action (response) to be both integrated and co-ordinated. Jennifer said 'closed loop', Paul said KPI's and matrix management, I think that is also "humble confidence" - knowing that things could be better. This is where testing and improvement, organizational learning etc are important. Typically you will find both operational CE delivery (touchpoint optimization) and tactical CE delivery (brand communication & experiences) in this space.
Once you have all three you have a process for managing CE.
Sherrie Mersdorf
Database Marketing Analyst at Cvent
If you reverse any of these answers, I think you get to the critical errors as well. I'd put not closing the feedback loop and not empowering employees at the top of critical errors. It doesn't matter if you have the vision or the desire if you're not actually doing something with it (closing the loop) or allowing employees to take feedback and run with it (empowering employees). While you obviously need to have executive/management buy in for CEM programs, I don't think not having it will cause the most harm. It just will probably mean the program isn't as successful as it could be. Not closing the loop and not empowering employees could actually result in a worse experience for the customer.
01 April 2010
touchpoint, experience, relationship from LinkedIn
How would you define touchpoint and experience? How do you see the relationship between both? Is it absolutely true that "one does not shape a good or bad experience through a single interaction?" How about "love at first sight?" What if prior experience exists? How do you define relationship if experience is summation of touchpoints? Do you actually mean touchpoint creates experience? And how would you define impression?
Marta Menezes
Manager at GMS Consulting
In my opinion, experience is the result of a set of touchpoints interactions. The touchpoints are the points in which the customer interacts with the company (when he buy, contact, pay...). His experience is the "feeling" he gets from the company after he tries each touchpoint. Touchpoints are points of contact between the company and client eg. buy, use, contact, pay, abandone (set of contacts within the client life cycle). Internally, from the company perspective this reflects into processes such as Sales, Customer Care, Billing, Retention. Interactions are actions of contact: the sales contact, the act of paying the bill.
Debmalya Dutta
Lead Consultant within Business Information Management at Capgemini
Touchpoint/Interaction point is the point where the consumer (can be an customer, prospects, any individual or business in case of b2b) reaches out to learn or consume the services provided by another business (again -can be an individual or a business). So, it's the interaction start point and mind you that the interaction does not always need a human at the other end. So, I can interact or try reaching the business's boundary thru any channel - ATM, KIOSK, BRANCH, CALL CENTRE, WEB, MOBILE, IVR etc. So every time I try reaching out to a business to use their services, I generate a touchpoint. Now, experience on the other hand, is a summation of impressions formed (qualitative in nature) / observations (quantitative in nature) made through multiple touchpoints over a period of time. One does not shape a good or bad experience through a single interaction. So, if I were to draw a tree diagram: (i) A touchpoint results in the customer making a observations (quantitative in nature) tacitly or impression (qualitative in nature) processing (ii) Individual, multiple touchpoints/ interaction points result in individual observations and impressions (iii) Observations and Impressions help in shaping the customer's experience.
Mark's was a great example. And I agree with Shubra too because fundamentally both are alluding to the same point. Manage at a micro level to deliver at the marco level.
Let's use an example. Say I were a blind man - When another human extend out his/her hand and touches me, the hand touching me is a touchpoint/interaction point. Now when the hand touches me, I cognitively process multiple things like - is the hand touching me warm, cold, sweaty, is the texture of the skin soft etc. Now this qualitative, tacit processing is my observation that this person touching me has say coarse, warm hands. I on the first instance only make an observation (needless to say it contributes to the building of an experience)... I can only classify it as an experience when I have put together multiple observations together... Now, you stitch together these observations (micro experiences) to form a macro experience/your perspective of a business/object.
So, yes, you need to manage every interaction so that you deliver a positive vibe consistently so that it all adds up to a positive over-all experience... It would be futile to measure at an interaction level because all interactions cannot be of the same quality - some exceed expectations, some just meet them and some fall short of customer expectations. But a customer forms a positive or a negative opinion (customer's perspective equates to his experience) as part of every interaction and when the business consistently helps creating these positive opinions (with very few exceptions), the customer says that his/her experiences with the business is great... And if the business is inconsistent in delivering these +/- vibes, then the customer is unsure about how to judge the business. So, the customer has a passive opinion of the business. And if the business is consitently delivering negative vibes (with few exceptions of positives), then the over-all experience is negative... So I, as a business, need to manage each and every touchpoint experience so that I can consciously make a positive impression on the customer. But always remember that experiences are nothing but opinions from a customer's standpoint. You normally dont form a long lasting firsm opinion unless you interact with the other individual multiple number of times (hence multiple touchpoints).
