What Do You Mean? - Justin Bieber's Question for Customer Experience Professionals

Justin Bieber may insist his new single "What Do You Mean?" was written about "flip-floppy" girls, but we at Call Center IQ know the truth.

His song is actually targeted at business leaders and their inconsistent, indecisive, unpredictable approaches to customer management.

Whether communicating to customers, front-line agents or call center supervisors, business leaders often say one thing when they mean another. More notably, they often say one thing and then do another.

Borne out of frustration with the disparity between intent, talk and walk in the customer management space, Bieber’s song is a reminder to stand behind your customer experience and agent experience rhetoric.

To do that, you will need to avoid wanting to go left but then turning right. You will also need to avoid these mistakes – and provide a clearer answer to the question "What Do You Mean?"

You say you’re omni-channel, but you don’t truly engage customers across all (or even many) channels

The purpose of the omni-channel revolution is not to offer as many channels as possible. It is to create a seamless, consistent, integrated experience that allows for interactions on the customer’s terms.

Far too many businesses boast about their commitment to new channels – particularly those in the social realm – but do not allow for meaningful engagement in those channels. They will inadequately staff those channels (and thus elevate response and handle times). They will ignore messages in those channels. They will direct "challenging" inquiries to "traditional" channels.

None of that aligns with the directive of offering seamless, consistent, integrated experiences on the customer’s terms. If the customer wants to go through a complicated billing issue in live chat, an omni-channel business – barring insurmountable legal and regulatory issues – discusses that billing issue in live chat. In order to do that, it needs to commit the appropriate resources (financial, human and everything in between) to the live chat channel.

A business’ omni-channel status is not defined by how many interaction options it lists on its "contact us" website. It is defined by the experience it creates across those channels. It is defined by the investment and commitment it makes to those channels.

From this point forward, if you want to call yourself omni-channel, you must be willing to be omni-channel.

You say you’re customer-centric, but you don’t take cues from the customer

The next time you reference a "policy" during a customer interaction, answer this simple question: why are you acknowledging the policy?

Is it because it provides the customer with exactly what it wants? Is it because it enables you to optimize the value of the interaction? Or, is it because your business insularly created a policy and forcibly applies it regardless of circumstance?

If you fall into the lattermost category, you are not alone. Far too may businesses, while touting their customer-centricity in marketing material, impose on the customer in the actual service interaction. They refuse to stray from the policy even though the customer is a unique individual with a unique issue and a unique set of demands. They refuse to listen to the customer even though his voice is supposed to mean more than that of any internal stakeholder.

Letting the customer guide the specific interaction is only half the battle. A truly customer-centric business also knows to let historical customer interactions and stated customer demands guide future policies. It puts feedback at its foundation.

If your business is truly customer-centric, you can explain how every single policy, practice and procedure was guided by the customer and/or designed to maximize the customer’s value.

If you cannot do so, stop claiming to be customer-centric.

You say you’re satisfaction-oriented, but you don’t evaluate agents based on satisfaction

Average handle time is important. It helps the organization assess workflow needs. It helps the organization identify weak channels or particularly problematic issues.

And insofar as many customers demand efficiency, it can also be a customer-centric metric.

Unfortunately, the customer’s overall satisfaction is a better indicator of his sentiment than a simple speed metric. As a result, one cannot claim to be satisfaction-driven yet unconditionally place average handle time – or similarly insulated operational metrics – near the top of the performance management pyramid.

Being satisfaction-driven, of course, requires more than merely measuring CSAT and Net Promoter Score. It also requires a reward structure based on driving satisfaction. Agents who yield favorable outcomes—even if doing so requires modifying the "policy" or a few extra minutes on the phone—should be praised. Agents who fail to resolve calls – even if they follow the script and procedure to the letter – should be condemned.

Agents need to know that the business truly puts the human, unpredictable, emotional element of customer satisfaction above systemic "scores" related to talk time.

Do not tell agents you are satisfaction-oriented if you do not plan to provide rewards, let alone support, when they do what it takes to actually drive that satisfaction.

You say you care about agent happiness, but you contribute to their misery

They may treat "happy agents = happy customers" as the golden rule, but few businesses truly work to drive optimal agent happiness. Consequently, they fail to produce optimally happy customers.

Frustrating, the situation is also illogical. Agents are representing the brand on each interaction. Why would a company risk allowing an unenthusiastic, unhappy agent to serve as the brand ambassador? Why would it expect someone who lacks brand excitement to generate excitement in others?

Remedying the situation is not difficult, but it does require contact center leaders – and business leaders – to start saying what they mean. If they truly believe the agent experience is paramount (if, for no other reason, than its connection to the customer experience), they need to actually create a strong agent experience. They need to incentivize worker excitement (and performance). They need to foster a positive, engaging call center floor. They need to give the agent power – rather than orders – on his calls. They need to show that they care.

Agents supported by a strong culture are happier and thus more valuable in customer interactions. They also believe in their brand – and thus possess a greater sincerity when "selling" the brand to customers.

You say the customer experience is the top priority, but you focus on cost

By declaring the customer experience a fundamental business objective, a business leader is acknowledging the worth of the customer experience. He, in theory, should see the price of customer service solutions as investments into achieving the business’ objectives.

When it comes time to sign off on those items, he focuses only on the cost. Conditioned to be cost-averse, he restricts the spend, and the customer experience suffers.

To someone who allegedly puts the customer experience above all, that should represent a huge failure. Instead, he proceeds as if he made the right decision.

This needs to change. No, the customer experience team should not have a blank check – it needs to operate efficiently and assure it is driving more value than it is exerting. It should, however, receive the support it needs to achieve success. It should be put in position to deliver on what is supposedly the business’ paramount objective.

"What’s good for the customer is what’s good for the business" is not simply a jazzy phrase; it is a statement of reality. We, in 2015, recognize a link between an improved customer experience and improved business results.

Just as you would gladly spend $1 today for $2 tomorrow, you need to recognize that $1 on a worthwhile customer experience investment will produce $2 (or $3 or $500) tomorrow.

When contemplating the investment, compare today’s dollar to the gain associated with the improved customer experience. Do not view it as a sunk cost.