When an upgrade backfires!

I was away with my family last weekend, visiting the excellent 'Festival of Angels' in York - highly recommended for anyone seeking an enjoyable pre-Christmas experience in the north of England!

Indeed, it was so popular that despite extensive searching I was unable to find a hotel room in York and ended up pre-booking at the Marriott Hotel in Leeds.  Even then I had to book two double rooms as all their family rooms were booked.

It was a bit of a surprise then that after checking in, getting the lift and walking into the first room I found it had two queen size beds in it - it was the family room we'd initially requested.  And the surprise grew when my wife opened the door of the second room and that too was the same, another family room!  My first thought was that we would after all be able to spend the night together in one room - good news!  But that was closely followed by confusion - was it a mistake, had we been given the wrong rooms?

So I went back down to reception to ask them to clarify.  When I asked the manager (I think) at reception he confirmed that the rooms were correct and that we'd received a complimentary upgrade.  My initial reaction was to explain that we'd just use one room, at which point he interrupted and said that we must pay for the two rooms booked.  From that point I think the value of the conversation deteriorated.  It went something like this:

Me: "But when I initially tried to book a family room your website indicated that none were available and the only way you could accommodate me (and my family) was in two separate rooms."
Him: "That was probably the case at the time sir."
Me: "But what's the point in giving us two family rooms when we clearly only need one?"
Him (looking confused): "Because we've upgraded you sir."
Me: "But I don't want one of the rooms.  What I wanted all along was one family room."
Him: "As I've already said sir, you will have to pay for both rooms."
Me: "I will pay for them, but that's not my point.  My point is, why give me a further room that is of no value because it'll be unoccupied?"
Him: "That's your choice sir but it was an upgrade."
Me: "But it's of no value, and to be honest I'm now starting to feel conned into buying a room I don't need."
Him: "We haven't conned you sir.  This is how hotels work, we allocate rooms based on what works best, for the customer and the hotel.  It's about various things, room availability, location of the rooms - you wouldn't want to be woken in the middle of the night, and so on."
Me: "But why did your website indicate there was no family room available?"
Him: "there can't have been at that time."
Me: "That sounds questionnable to me - that two family rooms suddenly became available."
Him: "That must be the case sir."
Me: "In which case I don't understand why nobody rang me to ask whether I'd like to switch from two double rooms to one family room."
Him: "That's not how we work sir.  it's not up to us to do that."
Me: "Well if you'd checked your records you'd see that whenever I have stayed in a Marriott hotel I've always stayed in a family room."
Him: "You don't understand how hotels work sir."
Me: "Obviously not.  You don't get why I'm frustrated do you?"
Him: "No, not really sir, we've upgraded you."
Me: "Let me explain.  Imagine you wanted to hire a car for your family of four.  You ring the car hire company and they tell you that they don't have a four seater but you agree to take two two seaters instead.  Then, when you arrive to collect the cars they give you two four seaters.  How would you feel?"
Him: "It's really not the same sir.  Hotels are car hire are completely different."
Me: "No it's not, the principle is exactly the same!  I'll pay for the two rooms but you need to know that you've turned a loyal customer and advocate into one who is really unhappy with Marriott."
Him: "It's not me sir.  I'm just applying the rules."
Me: "And the fact that you're now abdicating responsibility for this makes it even worse.  Anyway, I want you to know how disappointed I am because I do feel conned and because you just don't seem to follow why."
Pause.....
Him: "I'm sorry about that sir.  On this one occassion, and as a gesture of goodwill I will release the other room.  But I wouldn't be able to do it again next time."

And at that we concluded the discussion.  Him clearly frustrated that he'd lost income on a room and me equally frustrated that he couldn't understand my logic, or at least wouldn't accept it.

The rest of the stay was good.  The room was great, the beds were very comfortable and we had a delicious meal in the restaurant.  But I still felt disappointed and frustrated with the overall experience - and still do. 

I'd assumed that upgrades were always a gesture of goodwill from the supplier, designed to be for the customer, providing added value and benefit for them - at no charge and for their convenience.  Perhaps that's not always the case.

Has anyone else had unwelcome, inconvenient or no added value upgrade experiences?

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield

Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

Has there been any change in UK Banking culture? And will there be in future?

I've blogged several times before about the predominant culture of the banking sector.  About short term thinking driving pursuit of targets at all costs and resulting in a culture that at best takes customers for granted and at worst results behaviour that blatantly takes advantage of them.

I last wrote about it here: http://everythingengagement.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/big-banks-customers-complain-every.html in September, following the release of statistics suggesting that the banking industry as a whole receives a complaint every 7 seconds!

More bad news today for the 'Big 5' banks following the release of a report by consumer watchdog 'Which?' that suggests the 'sell at all costs'culture is if anything getting worse rather than better.  The report said:
"Which? interviewed branch and call centre staff from the five major banks – HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds Banking Group, Barclays and Santander. Our research revealed that two-thirds of bank staff who have a sales role and sales targets say there is now more pressure than ever to meet those targets."

It went on to say that:
"The dominant sales culture in Britain's banks is encouraging mis-selling, almost half (46%) said they knew colleagues who had mis-sold products in order to meet targets. Four in 10 felt they were sometimes expected to sell even when it was not appropriate for the customer."

This echoes feedback I'm receiving from contacts I have in the industry.  They tell me that whilst PR and marketing is focused on rebuilding trust with customers by telling them their bank has changed, the reality internally is that banks are more profit focused than ever and that achieving ever increasing sales targets is absolutely critical.

I don't expect banks to change their culture overnight.  It can take a long time before the culture of large organisations changes.  But I would expect to be starting to see some changes by now.  After all, these issues have been on the agenda for at least two or three years now.  So why isn't change  happening? 

Culture change also requires strong leadership and consistent and aligned actions over a prolonged period.  What the Which report seems to illustrate is a lack of alignment - a view that reducing incentives will prevent the problem.  In reality though how people are incentivised is just one of the factors and evidently the benefits of those changes are outweighed by the pressure to meet sales targets.  The report indicates that two thirds of those who took part in the survey say they are "sometimes or always told to sell more."

I believe that the banks' failure to achieve change comes down to two things:

1. An inadequate understanding of the factors causing the problem.  What this also suggests is an inadequate understanding of culture.  Leaders in many organisations look for a quick fix lever they can pull to resolve a problem, not appreciating that the culture of their organisation is caused by complex, inter-connected and concomitant factors.  Looking at them in isolation is the wrong thing to do.
2. Inadequate leadership.  Let me be clear on this one.  I am NOT suggesting that the leaders are inadequate per se but I AM expressing my view that their leadership of the culture change is inadequate.  Different skills and behaviours are required to lead change than to lead steady steady state.  It requires a different focus.  And it means priorities have to be reconsidered.   Unfortunately the existing business model, focused on short term financial performance and the generation of shareholder value, is so deeply embedded that these short term requirements are in conflict with the longer term and strategic changes required.  And the short term is winning.

The size of the prize is enormous for the bank that shifts its culture, and sustains it, but the size of the challenge facing leadership is also enormous.  And so far it's been too big.

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield

Twitter: @accordengage

Telephone: 0044 07906650019

If more is good, should the pursuit of engagement ever stop?

More is good.  I think that's how the saying goes.

It seems like we live in a world when the pursuit of more is still generally seen as good.

We buy cars that have a capability way in excess of what we're likely to use.  Why is it important that my car is apparently able to accelerate from 0-60mph in 6.5 seconds and has a maximum speed of 143 mph?  We want devices that have more storage space than we're ever likely to use - my MP3 player can apparently store in excess of 10,000 songs!  We always seem to want more money in our bank account, quicker speed on our processor, shorter cooking time in our microwave.  This list could go on...

