Posts Tagged ‘Customer service’

« Older Entries

Airline Service and the Art of Communicating Bad News

by on Tuesday, September 27th, 2011

Do your customers hate you? If not, you probably don’t own an airline.

I’ve blogged before about airline service, mostly because as a frequent traveler I see a lot of it. But I also write about airline service because I believe it holds lessons for every business.

Airlines frequently disappoint or frustrate their customers, often for reasons that are beyond the control of front-line employees. Flight attendants and gate agents can’t predict weather delays or overbooked flights and they can’t do much about charges for checked bags and onboard food.

Creative Commons via popculturegeek.com

With all that practice, airlines should be outstanding at communicating bad news to customers. They aren’t. This is how airline employees on three recent flights on the same airline handled the common issue of the flight being too full to store every passenger’s carry-on:

  1. (Flight attendant) Please help us fit as many carry-ons as possible into the overhead bins by stowing them with their wheels out. We hope you understand if we run out of room and have to gate check your bag. There will be no checked baggage fees if we do have to check your bag.
  2. (Flight attendant) Carry-ons must be stowed wheels-out. I am going to come through the cabin and if I find any bags improperly stowed I will take them off the plane and gate check them.
  3. (Gate agent) Please do not give me a hard time if I tell you I have to gate check your bag.

The first example is probably what most employers expect from their associates. The other two, not so much. Unless airlines are uniquely tone-deaf, they probably wouldn’t find condescension and rudeness acceptable, either. The lesson for airlines – and every business that cares about its customers – is to do a better job training associates in the fine art of conveying bad news.

Associate training should focus intensively on likely scenarios where “customer satisfaction” won’t mean giving customers what they want. Associates need to understand that sometimes the best way to satisfy customers is to treat them with respect, be transparent about the source of the problem and be proactive about minimizing its impact. That can make the difference between acceptance and resentment, good will and bad.

It seemed to me that the two hostile airline employees never got that message. Perhaps they thought they were “protecting” the company or perhaps they were um, winging it, but they clearly were not calling on an appropriate set of skills. My take on the flight attendant who got it right was that she was relying on solid training when she: explained the situation clearly, enlisted the customers’ assistance, asked for understanding and communicated a countervailing benefit.

This example shows how important it is to monitor how associates handle customer interactions. Airlines and other large companies should spend the money for mystery shoppers if they can’t provide dedicated personnel. Smaller businesses should at least solicit feedback, whether in person, by email or by using social media. And just asking for customer input can improve customer perceptions.

The Zavee takeaway:

  • Businesses will inevitably frustrate or disappoint a customer from time to time. It’s vital to prepare associates for these situations so they can provide as good an experience as possible under the circumstances. They should never be taken by surprise.
  • Effectively communicating bad news to customers isn’t an art, but it is a skill. It needs to be part of every associate’s training and performance review.
  • Failure to monitor how associates interact with customers should be unacceptable in every business. In a small business it can be fatal.

0 comments
Tags: , , , , , ,

Airlines and Loyalty … It’s Not Getting Better

by on Wednesday, June 29th, 2011

Bill Hanifin of Loyalty Truth recently posted about airlines and customer service, a post prompted by his trip around the world (Malaysia and back – that qualifies). My trips are rarely as exotic but I fly almost every week, primarily between Newark and either FLL or PBI, and primarily on Continental. Like Bill, I have a soft spot for airlines, having begun my career in aircraft finance. Again like Bill, I am amazed – and not in a good way – by the unforced errors airlines commit when it comes to customer service.

Bill writes that airlines should be using the wealth of data available to them to build in more flexibility in dealing with customers, some of whom may be very valuable to the airline. I agree, but I think that ignoring their own data is only half the problem. A lack of empowerment is the other. Associates can only be as flexible as the rules allow. And I have a hunch that consolidation has made carriers more rigid and reduced employees’ sense of ownership (anyone have similar – or different – experiences at newly-merged carriers?).

