Creating a service mindset

How tough is it for a business to change it’s customer service focus?

In the Foreign Correspondent report that inspired yesterday’s post about the start up community angel Investor Raval Navikant said  “you don’t need customer service anymore, you have Twitter.”

While it’s refreshing to hear that Twitter is now rightly seen as a customer service channel rather than a marketing tool, it’s worrying that startup businesses still have such a low opinion of supporting their users.

This is the mindset for the web2.0, social and cloud computing communities – that user support can be done though Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), user forums or an anonymous email address that might get read once in a while. It’s the self-help model of helping your users and it’s the biggest weakness of online services.

A worry for these businesses is that big organisations now beginning to remember the importance of customers. What has traditionally been small business’ advantage is  being eroded.

At an Australian Computer Society Foundation lunch in Sydney yesterday Testra Corporation’s diector of Products and IT Enablement, Jenny Woods described how her company is moving to a more service centric culture.

While this isn’t simple in a company the size of Telstra, a task made harder by the telco industry’s customer hostility, it’s certainly a process that’s underway.

There’s a long way to go for Telstra. Along with that traditional telco antipathy towards their customers, they are big company with plenty of silos and aligning management KPIs so the temptation isn’t simply to gouge customers for short term profit is a big change.

Changing that ‘soak the customer’ mindset is the biggest challenge in making companies like Telstra service centric and that means management at all levels have to buy into the process.

Without that senior and middle management commitment, customer support will just be seen as the poor relation to other divisions and will be outsourced to the lowest cost provider at the first opportunity.

Part of that change to a service mindset is in trusting your staff. Jenny described how Telstra abandoned scripts for their home Internet customers and told the support agents they could use their initiative – as a result customer satisfaction went up, problems were solved faster and the number of modem returns slumped.

“The people who do the work, know how to do the work” says Jenny and it’s good that Telstra’s management is recognising the skills in their workforce.

Much of that anti-service culture we see in large organisations is because management don’t respect the skills, experience and knowledge of their workers. Instead they’re treated as naughty children who can be slapped into line with a stern memo.

Today’s economy doesn’t favour businesses and managements who think like that, the organisations that will do well this Century those who are flexible, value their staffs’ skills and have managers who see their role as more than micro-managing their silos.

It also means delivering a product you’re proud to support. If you won’t support your products, then your customers will go to a competitor who looks after their clients.

We fell into a trap into thinking customer service didn’t matter during the late Twentieth Century, it was always a myth and now we have to deliver.

Similar posts:

Undoing the untrained workforce

The era of skimping on staff training is over

One of the notable things about the 1980s way of doing business was how front line workers weren’t valued for their skills and knowledge.

In call centres, shopping malls and government departments, those who dealt with customers were seen as an unnecessary expense who should be outsourced at the first opportunity or, if it wasn’t possible to hive them off, then encourage them to get more money out of the customer while providing less service.

An example of this was at electronic superstores where sales staff with little product knowledge were given rudimentary training and then encouraged to sell easy payment plans and expensive acccessories – the HDMI cable scam where connectors of dubious quality earned more profit and commission than the HiFi systems or plasma TVs they plugged into illustrated how lousy a deal this way of doing business for the customer.

Much of that mentality has been inherited by web2.0 companies that think customer service is an optional extra.

Some of those companies can’t even be bothered protecting their clients’ data properly, such is their unwillingness to provide service.

The stack ’em high, sell ’em cheap self service culture of the 1950s and 60s reached its limits in the 1980s and was only given a reprieve by the easy credit boom of the 1990s. With the end of the credit boom, electronic or household goods stores that simply sell cheap tat on interest free terms at a fat mark up without adding value now struggle.

Gerry Harvey is getting out of electronics partly for this reason – his business model is dead and it’s been difficult for a decade to make the fat profits on consumer computers or electricals without hooking the customers with interest free deals or expensive and pointless accessories or software.

One of the conceits of management through the last part of the Twentieth Century was the mantra “our greatest asset are our people”, today business have to start valuing the skills, knowledge and corporate memory of their workforces.

Similar posts:

So you think services are easy?

The differences between service, hardware and software businesses shouldn’t be understated.

ZDNet columnist Ed Bott is possibly one of Microsoft’s closest followers and among the few to defend Windows Vista, Ed though can’t be faulted for doing the hard yards including reading Microsoft’s stock market10-K  filings.

In their most recent filing, Ed finds Microsoft has used the word “service” 73 times as opposed to 44 appearances last year.

A key phrase in the filing is “a growing part of our strategy involves cloud-based services used with smart client devices.”

This is consistent with the hands on previews of Windows 8 which Microsoft have been giving journalists over the last few months. Something that leaps out is the integration with online services; something that both Google and Apple have also been pushing.

What should worry investors is that moving into services isn’t easy. Service businesses are far more labour intensive and, as a consequence, far less profitable.

Despite having relatively low labour costs, cloud computing services are problematic as many sectors have been commoditised, which is the genius of Salesforce in establishing a profitable niche.

The fat margins Microsoft are used to in their core software business can’t be replicated in the cloud based markets, which is one of the reasons why customers are switching to the cloud.

Microsoft’s problem is shared by telecommunications companies who are finding their cloud offering don’t generate the same ARPUs — Annual Revenue Per User — that they’ve become accustomed to in the mobile phone market. Which means pain for executives whose KPIs are tied to historical performance.

For Microsoft, the problem is compounded by their simultaneous move into hardware with the Surface tablets. Meaning the company’s has to deal with two significantly different business models to the ones they are used to.

Again Microsoft aren’t alone in this, Google is having similar problems adjusting to the hardware market though its acquisition of Motorola Mobility.

Integrating hardware with services and manufacturing isn’t impossible, we only have to look at Apple for how a company can succeed in that space although most managements struggle with the very different demands of each sector.

During the 1980s we saw the rise of the “all business is soap” philosophy where MBAs and management consultants preached that the challenges of running a business were the same regardless of whether you sold cleaning products, soft drinks, computers or automobiles.

Those folk were wrong. Most famously the Australian media company Fairfax hired as CEO a business school professor who preached this philosophy and managed to ignore the rise of the Internet, the echoes of the failed McKinsey ideas haunt Fairfax over a decade later.

While its possible for a software company to succeed at services or hardware, the magnitude and complexity of the management challenge shouldn’t be understated. Both Google and Microsoft will be defined by how well their leaders succeed.

Similar posts: