"Social Customer Service" Does Not Really Exist

"Social Customer Service" does not really exist.

In the slightly-smarmy words of Domino’s CEO Patrick Doyle, "I’m not crazy." Of course I know that social media represents a valuable customer service channel, and I wholeheartedly believe that nearly every organization needs to be addressing customer inquiries over networks like Facebook and Twitter.

I still stand by my aforementioned claim: "social customer service" does not really exist.

[eventPDF]

The sudden revelation of that assertion’s validity is a product of reading one too many articles and blogs about this "revolutionary concept" of answering customer service questions on Twitter. Publication after publication raves about this groundbreaking notion of "social customer service," gushing over organizations that are bold and customer-centric enough to actually answer customer questions in a public forum.

It is not that there is no merit to these articles. After all, it is a sad, yet legitimate reality that only a handful of organizations are effectively serving customers over Twitter and Facebook. For every Twelpforce or Comcast Cares or BofA Help there exists a laundry list of corporate Twitter accounts that do little but outwardly market to customers. Companies whose social strategies skimp on two-way communication absolutely deserve this barrage of reminders that they are doing it wrong.

I do, however, object to the portrayal of social customer service as a new and distinct component of the customer experience. I object to justifying or condemning social customer service on the basis of social-specific ROI calculations or biased, vendor-sponsored studies designed to portray social as either meaningless or pivotal based on the vendor’s business interests.

I object to the notion that an organization can embark on a social media strategy that does not include customer service. The fact that customer management professionals can, with a straight face, break social media strategy into individual components like "marketing," "engagement" and "service" is a startling one that reflects a widespread misunderstanding about what it truly means to go social and what it truly means to deliver a customer experience.

Thanks to tangible, rigid, "traditional" customer contact channels like in-store complaint counters and call centers, many customer management leaders have developed a startling misconception about the customer service "function." They view it as a distinct organizational outlet and therefore believe there are specific channels reserved and defined as "customer service channels."

That warped, insufficient conception of customer service is simply inconsistent with the mindset that drives a successful customer experience. The best brands know that successful customer communication is driven and defined by the customer—not the organization. The customer chooses the means in which he wants to interact with the organization, and it is the brand’s job to establish satisfactory engagement on those terms.

They also know that the customer experience is a product of every form of brand-customer interaction at every touch point.

Organizations, unquestionably, have certain channels that are more effective at resolving customer issues, and it absolutely makes strategic and financial sense to build the customer management function around those channels. After all, resolution efficiency and efficacy are critical components of the customer experience, and if an organization could not behave in a way that optimizes its performance, it would be undermining its relationship with customers.

But organizational preference is not a substitute for customer-centricity. Businesses who are competing on the customer experience must be visible and communicable at all customer touch points; they must assure they are able to facilitate meaningful engagement that speaks to the individual needs of the customer rather than the internal priorities of the organization.

As such, customer service must happen at each and every one of those touch points. It is not a debate—it is a simple reality. Certainly, it is fair to centralize certain resolution information and power—every single employee probably should not have a 360 degree view of every customer on his person at all times—but that does not excuse organizations of their need to engage customers in every channel.

In returning to the notion that "social customer service" does not exist, my point is that social media’s true relevance as a corporate strategy is to further minimize the distance between brand and customer. It is to provide another avenue for customers to engage with brands, and whether that engagement involves signing up for a coupon, Re-Tweeting a quote from a celebrity endorser or aggressively seeking restitution after a bad service experience, social media’s existence assures brands can provide the desired form of engagement.

By treating "social customer service" as a distinct concept, we are essentially saying that the decision to support customers over social lies with the brand. It is up to the brand to determine if it has enough resources, knowledge and confidence to use social for service rather than marketing. It is up to the brand to determine if it wants to respond to individual complaints or simply put a bold headline above its Twitter feed advising disgruntled customers that it will only respond to issues conveyed via phone or email.

In reality, that is a customer call. Just as brands shouldn’t force customers to use Twitter and live chat if they prefer calling the contact center, if customers are actively choosing to get customer service on social media, customer-centricity dictates that the brand respond appropriately in kind.

Social is inherently about a back-and-forth—it is not simply a "free" form of webvertising. And so the second a company initiates a social media strategy is the second it agrees to provide some sort of customer service over its relevant networks, just as it is also the second it agrees to focus on managing the brand’s reputation, engaging and rewarding loyal customers, "social" marketing, etc. Serving customers is part of the deal because failing to do so would be inherently violating the principles of social engagement.

As a customer management writer, I’m certain that I, myself, have made the mistake of treating social customer service as a separate entity. And in doing so, I was dead wrong. Customer management is not about picking-and-choosing which customer interactions "count" and which don’t. When a customer engages with your brand, it is your job, 100% of the time, to maximize the value of that engagement.

And if that engagement is via Facebook and the inquiry is of a customer service flavor, your job is to provide that sort of engagement.

"Social customer service" is therefore not some distinct concept created when you hire a team of agents and reserve a corner of the office for "Twitter customer care." It is created the second a single customer decides that his vision for the social relationship he holds with your brand involves support for his inquiries.

If your organization is on social, you don’t choose whether or not to introduce a "social customer service function." You have one.

You either do it correctly or incorrectly.

Image credit: Fangol (SXC)