Mark Gregory
Customer Experience and NPS Programme Practitioner
I use the analogy of films and pictures. A touchpoint is a snapshot of a moment in time whereas the experience is like a movie, a series of snapshots joined together. The relationship between the two is such that you can't have a movie without the individual frames (snapshots) and it's only when you join these frames together do you get the full picture of the customers' experience.
Shubhra Ramchandani
Senior Vice President at Synovate Loyalty
I feel that the difference implied between a touchpoint and experience has been artificially created (mostly by us -- analysts and consultants!) to acknowledge the current organizational structure of companies. Putting on my customer hat -- every touchpoint is the experience. A series of experiences creates my overall impression of the brand.
Each touchpoint or moment of truth or interaction -- whatever term one uses to define each experience that a customer has with a particular brand can be viewed as building a savings account. Good experiences = deposits and bad experiences = withdrawals. The amount of the deposit or withdrawal is determined by 2 things -- 1) the positive or negative experience and, 2) the importance of the interaction to the customer. The net balance in the savings account at any one point in time is the brand 'impression' the customer is left with which is the primary driver of the potential for future purchases/recommendations of the brand from this customer.
Marta Menezes
Manager at GMS Consulting
In my opinion, experience is the result of a set of touchpoints interactions. The touchpoints are the points in which the customer interacts with the company (when he buy, contact, pay...). His experience is the "feeling" he gets from the company after he tries each touchpoint. Touchpoints are points of contact between the company and client eg. buy, use, contact, pay, abandone (set of contacts within the client life cycle). Internally, from the company perspective this reflects into processes such as Sales, Customer Care, Billing, Retention. Interactions are actions of contact: the sales contact, the act of paying the bill.
Debmalya Dutta
Lead Consultant within Business Information Management at Capgemini
Touchpoint/Interaction point is the point where the consumer (can be an customer, prospects, any individual or business in case of b2b) reaches out to learn or consume the services provided by another business (again -can be an individual or a business). So, it's the interaction start point and mind you that the interaction does not always need a human at the other end. So, I can interact or try reaching the business's boundary thru any channel - ATM, KIOSK, BRANCH, CALL CENTRE, WEB, MOBILE, IVR etc. So every time I try reaching out to a business to use their services, I generate a touchpoint. Now, experience on the other hand, is a summation of impressions formed (qualitative in nature) / observations (quantitative in nature) made through multiple touchpoints over a period of time. One does not shape a good or bad experience through a single interaction. So, if I were to draw a tree diagram: (i) A touchpoint results in the customer making a observations (quantitative in nature) tacitly or impression (qualitative in nature) processing (ii) Individual, multiple touchpoints/ interaction points result in individual observations and impressions (iii) Observations and Impressions help in shaping the customer's experience.
Mark's was a great example. And I agree with Shubra too because fundamentally both are alluding to the same point. Manage at a micro level to deliver at the marco level.
Let's use an example. Say I were a blind man - When another human extend out his/her hand and touches me, the hand touching me is a touchpoint/interaction point. Now when the hand touches me, I cognitively process multiple things like - is the hand touching me warm, cold, sweaty, is the texture of the skin soft etc. Now this qualitative, tacit processing is my observation that this person touching me has say coarse, warm hands. I on the first instance only make an observation (needless to say it contributes to the building of an experience)... I can only classify it as an experience when I have put together multiple observations together... Now, you stitch together these observations (micro experiences) to form a macro experience/your perspective of a business/object.
So, yes, you need to manage every interaction so that you deliver a positive vibe consistently so that it all adds up to a positive over-all experience... It would be futile to measure at an interaction level because all interactions cannot be of the same quality - some exceed expectations, some just meet them and some fall short of customer expectations. But a customer forms a positive or a negative opinion (customer's perspective equates to his experience) as part of every interaction and when the business consistently helps creating these positive opinions (with very few exceptions), the customer says that his/her experiences with the business is great... And if the business is inconsistent in delivering these +/- vibes, then the customer is unsure about how to judge the business. So, the customer has a passive opinion of the business. And if the business is consitently delivering negative vibes (with few exceptions of positives), then the over-all experience is negative... So I, as a business, need to manage each and every touchpoint experience so that I can consciously make a positive impression on the customer. But always remember that experiences are nothing but opinions from a customer's standpoint. You normally dont form a long lasting firsm opinion unless you interact with the other individual multiple number of times (hence multiple touchpoints).