Why is it important?  I've come to the conclusion that it's all about 'just in case'.  I want a high performance car just in case I need to use its capabilities to get my out of a tight spot, I want more space on my MP3 just in case I want to add lots more songs.  I want more money to protect me from unforeseen circumstances, shorter cooking times just in case I'm in a rush etc.  By the way, I'm not writing about this because I think it's a bad thing, that's up to individuals to decide, but I am interested in how this belief might apply to engagement. 

I wonder if it does apply to both customer and employee engagement.

Thinking first about customers, is there an optimum level of customer engagement?  Is there a level which is 'good enough' and anything beyond this is a waste?  And can any excess go into storage for potential use at some time in the future?  Similar questions I guess for employee engagement.  Is there an optimum level of employee engagement?  Can an organisation ever have too much and if levels are higher today than is needed can it be saved just in case it's ever needed?

Does the pursuit of higher levels of engagement ever end?  Is there a point at which it's about maintenance rather than development?  Given the austere times in western economies cost is clearly a consideration so is it worth investing more trying to achieve tiny increases in engagement?  And how should any organisation determine what an acceptable investment is?

For me the answer depends on an organisations vision i.e. where they are going and what they want to achieve in the future.  The engagement strategy then needs to support delivery of those things.  It's obvious, isn't it, that engagement should be in support of something rather than something that is pursued in isolation just because it's a good thing to do.  Shouldn't it always be about getting a return?

Are the objectives for your engagement programme clear and aligned to deliver the strategy for your organisation?

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield

Twitter: @accordengage

Telephone: 0044 07906650019

Customer #Experience, Customer #Engagement - it has to be about more than Customer #Service

In my last blog entry I proposed definitions of the phrases "customer service", "customer experience" and "customer engagement".

In summary, I suggested that:

Customer Service ...
is what an organisation does when delivering its products and services to customers, and how it does it. 

Customer Experience ...
is about how customers feel as a result of the service they receive. 

Customer Engagement ...
is the outcome an organisation wants as a result of the service they deliver and the experience the customer has.

I also suggested though that customer experience and engagement can't be delivered through customer service alone.

To expand on that .....in my view every customer experience, and the degree of engagement each customer feels with a brand, is influenced by two things other than customer service.  First, the fact that every customer is influenced by their previous experiences.  These could be:

• Experiences with the same brand - which create expectations for the future which, if not met, result in a negative experience.
• Experiences with other brands - which also create expectations.
• The experiences they have had that day (and perhaps longer than that) which influence how they're feeling beforehand.  To illustrate this point, have you ever had an argument with someone and been in a bad mood before receiving a service?  And did it affect how you felt about the service you received?

All of these things affect customer experience.

Second, the customers' perception of the brand, and therefore whether they are positively or negatively disposed towards it, influences their experience and their level of engagement.  It's entirely possible that the degree of engagement a customer has can be impacted by adverse media coverage, social media, peer group feedback etc, all of which may influence a customers disposition.  They influence a customers perception of the organisation and thus the relationship they have with it.

The implication for every organisation is that influencing customer experience and customer engagement has to be about more than just customer service.  It has to be about building relationships.

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield

Twitter: @accordengage

Telephone: 0044 07906650019 

What should your business focus on - customer service, customer experience or customer engagement?

Work I've been doing with a client over the last two or three months has meant I've had lots of conversations with senior managers.  During these conversations I've noticed they use the phrases "customer service", "customer experience" and "customer engagement" interchangeably, seemingly without any clarity about what they mean or indeed whether they are different. 

If they are going to improve any of these things I think it's important they develop their understanding.  So here's how I suggested they think about the similarities and differences:

Customer Service ...
is what an organisation does when delivering its products and services to customers, and how it does it.  Clearly it's hugely important. It needs to be planned so that delivery is efficient and effective. Efficient so that the costs of delivery aren't higher than the business can afford, and effective so that it evokes the right feelings in customers.  Customers may talk about the service they receive but in reality what drives them to comment at all is how they feel as a result of the service.

