Archive for May, 2009

Customers are talking: the stories of credit-card customers

Friday, May 29th, 2009

There’s a great post over at Verbatim, the Communispace blog, by Karen Barone, discussing a project she did some years ago interviewing customers who had stopped paying their credit card bill. A major finding–people wanted to find some way to connect with their credit-card provider to address their situation. (Sadly, it’s not clear that the companies Barone worked with did anything with the information she provided them.)

The credit-card providers have millions of customers that they treat like indentured servants. In addition to restraints on their business practices via the recently-passed reform legislation, the bill is finally coming due (”Consumer Credit: The Next Crisis” by MacMillan and Jarvis, on harvardbusiness.org) for their history of hard sell, easy credit and swift punishment.

I think credit-card processors could do a lot to turn their reputations and the futures of their businesses around by collecting some stories and, unlike Barone’s experience, acting on them.

Thinking about: customer service

Thursday, May 28th, 2009

Continuing a new Friday tradition of posting a short video recapping what’s on my mind this week.

Referred to in the video:
Customer service is such an important job, perhaps we should…
Matt Rhodes: Customer Service is the new marketing

To learn better, keep & review a mistake log

Thursday, May 28th, 2009

Working for the last two years on The Mistake Bank, I’ve become a bit of a connoisseur of mistake stories and literature on learning from mistakes. This has meant scrutinizing my own mistakes and trying to learn better from them.

I’ve made one significant realization: Sometimes errors are one-off oversights, other times they reflect weaknesses we need to work on (at still other times they are serendipitous events, but that’s another story). How does one tell the difference?

Here’s an example. Last year, I noticed that I lost track of several conference calls over a period of months. This was unthinkable to me, since I’d always prided myself on discipline and organization :). But the pattern was worrisome. In my business, if you miss a client conference call, or worse, two or three, you may have an ex-client on your hands. What I realized was, I was getting busier, and therefore my mind was not able to manage all the data I was asking it to. This realization drew me to David Allen’s book “Getting Things Done” and adopting many of its suggestions.

To learn most from your mistakes, I’d suggest this approach. When an “unplanned event” happens, jot yourself a note. What happened? What did you expect, and how did the outcome differ from your expectations? Put it in a file.

At the end of the year, or at another time when you have space and a clear mind to reflect, pull out the file. Review the notes. See if patterns emerge. Are there variations of errors happening over and over? Why? Can you make any changes to try to reduce their occurrence in the future? With hard-to-correct mistakes, the changes will be difficult. You may need tools or external help to improve–but ignore those patterns at your peril.

Another story: When I was a salesperson and sales leader, I continually undershot my forecasts. Of course, I had reasons why–the product had problems, the customers weren’t ready, the macro environment had changed for the worse.

Some years after the fact, I finally realized that I was a lousy forecaster. I was too optimistic–I saw huge potential where it was limited, predicted easy wins where there was competition, trusted in the rationality of buyers. This is a hard-to-correct mistake. After a lot of thought, I came to the decision not to do sales forecasts–and if I had to do one, rely on the thinking of others to help me.

I only wish I had been tracking my forecasting mistakes and reflecting on them at that time. I would have saved myself and my companies a lot of problems.

(Photo by koalazymoney via Flickr Creative Commons)

The Five Archetypal Business Twitter Strategies

Wednesday, May 27th, 2009

Twitter continues to fascinate. As this general-purpose tool becomes more widespread, lots of ways for business to use it are emerging. Most businesses use some combination of these five archetypal strategies:

1. Promote. This goes without saying and is the easiest way to use Twitter. “Hey, we have a new product coming out! (link)” “Don’t forget to watch our Super Bowl ad (link).” etc. The jury is out as to whether this type of promotion is useful or simply washed away in the mass of Twitter noise–although if you have a strong following, the right product at the right moment, and can get the right people to tweet about you, it’s a beautiful thing. Examples: everybody.

2. Sell. I happened to get into a discussion on Twitter about sleep apnea. Right away a guy chimed in with a couple of questions. When I mentioned that I would love a particular type of product to help my condition, he let me know that such a product existed, how to find out more information on it, and (of course) how to order it. I bought the product pretty soon thereafter, through his referral. If you can identify users for your product by searching for tweets about it, you can find customers. Examples: The Sleep Apnea guy, Dell.