Bill isn’t a fan of unbundling, but my view is mixed. I think baggage fees are a slap in the face to passengers. Airlines ask us to cooperate in limiting what we carry aboard, then charge us for our cooperation. Nice. On the other hand, unbundling food is a win-win, because concourse food concessions are improving steadily at many airports just as on-board food is disappearing. Carrying on our own food is one of the few freedoms we have as passengers, and I wouldn’t want to turn back the clock.

via Flickr - where are the jonses

Maybe it’s because there aren’t any bosses or unions at 35,000 feet, or maybe it’s because the airlines know how to hire for the cabins, but most flight attendants do a great job despite more crowding and fewer amenities. One recent flight departed “on time” by pushing back before the aircraft was fully catered. Not surprisingly, grumbling ensued. Very surprisingly, the flight attendants up front decided to open bags of almonds left over from the inbound flight and serve them in wine glasses. It showed that the flight attendants cared and it put a smile on every face in first class. Airlines can’t teach that kind of resourcefulness, but I hope they reward it.

One of the biggest customer engagement problems the airlines face as they impose more rules, charges and limitations is that the customer-facing staff is constantly required to disappoint or frustrate the customer. The trick, whether in the cabin, at the gate or at the ticket counter is to avoid turning delivering bad news into delivering bad service. Being told your bag has to be gate-checked is bad news; being made to wait for it at baggage claim is bad service. Being handed your bag at the Jetway is a smart way to ease the sting.

Flexible rules, empowered associates and a premium on resourcefulness can do wonders for an airline’s word of mouth. At a time when consumers are increasingly willing and able to share their experiences effectively, bad service is just reckless. If I hated Continental – and I don’t – I’m sure I could find a different way to get to Florida every week. Travelers under fewer constraints can drive to a more distant airport or just drive to their destination. And many people would just as soon stay home. Customers like me who really have to fly can use social media to make sure that everyone in our social graph – including whoever runs social media at the airline – knows exactly how and what the airline is doing.

The Zavee takeaway:

  • Airlines need empowered, resourceful associates applying flexible, data-driven rules. The alternative is an ongoing low-intensity conflict with customers that the airlines can’t win.
  • Every customer has an alternative to a bad airline, even if it means staying home.
  • Social media levels the playing field for airline customers. They can sit us down, but they can’t shut us up.

0 comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Customer Engagement (Part 1)

by on Tuesday, May 3rd, 2011

Richard Meyer has a typically thought-provoking post about customer engagement on his New Media and Marketing Blog. In the post he tees off on a research report that uses ‘likes” on Facebook as the sole metric of customer engagement. Richard has a big problem with this: “Who the hell cares who ‘likes’ your posts?”

Richard goes on to say that engagement “doesn’t mean a damn thing”. I completely agree that clicking the “like” or “follow” button doesn’t mean that customers are engaged, but I think there is such a thing as engagement. I also think that marketers can and should take steps to encourage engagement, but that ultimately they can’t control it. I also think that we are a long way from effective engagement metrics.

Scuderia Ferrari

(Helena.40proof via Flickr)

I would define an engaged customer as one who acts as if he/she has a stake in the marketer’s business that extends beyond the specific transaction. These are the customers who can provide valuable insights and information both to the marketer and to other consumers. Under this definition, “liking” or “following” is about the weakest possible form of engagement imaginable.

Even in the absence of marketer involvement engaged customers can have a significant impact on sales. Because they may know more than the typical consumer and be more willing to share, they can be effective advocates for the marketer’s brand and products. Even if they point out product flaws or own up to having made a mistake in purchasing the marketer’s product (although Richard disagrees, Yelp and Trip Advisor contain plenty of reviews in which customers take at least some of the responsibility for their negative experience).

If the marketer does involve itself with its cadre of engaged customers it can do more than increase short-term sales. It can increase long-term sales by optimizing its business in areas such as product features, merchandise mix and customer service. By bringing them inside the tent the marketer may make these customers even more engaged and even more vigorous advocates for the brand and its products.

Customers don’t have to become unpaid product testers or spokespeople to be engaged. Engagement can include attending marketer-sponsored events or participating in marketer-endorsed charitable activities. By concretely affiliating oneself with the marketer and — critically — by sharing about it, engaged customers can drive the marketer’s message and build the marketer’s brand. Whether these activities result directly in sales depends in part on how they are structured and how the sales cycle normally works (cars and colas aren’t purchased the same way).

How vital is the marketer’s involvement to customer engagement? The short, if obvious, answer is that it can’t hurt. Perhaps surprisingly, however, some marketers with highly engaged customers have little if any involvement with them. One example, admittedly atypical in terms of both product and customers, is Ferrari. The Italian sports car maker has a passionately engaged base that includes not just current owners but past owners, hope-to-be owners and probably-never-will-be owners. This high level of engagement takes place with virtually no involvement from Ferrari, which pays attention only to the very top tier of its customer base (even for Ferrari, all customers are not created equal).