Customer Experience ...
is therefore about how customers feel as a result of the service they receive.  So what are feelings?  They are bodily states that are caused largely by chemistry (hormones).  They usually have related thoughts and ideas which can be used to label them, define them and express them, but are themselves bodily states. 

It's also worth remembering that feelings start with the five senses: sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste.  So what the customer sees, hears, feels, smells and tastes impact their experience.   That's why businesses recognised for superior customer experience think about how they deliver multi-sensory experiences, positively stimulating as many of the senses as possible in every intereaction.  Because  customers have an experience every time they interact with the business.  Indeed, they can't not have an experience.

Customer Engagement ...
is the outcome an organisation wants as a result of the service they deliver and the experience the customer has.  It results in the customer feeling a sense of trust, commitment and loyalty which
means they are more likely to buy its products and services. 


That's how I suggested they think about it and it's already brought a greater clarity to the conversations I hear and to their planning.  They realise that when they previously talked about customer experience or engagement, what they really meant was customer service.  They understand now that their objective is customer engagement.  And they know that in order to develop it they need to think more broadly about the what and the how of their customer service.

But this isn't the end of the story.  Because we've also talked about how customer experience and engagement can't be delivered by service alone.  More about that next time....

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019 

Return on Individuals - the biggest benefit of engaged employees?

I heard a phrase I really like earlier this week: "ROI - Return on Individual".

I've obviously heard it used in the context "return on investment", but not in this context.  It seems so obvious that I feel I should have been aware of it before.  For me it's a powerful expression of the benefit of employee engagement.  Ultimately isn't having engaged employees about growing their contribution to the business OR increasing the return on individuals?

I also came across some powerful statistics to illustrate the point.  In a Directive Communication International study undertaken in 2007 involving the marketing, human resource and finance departments of 72 similar organisations, evidence suggested that an engaged workforce is greater than the sum of its parts.  The study reported that "If there are 100 employees in an organisation with a poor corporate culture, they will produce the work of 63.  In an average culture they will do the work of 100 and in an enriched culture they produce the work of up to 159 employees."

The report described the enriched culture as being "Leadership enriched", meaning that people felt emotional gratification and fulfilment at work.  They also felt they were an important part of the organisation and that their job equipped them with the opportunity to grow as an individual.  These descriptors bear a very close resemblence to those resulting in engagement.

So the difference in ROI from the worst to the best performing was equivalent to 96 people.  Some return on individuals!

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019 

TGI Fridays - Food to make you smile, service which made me frown

I've been a fan of TGI Fridays for more than 20 years.  During that time I've been a regular customer and because I'm a dad, every visit is a family occassion so through me they have a relationship with my wife and children.

What we've always enjoyed is a) great food and b) a relaxing and fun experience.  It's clear that everything about the experience has been intentionally designed, from the decor of the restaurant to the training of the folks who are the face of the brand.  It has obviously worked for me (and my family) in the past because we've gone back repeatedly.

But it didn't work during our latest visit, which on this occasion was to the restaurant in Sutton Coldfield.  The food was again good but the experience fell sadly short.  There were three key issues:

