You Can't Cheat the Customer Experience

Because customer satisfaction translates into an improved bottom line, businesses are not wrong for approaching the customer experience from a perspective of greed. They are not incorrect for treating customer experience investments as means to a profitable end rather than altruistic ends in and of themselves.

They are wrong, however, if they believe they can cheat the system. They are incorrect if they believe they can skip ahead to the end.

In the short-term, the investments and decisions needed to satisfy customers might appear financially counterproductive. Rather than driving immediate profit, customer satisfaction tactics might instead produce an unappealing assortment of initial costs.

Rather than shying away once the going gets tough, truly customer-centric businesses embrace such costs as pivotal investments. They know that customer satisfaction comes not from worrying about their own interests but from caring about those of their customers. They know that quality customer service, though not always easy, need always be a priority.

Whether expensive or inexpensive, convenient or inconvenient or easy or difficult, the only customer experience strategy that produces desirable long-term business rewards is one that puts the customer’s interests first.

Customers do not appreciate being bamboozled. Though they appreciate pleasantries and rhetorical commitments to customer-centricity, they ultimately demand the business put its money where its mouth is. They ultimately want to know that their interests—not the business’ most immediate and gluttonous ones—are driving customer experience strategy.

Though warm, helpful and engaging, two recent experiences drifted into undesirable territory once it became clear that the involved brands were putting their own interests first.

Discovering customer satisfaction

In a customer service world riddled with disgruntled, inconsiderate contact center agents who seem almost philosophically opposed to the notion of customer engagement, Discover’s support team is a breath of fresh air. In my two years with the credit card company, I have yet to encounter a single agent who did not handle each call with a warm, upbeat demeanor and an immense passion for seeking resolution.

Unfortunately, developing a successful customer experience strategy requires more than simply staffing the contact center with personable agents. It also requires implementing policies that put the customer first.

And it is on that ground that Discover—and many of its credit card industry peers—disappoints.

Shortly after buying a laptop during the Black Friday sales rush, I received a voicemail from an unidentified number. Far from history’s most informative voicemail, the message did make one thing clear: my Discover card had been flagged for fraudulent activity.

While the message did not reveal details of the charge, the timing of the call strongly suggested it concerned my laptop. I was now faced with the burden of investigating—and likely calling to discuss—what was surely a non-issue.

If asked, Discover would surely say that its aggressive, proactive fraud monitoring is designed to benefit the customer. Rather than requiring me to follow my credit card activity like a hawk, I have a team of Discover agents managing my financial security. I am reaping a reward from a business that cares about me!

There is just one problem: I am never responsible for unauthorized charges on my card. Though I would potentially have to enter the dispute process to retroactive remove such transactions, my personal wealth would never be affected by purchases I did not authorize.

Discover, on the other hand, would be responsible for any charges made with a stolen card. If someone used my credit card number to go on a shopping spree—and made his purchases before the card were frozen—the financial institution would be responsible for paying for those goods.

And so the real reason companies like Discover "offer" proactive fraud monitoring is to protect themselves. They do not want to pay for fraudulent activity and will therefore do everything in their power to defend against that possibility.

Though I cannot blame Discover for wanting to protect itself, as a customer, I absolutely can blame the business for letting its own concerns trump my needs. Since I care more about a hassle-free card experience than I do a credit card company’s need to avoid covering for fraud, the card company must feel that way as well. Doing so would be a sign of its customer-centricity. Doing so would go a long way in driving my satisfaction, winning my loyalty and landing my long-term business.

In a credit to the efficacy and efficiency of Discover’s call center, the process of rectifying the issue could not have been more harmless (and was significantly easier than handling a similar issue with my Bank of America AMEX card). Discover—and its people—clearly knows how to know make the customer happy.

It is a shame such a promising, likable business sometimes falls for the temptation of putting its own needs first.

If you want to win me over, you need to let me go

My excitement over setting up the aforementioned new laptop turned into frustration when the machine’s wireless card could not find my router (or any nearby Wi-Fi network, for that matter). Since my travel laptop, a mid-level machine from 2009 that is on death’s door, and my phone were connected to Wi-Fi at five full bars, the new laptop itself was the clear culprit.

Though not as efficient as Discover’s connection process, reaching a HP customer service representative was simple enough. And though he did not express the same level of enthusiasm as the Discover agent, HP’s support representative still seemed very interested in addressing the issue.

After more than an hour of troubleshooting, which included re-installing drivers, updating the BIOS and repositioning the router, I was still unable to steadily connect. I would occasionally gain access to the wireless router when standing only a few feet away (albeit at lower Wireless-G speeds), but even ten feet of distance would prove too far. And unlike my old laptop and phone, the new laptop remained unable to recognize any of the neighbors’ Wi-Fi networks. Clearly, the card was defective.

Agreeing, the support agent offered to send a replacement wireless card. I was not interested. Expecting—and basically needing, due to the state of the 2009 laptop—to use the computer immediately, I had no interest in waiting for a replacement part. Even though the task is fairly easy, I had even less desire to manually replace the wireless card on a brand new computer.

Most importantly, the experience made me lose confidence in HP’s product. If the company had not tested its product to confirm that the wireless card, one of the most important components of a modern laptop, was working, what else had it overlooked? Expecting to use the computer for at least two years, I could not risk the possibility that the machine contained any other defects or cheap, low-quality parts. I could not commit to today’s breed of HP laptops.

Since the computer was unboxed, however, I worried that a return to the retailer would be both problematic and subject to a restocking fee. To avoid those issues, I asked HP’s representative to perform a very routine task: send me an email confirming his opinion that the wireless card was defective. With that proof in hand, I would surely be exempt from any hassle at the retailer.

Much to my surprise, he refused. He said a supervisor would be able to provide the confirmation, but that supervisor, too, refused. All they would offer was a nebulous "confirmation" number that would surely have no value in the return process. If I, while returning the item, would have to call up HP support, get transferred to the right person, read the confirmation number and then get the HP agent to confirm the issue to the retail clerk, how exactly would I be avoiding hassle?

As I continued to think about and discuss the issue with the HP supervisor, it was clear the reason they would not offer the confirmation number is that they did not want to facilitate my return. Rather than attempting to build my trust by proving they care about my needs as a shopper, the HP agents revealed that their concern was keeping me as a customer.

Though the two concerns aligned at first, they ultimately grew apart. When the call reached its culmination, my preferred choice was to return my product and end my relationship with HP. HP’s preferred choice was to keep me on board.

It was a classic case of a brand attempting to skip to the finish line. Instead of having faith that its show of customer-centricity now would positively impact my long-term perspective of the brand, HP wanted the rewards of my loyalty to materialize in the present. Enhancing my experience only mattered insofar as it would keep me from switching to a competitor today.

In the process, HP revealed that my needs do not precisely align with their customer experience. As a result, I can no longer trust HP to put my interests above all.