In the absence of marketer involvement, the Ferrari faithful have turned to enthusiast sites such as Ferrari Chat as well as marque clubs such as the Ferrari Club of America and Ferrari Owners Club (which hear from the marketer mainly when it believes its trademarks are being infringed). They have returned Ferrari’s lack of involvement by creating their own communities, whose benefit to the marketer goes unrecognized and unrewarded, but probably not unnoticed.

If it’s clear that marketers shouldn’t use likes and follows to measure engagement, what are some appropriate metrics? That will be the subject of Part 2 of this post.

The Zavee takeaway:

  • Customer engagement exists, but “likes” and “follows” are its most trivial form.
  • Engaged customers can help marketers improve their business, and not just by purchasing more.
  • Marketers can ignore, monitor or facilitate customer engagement, but it isn’t always clear which strategy will have the highest ROI.

0 comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

When Things Go Wrong, There’s No Substitute For The Human Touch

by on Wednesday, October 20th, 2010

Social shopping sites (like Zavee), as well as many merchants’ own web sites, provide tools that let shoppers “self serve” information they want to make an informed purchase decision. Some large merchants are also asking customers to self-serve customer service issues, too. Is this a good idea?

For product-related issues, it’s a great idea. Many manufacturers, such as Apple, now host libraries of information to help consumers use and, when necessary, troubleshoot their product. This system filters out customers with easy to solve (or at least common) problems and frees the customer service representative (CSR) to deal with more difficult (or less common) issues.

Not another customer service complaint! (via Star5112 - Creative Commons)

Some companies have an intermediate stage between self-service and a conversation with a CSR: live chat. Live chat uses an IM-like interface for online interaction with a CSR in real time. Why would a merchant use live chat rather than a live conversation? Most live chat software lets CSRs conduct several live chat interactions at once, while they can handle only one phone call at a time. This can result in shorter wait times compared to phone queues, which may make the more impersonal quality of live chat a fair exchange.

Are consumers equally wiling to self-serve when the issue relates to the company’s service? Recent research supports the unsurprising conclusion that when things go wrong consumers want to interact with a human, either in person or on the phone. But not just any human will do. Consumers want someone who listens, responds appropriately (rather than from a script) and is empowered to address the problem.

Speaking of Apple, I recently had a wonderful customer service experience at the local Apple Store. They made an avoidable mistake that delayed the servicing of my laptop. When I called and pointed out the mistake, the service manager immediately took steps to make it right. He didn’t even consult the store manager; he just made the decision on the spot. I’ve always been a “Mac guy” but now I’m more likely not only to buy Apple products but to recommend them as well. Great customer service will do that.

Best Buy explicitly treats customer service as a sales channel. Its twelpforce program puts sales associates on Twitter where they respond to customer inquiries, which range from questions about what to buy to troubleshooting assistance to service complaints. Why Twitter and not either live chat or a phone call? First, from a look at the Best Buy feed the interactions clearly are unscripted and one-on-one. Live chat isn’t as spontaneous or personal. Second, Best Buy doesn’t offer twelpforce as an alternative to telephone interaction with a CSR – it’s positioned as tech advice for the consumer (even though they handle service issues). Twitter also scales better than the telephone. Associates can switch between helping customers in the store and on Twitter; a voice solution would would take associates off the floor. Finally (and I’m speculating here), I think it matters that twelpforce consists of sales associates rather than CSRs. Associates’ only mission is to grow the business, which includes providing a customer experience that makes buying – and returning – more likely. CSRs also are (or should be) tasked with providing a quality experience, but they encounter customers when they want to complain, not buy. So it’s easy to understand why CSRs might be less customer-centric than associates.

Smaller companies can’t (and probably wouldn’t want to) duplicate an enterprise level customer service structure, but there are lessons that small companies can learn from big ones. First, asking customers to self-serve on product issues can make sense and save money. It’s one of the smartest things you can do with your web site. Second, make sure that every customer-facing employee is trained to listen to customer concerns, respond appropriately and take prompt action (even if that action is to pass the customer to a more senior employee). Third, use customer service as a sales channel. Any action you take that goes beyond customer expectations – especially if you venture into “surprise and delight” territory – can increase that customer’s loyalty and create an advocate whose recommendations bring you new customers and more sales.