3. Care. If people are having trouble with your product and services, and they tweet about it, you can locate those tweets, intervene and solve the problem. If you’re lucky, the customer will tweet about how well you solved her issue. This strategy surprised me when it emerged–now I am surprised that it is still so rarely practiced. Examples: Comcast, EasyJet.

4. Converse. “User-centered innovation” may be more theory than reality today, but some companies are using Twitter to engage in real dialogues about what products they should feature or how their services should operate. The polling capability of Twitter is excellent for this purpose. Example: Best Buy. [Note: a great use of polling on Twitter is Andrew McAfee's "andyasks" project; here are some #andyasks results.]

5. Expose. Some companies are deciding that they can differentiate by humanizing themselves–and this means becoming more transparent. If people know that people–not just information systems, buildings and capital structures–work there, customers will want to buy from them. Twitter is a great way to open up your company; because it is inherently an individual medium, the personalities of the individuals who tweet come through. Be careful, though: if your tweeters are not representative of your company’s true culture, the disconnect will be apparent. Example: Zappos.

I need your help here. Are there other primary strategies? Are there other good examples for each? Please weigh in by leaving a comment.

Customers are talking: commenters give PayPal a beating

Tuesday, May 26th, 2009

Recent articles about eBay’s strategy shift, such as this one, underline that eBay will be trying to grow its payments business, PayPal, as auctions decline and the growth in ecommerce in general slows down.

But after reading this string of comments, in response to a fairly innocuous blog post by Fred Wilson (”Why Isn’t PayPal More Successful?“), I wouldn’t put a dime into a company that wants to grow this thing without overhauling its approach to business and customer service. Some snippets:

I smell a scam every time I have to deal with them these days.

I’ve had a $3000 payment held up for months as they suspect that the funds were fraudulently taken from my account. It took me a month before they would even let me prove that I indented to pay for that item on eBay. Needless to say the seller was pissed.

I would seriously (seriously!) hit my fingers with a framing hammer before I would use Paypal again. I don’t have emotional reactions to most brands. Apple? Eh. Windows? Sort of dislike it. Amazon? Sort of like it. … Paypal? HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE.

Also, Paypal’s buyer protection is a complete joke. They claim to be able to help, but I lost all faith when I received this response from their resolution center after blatently getting ripped off by a web designer scammer: “After careful review, we have determined that the seller is at fault but regret to inform you that we were unable to recover any funds from the seller’s account.” How this reads to me: “You’re screwed and we tried to help for 7 seconds but then didn’t feel like helping anymore so we stopped.”

The biggest issue for me is that they demand bank account information to “verify” my credit card accounts once cumulative transactions go over a certain level. I have absolutely no interest in having my bank account numbers all over the place on different sites’ servers, and at the same time they have no need for the information as I always use an (obviously valid) credit card through them.

Ugh. I hate paypal.

I haven’t seen this much negative emotion around a product in quite some time. Good luck to eBay CEO John Donahoe. He’s going to need it.

UPDATE 26 May 09: Another ugly PayPal story, posted as a comment on the pennlive.com version of this blog.

Customer service is such an important job, perhaps we should spread it around

Tuesday, May 26th, 2009

Let me point out two problems:

1) Customer service is quite a difficult job and even the best reps are prone to burn out in time–it has turned into a low-pay, high-turnover McJob instead of the vital, even exalted position it should be.

2) Most managers & leaders are disconnected from their customers, with the result that their decisions often ignore or even defy customers’ wishes.

So, I worked my brain overtime during the recent holiday weekend and came up with a solution: EVERYBODY works in customer service.

Think of it. Rather than a group of ground-down reps fielding all the complaints and questions, everybody takes a turn. It could be perhaps 10-15% of everyone’s job–4-6 hours a week. Computer-aided telephony systems & CRM systems easily support flexible staffs of work-from-home agents and could manage the shift of calls from agent to agent.

Burnout would cease, because everyone would spend 85-90% of their time doing other things. Service would improve, because reps would, essentially, be paid more and be of more varied experience than the reps of today. Customer service management would become really important, since creating processes and training to allow many people to share the job would pose a true management challenge.