Mark Gregory
Customer Experience and NPS Programme Practitioner
I use the analogy of films and pictures. A touchpoint is a snapshot of a moment in time whereas the experience is like a movie, a series of snapshots joined together. The relationship between the two is such that you can't have a movie without the individual frames (snapshots) and it's only when you join these frames together do you get the full picture of the customers' experience.
Shubhra Ramchandani
Senior Vice President at Synovate Loyalty
I feel that the difference implied between a touchpoint and experience has been artificially created (mostly by us -- analysts and consultants!) to acknowledge the current organizational structure of companies. Putting on my customer hat -- every touchpoint is the experience. A series of experiences creates my overall impression of the brand.
Each touchpoint or moment of truth or interaction -- whatever term one uses to define each experience that a customer has with a particular brand can be viewed as building a savings account. Good experiences = deposits and bad experiences = withdrawals. The amount of the deposit or withdrawal is determined by 2 things -- 1) the positive or negative experience and, 2) the importance of the interaction to the customer. The net balance in the savings account at any one point in time is the brand 'impression' the customer is left with which is the primary driver of the potential for future purchases/recommendations of the brand from this customer.
23 March 2010
Discussion on touchpoint and MOT
Below is a discussion on "How are leading companies integrating CEM with Lean Six Sigma (or BPM)?" in CEM Group within LinkedIn in early March 2010.
DC: Is Lean Six Sigma BPM...? It depends on how you define CEM? CEM is managing customer experience. Is experience a process? Or should we ask ourselves where does experience happen? IMHO, exprience happens at touchpoint, defined as any interaction between/among 2 or more entities any time any way any place for a purpose. touchpoint creates experience and forms relationships. It's a process. When we enhance experience at the right touchpoint, we are improving the process. The question we should be asking ourselves is, is there a way to quantify relationship and experience?
DM: The customer experience is the process and each and every touchpoint is an opportunity to make an impression. So if your question is can we quantify the experience, then yes, we can use touchpoints. This is the principle that Jan Carlzon used to turn SAS around in the 1980s.
DC: How do you see MOT and touchpoint? Someone argues that experience is not a process, but an impression.
DM: I would argue that a touchpoint is a moment of truth (MOT). This is something measurable, quantifiable. Removing MOTs improves the customer experience. This principle is behind the success of some of this century's most successful companies such as Apple, Google and Virgin. I would consider a user experience that measures the customer's impression as a fundamentally flawed approach. Subjective and unable to be accurately measured. If you can't measure something, you can't improve it. IMHO, those companies that use this approach cannot accurately say they improve the process, nor the customer experience.
DC: How would you define MOT then? Do you mean removing MOTs does NOT improve the customer experience?
DM: A moment of truth is any interaction a customer has with our organisation. It may be person to person, person to system, system to person, system to system or person to product or service. The principle of MOTs and that Jan Carlzon used what that the more MOTs a customer has, the less satisfied they become. So the principle in improving service is to first measure the MOTs and then remove or at least improve each and every one. Look at the iPod as an example of a good customer experience, I think the maximum MOTs is 3, to play any song or view any media.
DC: Answers.com defines moment of truth as "a critical or decisive time, at which one is put to the ultimate test." So is it any interaction, or just the crucial moment? And why it's moment of truth? Will there be moment of untruth? How would you define touchpoint then? For iPhone MOT, it's interesting indeed. But does short MOT apply to human relationships too? Is there really no difference between MOT and touchpoint?
DM: I believe any interaction with a customer is a crucial moment. Would you agree? Moment of truth is a term or expression used to define this interaction. I am not aware of the expression moment of untruth. As I see it, a customer touchpoint is a moment of truth. If there are internal "touchpoints", we call these break points. Break points are internal hand-offs, are also measurable and can be person to person, person to system, system to person and system to system. In terms of optimising MOTs, this approach applies to people, system and products/services. The less interactions, the better the interaction.