The Zavee takeaway:

  • Understand the differences between customer service issues that relate to the products you sell and the service you provide. Customers are more willing to self-serve product issues than service issues.
  • When things go wrong there is no substitute for personal interaction, the more personal the better. Especially (but not only) in smaller companies, everyone is a CSR.
  • Customers share their experiences, both good and bad, so every interaction can be amplified. Great customer service creates brand advocates who recommend you to others. Poor customer service has the opposite effect.

0 comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Things to Consider About Negative Reviews

by on Wednesday, September 15th, 2010

Now that a New York court has dismissed claims against Yelp by a New York dentist based on a (very) negative review and on Yelp’s alleged removal of positive reviews, this might be a good time to think about what makes a review “negative” and what negative reviews mean to – and for – your business. You may think that negative reviews are just angry people taking shots at you. Here are four other ways to look at it:

via Marten Bjork (Creative Commons)

Readers recognize – and discount – outliers. Positive or negative, excessive emotions in a review diminish their credibility. It’s great to get an exceptional review for exceptional service. But if the glowing adjectives are out of proportion to a typical customer experience, readers are likely to apply the old saying: If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Same thing with negative reviews. The surest way to lose credibility IS TO WRITE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS WITH LOTS OF PUNCTUATION!!! These are actually the best negative reviews you can get, because even if they are accurate, who will believe them? It’s true that some people write reviews to blow off steam, but readers know that, and respond accordingly.

Mixed reviews are not necessarily negative. Have you ever used Rotten Tomatoes to decide whether to see a movie? The site’s “Tomatometer” rating is based on whether published reviews were positive or negative. However, a review can only be either “fresh” (i.e., positive) or “rotten” (i.e., negative), no matter how mixed or qualified the review might be. For “Going the Distance” (51% rating), the fresh reviews include “solid but totally forgettable” and “hilarious in many individual scenes [but] less than the sum of its parts”. Rotten reviews included “funny but forgettable” and “The laughs kept me involved … but after I left the theater, it occurred to me that this slight comedy hadn’t gone very far at all.” Hmm. Many reviews – of anything – are mixed enough that it would be hard to give them either a thumbs up or thumbs down rating. So don’t consider every mixed review a thumbs down.

A mixed review is often more thoughtful, detailed and nuanced than an outright rave or pan. A customer who writes a review that contains some negative feedback isn’t venting, she’s helping. These are the reviews your customers will take seriously – and you should do the same. When you respond to reviews like these (easy to do on Zavee) you can use the review as the basis for an ongoing relationship. If you want a second chance at the customer and a more positive review the second time around, being proactive is the only way to get results.

Yes, competitors can try to hurt your business with fake reviews, but there are reasons you don’t hear about it happening very often. If you are running a good business deceitful reviews are unlikely to harm you, especially if you are actively communicating with your customers. Why? First, as discussed above readers will tend to discount rants whether or not they are malicious. Second, users of social shopping sites tend to be very skeptical of reviews that differ greatly from what most (real) customers experience. The unusual experience is another kind of outlier. On the other hand, negative reviews that go into detail about the experience and/or are written by a reviewer who has demonstrated credibility based on other reviews may well be taken seriously, but how many of your competitors are willing to invest that much effort just to undermine your business? If you are actively communicating with your customers you should be able to deflect even the most sophisticated malicious review. Finally, social shopping sites are trying to safeguard against malicious and fraudulent reviews. At Zavee, our system will reject a review unless the author has had a transaction at that merchant within 30 days of the review. Could a competitor jump through all those hoops just to hurt your business? Probably, but how many would bother?

A negative review is a positive experience. On the most basic level, a thoughtful review that recounts a negative experience provides valuable information for your business. You can’t be everywhere, and if a waiter or a sales associate didn’t behave appropriately, or if a product or service fell short of expectations, wouldn’t you want to know? Of course you would prefer to hear it privately, but in our increasingly social world these conversations are being held in the open. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing. A negative review can be a positive experience because your handling of the situation – again, in public – gives you the chance to move the conversation forward: increasing customer engagement and loyalty, building your reputation and your brand, and even persuading non-customers to give you a try.