Also, everyone throughout the company would gain direct experience with customers’ problems and questions, and therefore be much better able to suggest solutions to product, packaging, distribution, etc., to improve the customer experience.

Meaning the product and the customer service job would, over time, improve. Those speaking to customers would add more value–such as consultation. Deeper insights would find their way into the product. Kind of a virtuous circle.

What do you think?

Thinking about: “low tech and on the ground”

Thursday, May 21st, 2009

Selling: the unacknowledged ingredient of innovation

Thursday, May 21st, 2009

You never read about selling in books about innovation. But, for B2B products, the first sales of a new product or service are crucial lifelines. Let’s be clear about this: no matter how cool, fast, inventive, or buzzworthy your product is, if you can’t bring paying customers on board, it’s not worth anything to your business–in fact, it’s a drain.

I’ve blogged about this before, but it’s come to the forefront of my thinking yet again. First, because the word that innovation is the key to thriving in a down economy is everywhere (for example, here here and here). Second, because I work with companies developing new products and offerings–and these days they’re not looking for help in strategy, packaging or marketing.

They’re looking for sales.

Think about some of the obstacles to selling a new product:

- no reference customers
- immature (at best) marketing materials
- no operational/support experience
- no customer negotiating experience
- untested value propositions
- the perception of risk
- oh yeah, that down economy thing

So selling new products is not for the faint of heart. What does it take to move these difficult deals across the finish line?

- A sense for customers. Many business customers cannot or will not be the first on board with a new product. Others are willing to jump on board first (and usually value the perks, such as reduced price or enhanced support) that go along with being a pilot customer. Your salesperson must be able to sniff out these good prospects quickly, and move past the late adopters.

- Creativity. A new product won’t fit perfectly into the prospect’s business. The functionality, delivery terms, the pricing, legal terms will need to be adjusted as you engage customers.

- Learning as you go. The process of probing the market with a new product is a rich learning environment. Your old sales models probably won’t work. Your salesperson must parse customer reactions for insight to improve the product and sales approach. The ability to reflect, while in the heat of the pursuit, and adjust course frequently, is essential.

- Patience. Salespeople won’t be able to explain things using proven words, graphics or models. Demos will miss the mark. Customers will be slow to grasp the unique value of your new offering. The great new-product salesperson keeps on an even keel and focuses on what the offering can deliver to the prospect.

- Persistence. The product will take longer to sell than salespeople think it should. They can’t give up.

- Ability to communicate internally. Salespeople are the first proxy for the marketplace. They will receive intimate, detailed feedback from prospects that your marketing and product groups will need to improve the product for this and future sales. It’s not enough to be great with the customer. When I ran a new-business group, I talked to our salesperson every day, and our entire group met weekly to discuss what prospects were saying about our products, competitors and marketplace.

- Problem-solving. The sale isn’t complete when the contract is signed. Referenceability is the goal. And that means shepherding the customer through the implementation process with minimum agony. This is difficult because the support processes are immature, the product is certain to have defects, and the customer doesn’t know how to use it yet. It doesn’t matter. It’s the salesperson’s job to make sure the customer receives the value expected when the product is put in service.

Not an easy job. Not surprisingly, it comes with a high failure rate.

Think about that the next time you grumble that you’re still paying a commission to someone who brought in that first or second sale of your product. Without her, your business would be quite different, wouldn’t it?

Related post:
Principles of New Product B2B Marketing

Photo by jchatoff via Flickr Creative Commons

Duncan Watts: “If it’s too big to fail, it’s too big”

Wednesday, May 20th, 2009

(Funny, my wife made this point months ago.)

Duncan Watts, principal research scientist at Yahoo Research and expert on human networks and complexity, makes this point in the June Harvard Business Review (”Too Big To Fail? How About Too Big To Exist?“).

Watts looks at the financial market as a complex system and compares it to another complex system: the power grid. As an outage in one power plant can cascade and cause outages regionally, so the financial system failures (such as the collapse of Lehman Brothers) cascaded to a general meltdown in credit and prompted unprecedented governmental intervention.