• Every member of staff we interacted was going through the motions.  They seemed to be there in body but had left their sense of humour and warmth at home.  Each point of contact, from buying a drink at the bar beforehand to paying our bill, was transactional with no added value.  This in turn meant that the little problems we experienced became magnified;
• I wanted to add my drinks order at the bar to my bill.  In order to do this he asked for my card.  I assumed he wanted to take a card impression just in case I should disappear without paying.  However, he wanted to keep it until I paid the bill at the end of the evening.  He didn't explain this properly and neither did he ask for your permission, leaving me feeling temporarily out of control and questionning whether it was in my best interests.
• My son, 15 years old and very fashion conscious, was wearing a snap-back cap and was asked to remove it as it's apparently the restaurant policy is for customers not to wear hats.  He was put out.  Whether it's right to have the policy is a different question - my personal view is that it's strange to 'ban' a fasion accessory.  However, I was disappointed more about the absence of an explanation for the policy (if you're asking people to change what they've chosen to wear during a night out is it unreasonable to explain why) and about their inconsistent application of it.  At one point my son put his cap back on because a man on a nearby table had been allowed to enter and sit down without being asked to remove his.  Our waitress immediately asked my son to rmove his cap again, at which I pointed out the inconsistency.  Her response was to ask my son again to remove his cap and then ask the manager to ask the other man to remove his.  All a bit heavy handed!
• When ordering a steak for his meal, my son asked for an accompanying barbecue sauce.  He was told that it wasn't an option which his order.  Subsequently when the meals came my daughter asked for some barbecue sauce with her fries and was given some immediately.  I have no idea why the waitress couldn't make the decision to change whatever sauce was allowed with the steak, to satisfy her customer.

 The cumulative impact of these things, coming as they did spread throughout the evening, prevented us from having fun.  There wasn't much laughing or smiling happening at our table!

It's also a real example of how quickly customer loyalty can be lost.  Before the meal had ended my son, supported by his sister, had decided that he didn't want to eat there again.  We also visit one of TGI Fridays competitors and I suspect they might get more business from us, at the expense of TGI's. in future.

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

The 'Palin Doctrine' - How to become a professional appreciator

I heard an interview with Michael Palin on the radio last week.  He was promoting his new BBC TV programme ‘Brazil’, unsurprisingly about his experiences whilst travelling in that country.  I love watching his programmes.  I’ve watched many of the ones he’s made in the past and always found the different scenes and customs in different places he’s visited fascinating.  At least that’s what I thought before I heard the interview on the radio. 

During it he referred to himself as a “Professional Appreciator”.  He explained that he’s not someone who does much activity himself but that he does notice and appreciate the things others do.  He talked about it in a self-deprecating way but for me it’s not at all insignificant, it’s admirable.  I’d love to be a professional appreciator - someone who consciously notices even the smallest things and realises and values their worth.  Actually I think that’s what I really enjoy about his programmes – and others which follow a similar approach.  Billy Connolly’s ‘world tour’ series for example.  It’s actually the excitement and enthusiasm they seem to have for everything that I enjoy.  As I said, I think it’s an admirable and attractive quality.

It’s also quite rare in my experience.  And people who have it can sometimes be misinterpreted as shallow and focused on the unimportant, the pointless, the trivial.  How would you react if one of your colleagues wanted to share their excitement about a beautiful flower they’d seen or an unusual cloud formation? 

In business in particular what’s considered important, what gets noticed most tends to be the big stuff, not the smaller actions or behaviours.  And managers are recognised and rewarded for the higher level objectives they achieve, usually in a system that encourages a focus on strategic objectives and less on the small stuff.

We know though that performance is better when people are engaged and committed to the organisation.  And we also know that one of the key drivers of engagement is the degree to which people feel recognised.  The first stage in the process of recognition is noticing the little things people do that are valuable and warrant appreciation.  It’s then the expression of appreciation for those things that result in people feeling recognised.

As is often the case it’s counter-intuitive.  What we should be doing to engage people is to notice the small things more, to be excited and enthusiastic about them and to express appreciation.  Isn’t it common sense that if lots and lots of small things are done well the bigger things will automatically fall into place?

I was reading that Michael Palin’s travel programmes are responsible for a phenomenon termed the “Palin effect” – areas of the world he has visited and produced programmes about then become popular tourist attractions.  Wouldn’t it be great if the “Palin doctrine” resulted in higher engagement because being a professional appreciator became an accepted core element of every manager’s role? 