The Zavee takeaway:

  • Readers are smart, and they are good at recognizing which reviews to take seriously.
  • Negative reviews can hurt your business only if you ignore them or react passively. Especially on Zavee, where we make it so easy for merchants to interact with customers, make sure you respond to every review.
  • Always follow through on anything you promise – and don’t forget to talk about it.

0 comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

What Can We Learn From Airline “Unbundling”?

by on Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

Anyone who has flown recently has experienced what the airlines call “unbundling”: separate fees for optional services that used to be bound up in the ticket price. Unbundling means, for example, that a passenger who flies with just a laptop bag will pay less than a passenger who checks baggage in the hold. The passenger who fills up at McDonalds or Starbucks before boarding will pay less than the passenger who wants an airline meal. The economics of unbundling fees for ancillary services have been amply discussed elsewhere: The airlines do well and the passengers … well, it depends.

From the passenger’s perspective, unbundling works best when (1) the service really is optional (i.e, the passenger isn’t coerced to to incur the fee) and (2) the fee itself doesn’t seem like an unreasonable money grab by the airline. Airlines are most likely to be successful unbundling services that a substantial number of passengers either don’t want or need or that they can easily live without or replace on their own.

Suitcases (via Malias - Creative Commons)

Airline food is a perfect candidate for unbundling: It’s easy to get cheaper and better food on the concourse and the airlines no longer forbid passengers from bringing their own on board. Seating is another example. Want a reserved seat? Pay for it. Willing to take your chances on your seatmate? Save your money. Some airlines charge more for seats that are larger or closer to the exit. Worth the extra fee? You decide. These fees are relatively easy to explain to passengers, but airlines on the whole have been lax in communicating with their customers.


Checked baggage fees are also economically defensible, since every piece of checked baggage adds to the fuel required for the trip and thus to the airline’s cost. But airlines are fooling themselves, and doing a disservice to their customers, if they think the economic rationale is self explanatory. While many passengers, especially those on business, don’t check bags and don’t pay the fee, other passengers, especially families, find the policy coercive. One unintended consequence is that passengers have an economic incentive to carry on bags they might otherwise have checked. As the Steven Slater incident reminds us, trying to stuff oversized carry-ons into undersized bins can end badly.

As Bill Hanifin points out, it’s essential that airlines communicate the policy both on the plane and via social media. This is especially important with airline policies that are new, subject to change and may be perceived (rightly or wrongly) as unfair to the passenger. Why are airlines so lax about communicating with their customers? One guess is that there hasn’t been a storm of complaint about most of these fees. But the likely reason for such acquiescence is not consumer satisfaction, but its opposite. As a frequent flyer I hear a lot of grumbling, but most of it sounds more resigned than angry. Many airlines survive consumer dissatisfaction, but only because consumers often have few alternatives and, except for the most egregious service issues, have simply given up. This is the sign of an industry in trouble.


The Zavee takeaway:

  • Communication of any significant business change is essential. Customer dissatisfaction will fill the void if you let it.
  • Don’t assume that customers understand the economics of business decisions that affect them. They aren’t stupid, but economic rationales require explanation.
  • Don’t confuse the absence of complaint for approval. In fact, if you do something that should generate (some) complaints and don’t get them you have a problem that you need to address immediately. Unlike airlines, few small businesses can count on getting away with taking their customers for granted.

4 comments
Tags: , , , , , ,

Facebook vs. Twitter: Do You Have to Choose? (Pt.2)

by on Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

Last week we blogged about how valuable Facebook can be for local businesses and suggested that it wouldn’t take much additional time to add Twitter to the marketing mix. We are strong believers in Twitter as a complement to Facebook, but we realize that many local merchants are able to devote only limited time to Social Media.

HootSuite logo

The key to making Twitter easier and more efficient is to use one of the free third party Twitter management tools instead of Twitter’s own site. HootSuite and TweetDeck let you do two things that can save a lot of time: manage multiple searches and cross-post into multiple Social Media streams.

In a previous post we blogged about four ways that local businesses can use Twitter. Some involve more time and attention than others. First, we suggested using Twitter as a listening post, gathering information from other users. The net you cast can be as wide or narrow as you want. Use your Twitter manager to set up searches for your industry, competitors, community, etc. If you can’t do all of these, establish some priorities and set up fewer searches. Checking them should only take a few minutes a day.

Second, we discussed using Twitter to build your brand. This is the most time-consuming aspect of making Twitter work, and while we think it’s worth the time not everyone will agree. This is where cross-posting can come in handy. You can use your Twitter manager to publish your Facebook posts as tweets – same content, two streams. You can do the same with blog posts (every Zavee Thinking post is automatically tweeted as soon as it’s published). Cross-posting isn’t a substitute for frequent tweeting, but it’s a reasonable compromise between committing to a major brand-building campaign on Twitter and ignoring your brand altogether.

Third, we pointed out how Twitter can generate leads. There is a passive and an active component to using Twitter this way. The passive part involves setting up searches for keywords that potential customers are likely to use when tweeting. The active part involves tweeting with those same keywords. Not enough time to do both? Just set up and monitor the searches and see how that works. You may need to adjust the search terms but that still should take less time than actively tweeting to gain leads. As you get better at finding potential customers on Twitter, however, don’t be surprised if you find yourself spending more time building those relationships online.

Finally, we recommended using Twitter as a customer service channel. At a minimum, you should use your Twitter manager to display mentions of your business on Twitter. Whether and how you respond to tweets that mention your business is up to you, but there is no reason not to see what people tweet about you.

We think that this minimalist approach to Twitter is a good way to start, especially if you don’t think you have a lot of time for Twitter. We also think it’s likely that you will ramp up your Twitter strategy as you gain experience with the medium. Take an hour or two on a weekend afternoon to get familiar with one of the Twitter management applications and play around with both searches and cross-posting. Let the technology do some of the work and you can get value out of Twitter without putting in more time than you want.

The Zavee takeaway:

  • Use a third party Twitter manager for multiple searches and to publish Facebook posts on Twitter (and vice versa).
  • An active tweeting strategy takes more time than reading relevant tweets, so if time is an issue focus on using Twitter passively – at least for now.
  • Don’t be surprised if you find yourself spending more time on Twitter than you expected – not because it wastes your time but because it builds your business.

0 comments
Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Positive Side of Negative Reviews

by on Tuesday, April 13th, 2010

Actor, author, shortstop or chef, no one likes a negative review. But when we were developing the Zavee business model we decided early on that we would have to include negative as well as positive reviews. The goal we set for ourselves was to create a framework for reviews that were accurate, timely and fair – and that meant including negative reviews.

Our commitment to getting reviews right stemmed from our insight that reviews were another form of Social Media and, as such, were going to be a vital component of the Zavee experience and value proposition. We also learned, based on research with merchants, that many business owners who expressed concern about potential harm from fraudulent, malicious or even accurate negative reviews also intuitively understood the benefit of hearing about issues directly from the customer affected.

As marketers are learning, people will say whatever they want to whomever they want, and merchants don’t have the power to control their customers’ conversations. They can, however, do two important things.

First, they can listen, learn and respond. Thanks to Social Media, including reviews, merchants can make necessary adjustments to their business almost in real time. This is something that every business should be doing, all the time, through every available channel. Twitter and Facebook are great listening posts, but reviews are a channel that exists solely to provide feedback about the customer experience.

Second, merchants can participate in the conversation. By actively engaging with their customers merchants can address problems quickly and publicly; they can provide perspective that helps customers evaluate reviews; and they can favorably shape perceptions about the business.

  • Responding quickly is important because unresolved issues tend to fester. Responding publicly is important because it gives the merchant the chance to address at one time a concern that may be shared by many customers.
  • Actively participating is the only sure way to get the merchant’s perspective into the conversation. Both the manner and the substance of the merchant’s response can help customers determine how much weight to give a negative review, while the absence of a response does nothing but add credence to the reviewer’s complaints. A measured, factual response may not erase the impact of a negative review, but at a minimum the merchant will have extended the relationship with the customer and demonstrated both interest and respect.
  • Simply committing the time and effort to engage customers in conversation sends a positive message to all customers and can go a long way toward shaping perceptions of the customer experience. This can reinforce the positive experiences of current customers and build loyalty, but it also can lead non-customers to have a favorable impression of what it would be like to be a customer. In other words, an impressive response to a negative review can actually bring in new business.
Creative Commons 2.0

Reviews (via fengergold)

In benchmarking Zavee against other sites that feature reviews we observed a wide disparity in the treatment of key issues. Some sites filter reviews while others list them all chronologically. At least one site that uses filtering algorithms has had to defend itself against allegations that it improperly manipulated the placement of reviews. We decided not to filter or change the placement of reviews, because we believed that the less we intervened in the substance of reviews, the more confidence shoppers would have in them and, ultimately, in the Zavee brand.