He points out that in a complex system, the actors (financial firms, power system components) affect each other to the point that one’s own risk profile can change dramatically depending on what happens to others. Meaning, your risk department’s calculations are dependent on assuming the other guy is stable and rational (risky assumptions those are).

Government coming in after a disaster and resuscitating the surviving firms is one approach. A better approach, according to Watts, is to make certain that each actor is small enough that its failure has a limited effect on the other actors.

This discussion reminded me of the evolution of robustness in computer systems in the past thirty years. In the 1980’s, the best way to achieve robustness was to build a huge computer with redundant components and very complex software. Such computers were protected in military-style data centers with concrete walls and fire suppression systems. In case a piece of the computer failed, the software helped the machine use other pieces to continue operating. Tandem (now part of HP) was the market leader here.

Of course, relying on one huge computer (too big to fail) exposed you to lots of other risks. For example, what if the power went off? What if there was a localized weather disaster? etc. There were limits to the “too big to fail” computer architecture–exposed most notably in the 9/11 disaster, where reliance on Lower Manhattan data centers put the stock markets and other financial markets on hold for days till their data services could be relocated.

Another approach to computer redundancy was created in the internet space, perfected by Google. Rather than having one or two huge servers with complex software managing redundant everything, Google has created a worldwide network of hundreds of thousands of small, pretty dumb servers, and software that allows transactions to be moved across those servers depending on their health. If a Google server goes down, nobody notices because its traffic is quickly spread over the remaining zillion servers that are working.

And that seems like a better model for our financial systems, too. I agree with Watts: too big to fail is too big.

Related post:
On Duncan Watts’ “Big Seed Marketing” idea

Customers are talking: some good terms to describe business narrative work

Monday, May 18th, 2009

A couple of recent blog posts have featured useful discussions of key elements of business narrative work.

“Sensemaking is what we refer to as intuition”
Idris Mootee, in his blog Innovation Playground (via Futurelab), discussed sensemaking–which in many ways is the secret sauce of the narrative approach to gaining business insight. Here’s what Mootee writes:

Sensemaking is a metacognitive strategy, it is clear that people recognize patterns in the data in ways that they can’t talk about. That kind of inarticulate recognition (meaning that you can’t express it easily) is what we perceive as intuition. We’ve all got it, and good sensemakers have good intuitions about how things go together.

Applying Mootee’s ideas to narrative works except for his statement about “good sensemakers.” For narrative work, a single “good sensemaker” doesn’t exist–instead, the collective intelligence of a group of people reading through and finding patterns in stories is the sensemaker.

Low Tech And On The Ground
I love this expression, coined by Terry Miller, describing story gathering and sensemaking work in his recent post at the Cognitive Edge Guest blog. “On the ground,” is a crucial term. Narrative approaches require seeing things at ground level, not at 35,000 feet. It’s immersing oneself in the moment-to-moment and using collective evaluation to make sense of what is going on. Without this, you could be like the generals in “War & Peace”–making detailed war plans that have no effect on winning or losing.

“Low tech” is also a critical observation. Potential clients recoil from this–we have been brainwashed to believe that applying enough megaflops can solve any problem. And, by contrast, anything handmade and low-tech isn’t “industrial strength” and is to be avoided. But stories require context, and creating context requires human experience and sharing that experience through dialogue. Computers can’t do that, no matter how many megaflops they can process.

Another application of low tech is the interventions that help people deal with what they learn from stories. In my experience, the findings of a narrative project imply two kinds of changes to help address them:

(1) very simple changes that are obvious once the problem is properly understood. In a project of mine, we learned through examining customer service rep stories that fewer than 1/3 of the reps used the best practices that had been designed, and also saw that calls where reps forswore best practice didn’t end as well as the others.

(2) small things to try that may or may not help. Other learnings from narrative projects do not have straightforward solutions. The bad news is that the best course of action takes some time to determine. The good news is that a low-tech, cheap experimental approach can be applied. My favorite example of this type of approach is the solution a Singapore hospital devised to reduce emergency-room wait times.

Related posts:
An important definition of sensemaking
On “War & Peace” and complexity in business
Stop studying the problem, and just try something