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

My good news from Santander

My business bank account is with Santander.  I'm not sure why to be honest other than it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Service has been average - not bad but certainly not good.  I once visited a local branch to request a transaction and whilst they did so, they told me four times that business customers can't transact at a branch counter and so they were only doing it on this one occassion as a gesture of goodwill.  Once would have been enough!

A couple of days ago I received a letter from Santander informing me that they "are delighted to announce that in addition to your existing banking services, we are starting to introduce counter access for our Business Banking customers."  It went on to confirm that I will be able to complete transactions at "your local Santander Branch.  At this time, the branch detailed ...is the only one that will be able to process your business banking transactions.  However, we are looking to extend this in the future and we will obviously let you know when this happens."

I don't know what Santander believe 'local' means but the branch they've suggested I use doesn't feel very local to me.  In fact a search on the Santander website confirms that 12 branches and a further 6 Agency branches are closer to where I live than the branch concerned!

Is this really worth promoting as good news?  Do they expect me to be delighted that I can now drive 17 miles to transact over the counter?  Have they considered how this might be received by customers, or is their focus so internally driven that they can't see it?  I wonder....

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

Learnings from the Lance Armstrong and Jimmy Saville scandals.

On the face of it the media stories about Lance Armstrong and Jimmy Saville are not related. They occurred on different sides of the Atlantic Ocean, involve people in completely different spheres of life and the actions of the two men being reported in the media are quite different. Incidentally, and for the avoidance of doubt, I am neither supporting or accusing either of the two men. I am not knowledgeable enough about the specifics to be able to do so. My observations are purely about the circumstances surrounding the events now being reported.

But there are a number of similarities in the stories:

• The actions of the two men, as being reported, appear to have been driven by an imbalance between self-interest and what's in the interest of others and / the wider community in which they operated
• Both men were considered to be extremely powerful in their community
• The wrong-doings that are being reported stayed out of the public domain for years
• And the people (according to the media) who tried to draw attention to what they considered to be wrong failed. The evidence suggests that the degree of disbelief and / or challenge they encountered was so strong that they didn't feel able to continue with their accusation

I believe that combination of circumstances means that there are lessons to be learned for organisations.

Namely that where the culture of an organisation doesn't prevent self-interest and "what's best for me", and where a few individuals become very powerful, the likelihood of the culture suppressing challenge, let alone whistleblowing reduces substantially.

It also illustrates the value of really understanding the underlying culture at work in any organisation. What are its strengths and weaknesses and what are the risks that emerge as a result?

I wonder whether these stories would have emerged years ago if these inherent risks had been understood and managed?

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

Special delivery...

Continuing the photos theme from my last blog, here's another one sent to me by a friend.  I think it also links nicely with my previous thoughts about outputs and outcomes.

After ordering something over the internet a few days earlier, my friend returned home from work to find this card had been pushed through the letterbox.  A search then revealed that the parcel had indeed been pushed into the hedge in her front garden. 

As far as the delivery person was concerned they had achieved another output and whilst the outcome for her was that she'd received the parcel, how she'd received it left her shaking her head in disbelief.  Shoving a parcel into the hedge didn't leave her with a good impression.

The root cause of this is twofold.  Firstly, the focus on output rather than outcome.  Secondly, the fact that the delivery element of the transaction is outsourced.  The retailer doesn't know how the delivery company is impacting the customer experience, and the delivery company doesn't care because they get paid the same amount irrespective of it.

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

Barclays advert - did they really mean that?

A friend sent me this Barlays advert yesterday.  I suspect the word 'stop' in the final sentence of the first paragraph is a mistake!  Surely it should be 'spot'. 

Then again, perhaps not!

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

Outputs or outcomes? And what the answer says about your organisation.

I heard a story about a restaurant recently.  The owners worked hard to develop a reputation and the food, the atmosphere and the overall experience of the place made it something special.  It's growing reputation meant that it got busier week by week, so much so that the number of meals served on a typical Friday night increased to an average of 94 from 60 just a couple of months previously.