We also observed that some sites permitted reviews (both positive and negative) that described experiences that had occurred long before the review was written. We thought reviews that were dated were so likely to be inaccurate that it would be unfair to both merchants and shoppers to have them on our site. We also were concerned, as many merchants seemed to be, that on some review sites there there were insufficient safeguards against fake reviews or even fake merchants.

We addressed these problems by requiring that any shopper who wanted to review a merchant had to have made a purchase from that merchant within the previous 30 days and by permitting only one review per purchase. Zavee solicits a review after every transaction, and the shopper’s My Zavee page lists recent transactions and the time remaining to submit a review. Zavee automatically rejects reviews that do not meet these rules.

We also were concerned about reviews that, while perhaps not fraudulent, seemed hostile or malicious. We initially considered moderating reviews, the way we moderate comments on Zavee Thinking, but we decided not to. There is nothing wrong with having editorial standards for reviews – we are, after all, responsible for the content on our site – but we thought the better way to deal with potential problems was to let shoppers and merchants have their say but remove reviews that violated our Terms of Use.

Because we passionately believe that reviews should be a dialogue, we also made it easy for merchants to post responses to shopper reviews. Merchants are automatically notified whenever they are reviewed and have 7 days to post a response. Responses appear with the original reviews and always show up together in a search. Shoppers can respond the the merchant’s response, and the entire conversation is threaded so it can be seen by everyone who sees the original review.

The Zavee takeaway:

  • You can’t control what your customers say, but you can listen, learn and respond to concerns – almost in real time.
  • Use negative reviews as a conversation-starter, not a relationship-ender.
  • How you handle unfavorable reviews can shape perceptions about your business, for future as well as current customers. Treat reviews as an opportunity to be impressive – you may be surprised by the results.

Update (4/14/10): MediaPost’s Marketing Daily reports that S.C. Johnson has been receiving substantial negative feedback, including reviews, about a new pet care product – and tells Marketing Daily that it is bringing the feedback to its product development team for consideration.

1 comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Boutique Mentality

by on Tuesday, April 6th, 2010

They aren’t always quick to see it, but local merchants have some built-in advantages over national chains and big-box retailers. There’s no denying that local merchants find it hard to compete on price. But consumers don’t care only about price: they care about service, too, and that’s a real opportunity for local merchants.

A recent survey found that women increasingly are shopping for clothing online. How does that news help local merchants? A whopping 84 percent of those who reported taking their business away from bricks and mortar stores did so because of poor customer service. And customer service is where local merchants have an advantage over larger competitors. Owners and managers of local businesses usually are closer to the customer, and are often the first to hear about issues or concerns. They have the ability to react to customer needs and even break (or change) the rules if circumstance dictate.

Chanel Boutique on Wicklow Street (via chacrebleu)

One thing local merchants can do to exploit their natural advantages is to adopt a “boutique” mentality. One big difference between boutiques and other stores is their focus on providing a unique, personalized experience, not just selling a product. Customers often respond favorably to that experience, not just by paying extra for it once, but by becoming loyal customers and by sharing their experiences with their social circle. The combination of premium pricing, repeat business and word of mouth is exactly what local businesses want to achieve.
The boutique mentality isn’t limited to retail. There are boutique hotels, boutique wineries, even boutique auto mechanics – a really good one services my race car. Most boutiques are small, but they are defined by service, not size. A small retailer that doesn’t provide a unique experience to every customer isn’t a boutique; it’s just small.

Part of the boutique experience is the sense that the relationship with the customer doesn’t end with the sale. Whether it’s as simple as a follow-up phone call or as elaborate as a series of surprise gifts, boutiques understand that continuing to engage after the sale helps create customers who are not just loyal, but vocal.

The best boutiques thrive on data. Knowing and catering to customer preferences is the hallmark of the successful boutique, especially boutique hotels. But hotels aren’t the only boutiques that have access to data about their customers. With tools like Zavee, almost any business can learn who their best customers are, how much they spend and how frequently.

It may take some effort to fit the boutique mentality into a business that doesn’t already have it. It certainly takes commitment to make it work, because it requires a focus on the customer that isn’t second nature for every merchant. And it sometimes requires some investment, especially for businesses that are new to managing customer data. But it may be just what a merchant needs to compete in difficult times.