DC: I ain't sure if every interaction should be critical. I once thought so, but then resources are always limited... it's unrealistic for firms to optimize every single touchpoint, because at the end of the day, all touchpoints may not receive the required resources to create positive experience for relevant stakeholders, and end up delivering negative experience. This implies that firms need to identify key touchpoints, or touchpoints that customers really care, and allocate resources to make sure that things won't go wrong for each critical touchpoint so that the relationship will be able to move forward. I guess it's something like "doing the right things right." There is an article from Mercer you might find it interesting. http://www.lippincottmercer.com/pdfs/a_buildingbrand.pdf Breakpoints... are we creating too much jargons here? Why breakpoints when there is already touchpoint, or even interaction? Again, I ain't sure if "the less interactions, the better the interaction" is true or not... I think it definitely applies to products but human relationships...? While I agree that quality is always preferred to quantity, but what if people are truly out of sight out of mind?
DM: I agree that some interactions are more critical than others. The CEMMethod which we, the BP Group use, to analyse the customer experience categorises the interactions based on their importance to the customer and to the company. After analysing the process and categorising the interactions (MOTs), we then look to remove or improve. As you mention, it is all about doing the right things. Thank you for sharing this article. It is a wonderful example of a 20th century business thinking. Here is the first paragraph: "Successful brand-builders consciously resist investing everywhere that their brand touches their customers. Instead, they identify and then spend aggressively only on the interactions they know will have the most impact on revenue growth and profitability." To summarise, they do not seek to make every customer interaction a successful one. They choose those interactions which are most important to the company and only look to improve those, to the detriment of those interactions that are most important to the customer and to all other interactions the customer experiences. So you may have a great experience when you buy your product, but after one month when there is a problem and you ring the customer service department, because they already have your money or have signed the contract this does not effect the revenue or profitability of the business, you get poor customer service. This approach is inside out, focusing on the company brand and not on the success of their customers. Superior customer service is not about the brand, it is about the customer. Based on the fact that the two airlines they mention as premier brand-builders, British Airways and American Airlines, are in terrible financial trouble, it gives you some indication on whether this is a successful strategy or not. Once again further down, they highlight supposed problems with the "do everything" approach-aligning every customer interaction. Those companies that do this are some of this centuries most successful companies and include Apple, Google, Virgin, SouthWest, RyanAir. They know who their customers are and they also realise that it IS necessary to make a FULL commitment to aligning everything to the success of their customers. Let us ask the employees of British Airways and American Airlines whether adopting this strategy of aligning everything to the successful customer outcome "in the hope that many small positives will add up to a first-rate brand experience is really poor use of resources; difficult because it requires buy-in from the many constituents involved across the organization; limiting on making quick wins that can foster confidence and generate support for broader brand-building programs." The approach being used by some of this centuries most successful companies is not Lean or Six Sigma, it is called Advanced Business Process Management, also known as Outside In.
DM: David Mottershead, Managing Director at Outside In Consulting
DC: Daryl Choy
DC: Is Lean Six Sigma BPM...? It depends on how you define CEM? CEM is managing customer experience. Is experience a process? Or should we ask ourselves where does experience happen? IMHO, exprience happens at touchpoint, defined as any interaction between/among 2 or more entities any time any way any place for a purpose. touchpoint creates experience and forms relationships. It's a process. When we enhance experience at the right touchpoint, we are improving the process. The question we should be asking ourselves is, is there a way to quantify relationship and experience?
DM: The customer experience is the process and each and every touchpoint is an opportunity to make an impression. So if your question is can we quantify the experience, then yes, we can use touchpoints. This is the principle that Jan Carlzon used to turn SAS around in the 1980s.
DC: How do you see MOT and touchpoint? Someone argues that experience is not a process, but an impression.
DM: I would argue that a touchpoint is a moment of truth (MOT). This is something measurable, quantifiable. Removing MOTs improves the customer experience. This principle is behind the success of some of this century's most successful companies such as Apple, Google and Virgin. I would consider a user experience that measures the customer's impression as a fundamentally flawed approach. Subjective and unable to be accurately measured. If you can't measure something, you can't improve it. IMHO, those companies that use this approach cannot accurately say they improve the process, nor the customer experience.