The Zavee takeaway:

  • A business that wants to charge more, generate repeat business and earn referrals from vocally loyal customers should think and act like a boutique.
  • Boutiques are customer-focused before, during and after the sale, and rely on data to understand customer preferences.
  • The boutique mentality can be applied to businesses in virtually every category; it just takes commitment and creativity.

0 comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Customer Service – For the Recession and Beyond

by on Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

Here at Zavee we spend a lot of time thinking about what smaller businesses can learn from larger ones. We also think a lot about customer service. The current recession seems to us an excellent time for businesses to focus on customer service. Commentators seem to agree. Their reasons may be obvious, but they make sense nevertheless:

  • Retaining existing customers costs far less than acquiring new ones
  • When competing for customers, businesses often have to choose between offering more value (e.g., by improving service) or cutting prices
  • A good customer experience makes future purchases more likely, while a bad experience does the opposite

These posts focused mainly on larger companies, many of which have downsized their customer service staffs. There are anecdotal indications, if nothing else, that customer service has suffered as a result.

City Light customer account operators, 1945

City Light customer account operators, 1945

On the other hand, some larger companies are maintaining or even improving customer service. We think that these companies will be well positioned after the economy recovers because they will have generated loyalty and improved the value of their brand at a time when some of their competitors were cutting service or hiding from customers. Some are using technology: Comcast and Best Buy are by now well known as pioneers in the use of Twitter to learn about and respond to customer care issues. Other companies, such as Southwest Airlines, maintain high levels of customer satisfaction by making service part of the organization’s DNA (although no one is perfect). And I have had at least one potentially negative experience with a rental car company turn positive simply because a well-trained senior manager was on the scene and jumped in with the right approach and a fair solution.

Smaller companies have both a harder and an easier time maintaining customer service in a recession. Harder, because increasing expenses during a time of weak revenues may be difficult to swallow. Easier, because the cost-benefit analysis is much clearer. Some large companies may believe they can afford to exchange so much in sales for so much in customer service expense, but most small companies don’t think that way. Although there certainly are exceptions, most small companies realize that they can’t afford to give up sales to save money. They also realize that good service builds repeat business and long-term loyalty. Finally, they should also realize that customers talk – which means that good customer service can generate referrals: the least expensive but most reliable way to acquire new customers. The good news for small companies is that maintaining and improving customer service doesn’t have to be expensive. Here are some low-cost approaches to customer service that businesses can start now and keep in place even after the economy improves:

  • Listen to your customers. There are many ways to listen: you can use applications like Facebook and Twitter; you can send surveys to customers by email; you can call them on the phone; and you can chat with them at the point of sale. As long as you are sincere and open you will learn a lot about what you are doing right and how you might improve.
  • Empower your associates. Your customer-facing employees should be encouraged to engage with customers at every point of contact and empowered to offer solutions to at least some concerns or complaints. Anything that can’t be handled at their level should be referred to the appropriate person and dealt with promptly.
  • Use technology wisely. At Zavee, we use a third-party application called Zendesk to help us manage customer service. Clicking on a “Help” link from anywhere on the Zavee site opens our Member Services page, from which anyone (even non-members) can read our content, engage with others in a forum or contact us with a question, comment or complaint. This system creates a numbered “ticket” for every interaction, which is automatically flagged for followup by Zavee but also gives the user a way to follow up with us. It turns everyone in our organization into a customer service agent, because we never know in advance who will be the best person to handle the next ticket that comes in.
  • Don’t go it alone. In addition to blogs and other online resources, local chambers of commerce are a great source of information from businesses like yours in your own market. If you are located in South Florida, we invite you to join Zavee. Our marketing tools help merchants understand their customers better and our networking tools improve their ability to communicate with and learn from customers.

The Zavee takeaway:

  • If you think the recession is time to double down on customer service, you’re right. If you think it’s time to cut back, think again.
  • It may be easier for you to provide excellent service than a larger competitor, because you are closer to the customer. That’s a key point of differentiation – make the most of it.
  • Customers talk. Make sure they have only good things to say about you.
  • Don’t stop once the economy improves.

Update (2/18/10): “Poor Customer Service Costs Companies $83 Billion Annually” provides a useful summary of an impressive global research report (pdf) on the high cost of poor customer service.

1 comment
Tags: , , , , ,

« Older Entries