DC: How would you define MOT then? Do you mean removing MOTs does NOT improve the customer experience?
DM: A moment of truth is any interaction a customer has with our organisation. It may be person to person, person to system, system to person, system to system or person to product or service. The principle of MOTs and that Jan Carlzon used what that the more MOTs a customer has, the less satisfied they become. So the principle in improving service is to first measure the MOTs and then remove or at least improve each and every one. Look at the iPod as an example of a good customer experience, I think the maximum MOTs is 3, to play any song or view any media.
DC: Answers.com defines moment of truth as "a critical or decisive time, at which one is put to the ultimate test." So is it any interaction, or just the crucial moment? And why it's moment of truth? Will there be moment of untruth? How would you define touchpoint then? For iPhone MOT, it's interesting indeed. But does short MOT apply to human relationships too? Is there really no difference between MOT and touchpoint?
DM: I believe any interaction with a customer is a crucial moment. Would you agree? Moment of truth is a term or expression used to define this interaction. I am not aware of the expression moment of untruth. As I see it, a customer touchpoint is a moment of truth. If there are internal "touchpoints", we call these break points. Break points are internal hand-offs, are also measurable and can be person to person, person to system, system to person and system to system. In terms of optimising MOTs, this approach applies to people, system and products/services. The less interactions, the better the interaction.
DC: I ain't sure if every interaction should be critical. I once thought so, but then resources are always limited... it's unrealistic for firms to optimize every single touchpoint, because at the end of the day, all touchpoints may not receive the required resources to create positive experience for relevant stakeholders, and end up delivering negative experience. This implies that firms need to identify key touchpoints, or touchpoints that customers really care, and allocate resources to make sure that things won't go wrong for each critical touchpoint so that the relationship will be able to move forward. I guess it's something like "doing the right things right." There is an article from Mercer you might find it interesting. http://www.lippincottmercer.com/pdfs/a_buildingbrand.pdf Breakpoints... are we creating too much jargons here? Why breakpoints when there is already touchpoint, or even interaction? Again, I ain't sure if "the less interactions, the better the interaction" is true or not... I think it definitely applies to products but human relationships...? While I agree that quality is always preferred to quantity, but what if people are truly out of sight out of mind?
DM: I agree that some interactions are more critical than others. The CEMMethod which we, the BP Group use, to analyse the customer experience categorises the interactions based on their importance to the customer and to the company. After analysing the process and categorising the interactions (MOTs), we then look to remove or improve. As you mention, it is all about doing the right things. Thank you for sharing this article. It is a wonderful example of a 20th century business thinking. Here is the first paragraph: "Successful brand-builders consciously resist investing everywhere that their brand touches their customers. Instead, they identify and then spend aggressively only on the interactions they know will have the most impact on revenue growth and profitability." To summarise, they do not seek to make every customer interaction a successful one. They choose those interactions which are most important to the company and only look to improve those, to the detriment of those interactions that are most important to the customer and to all other interactions the customer experiences. So you may have a great experience when you buy your product, but after one month when there is a problem and you ring the customer service department, because they already have your money or have signed the contract this does not effect the revenue or profitability of the business, you get poor customer service. This approach is inside out, focusing on the company brand and not on the success of their customers. Superior customer service is not about the brand, it is about the customer. Based on the fact that the two airlines they mention as premier brand-builders, British Airways and American Airlines, are in terrible financial trouble, it gives you some indication on whether this is a successful strategy or not. Once again further down, they highlight supposed problems with the "do everything" approach-aligning every customer interaction. Those companies that do this are some of this centuries most successful companies and include Apple, Google, Virgin, SouthWest, RyanAir. They know who their customers are and they also realise that it IS necessary to make a FULL commitment to aligning everything to the success of their customers. Let us ask the employees of British Airways and American Airlines whether adopting this strategy of aligning everything to the successful customer outcome "in the hope that many small positives will add up to a first-rate brand experience is really poor use of resources; difficult because it requires buy-in from the many constituents involved across the organization; limiting on making quick wins that can foster confidence and generate support for broader brand-building programs." The approach being used by some of this centuries most successful companies is not Lean or Six Sigma, it is called Advanced Business Process Management, also known as Outside In.
DM: David Mottershead, Managing Director at Outside In Consulting
DC: Daryl Choy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