The owners congratulated themselves on being able to scale up and deliver this increase without hiring a new chef and more waiters / waitresses.  And on the face of it that seemed to be the right thing to do.  After all, wasn't getting the food out th emost important thing?  Everything appeared rosy - and yet they missed the fact that customers felt the quality of their experience deteriorated.  Probably at a rate proportionate to the increased in meals served.  Unfortunately some of them soon decided "it's not as good as it used to be" and ate at other restaurants instead.

This is a good example of an organisation focusing on outputs (meals served) rather than customer outcomes (overall quality of the eating out experience).  Individual customers weren't interested in the total number of meals served, just the quality of their meal and their overall experience of their evening out.  That was their desired outcome. 

When the restaurant first opened the owners just knew that the experience customers had was what would make the business a success and their focus on the outcome was what caused it to gain its reputation and grow.

Strange then that they should take their eye off outcomes and focus instead on the output.  But it's often what happens when businesses, or more specifically the people who work in businesses, are under pressure to deliver more or deliver the same with less.  They regress to an outputs (internal) perspective and lose their outcomes (external) focus.  Businesses who focus on outputs rather than outcomes are always less customer focused and deliver a poorer customer experience.

It's a very, very common mistake.  Call Centres focus on calls answered rather than the quality of how customer queries have been answered and problems resolved.   Mortgage Lenders report on the value of completions instead of customers who have been helped to move or improve.  Surgeons track finished consultant episodes, retailers measure units sold, hotels focus on rooms occupied.  The list goes on.

There's nothing wrong with measuring outputs of course but not at the expense of outcomes.  Great businesses place outcomes first and their output measures, whilst useful measures of internal efficiency, are subordinate.  What takes precedence in your business - outputs or outcomes?

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

 

How to pass on increased costs of production to customers

The Watchdog programme on BBC TV last week included a story about how some manufacturers of household products have left the price of their product the same whilst reducing the volume of the product.  In some instances the design of the packaging, whilst looking the same, had been changed to accomodate the smaller amount.

It included one example of a cleaning fluid which used to have the volume displayed on the front of the bottle above the name.  When the company recently reduced the volume by a quarter the volume display moved to the bottom of the back of the bottle.

It would seem that marketing people in these organisations have been busy trying to find ways of passing on increased costs (or perhaps increasing margin) without the customer noticing.  Perhaps indicative of the culture of the business and certainly not a great way to build customer engagement.

Contrast this with a note I saw displayed in the bakery in the village where I live.  It's displayed below.

  
I talked to the proprietor about it.  She explained that whenever they increase prices they explicitly point it out to customers and explain why.  I asked her why she felt the need to do so.  Her answer: "I think customers come back to us regularly because they like what we sell and they trust us.  They know that we need to make a profit but also that we're not taking advantage of them.  We just daren't risk losing their trust, so we're always open and honest."

I think some of those marketing people should visit them.

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

Does your new recruit have the X-Factor?

Apparently the viewing figures for X-Factor are falling - in the UK and in the US. I must be one of the few people bucking the trend in the UK because whilst I haven't really watched it in the past I have seen most of the current series so far.

I'm troubled by the process the candidates are asked to go through though. At first auditions it's entirely up to them what song they choose to sing. Those who stand out are those who sing something that is meaningful to them and suits their voice. They focus on their strengths, concentrating on what they're good at and allowing their personality and style to shine through. Those who progress are not bland. But then, during the later stages, having a weekly theme means they are forced to sing songs that they wouldn't ordinarily choose and which results in them losing some of their 'uniqueness'. The biggest recording artists in the world are those who have a style all of their own and are instantly recognisable. I don't think the judging process incentivises the candidates to be unique and unusual - it encourages being bland.

But it would perhaps be unfair to be too critical - because most of us do the same thing when we recruit people into our business. During the recruitment process we ask the applicant to highlight their skills and show how they will be useful. We congratulate ourselves on a rigorous process which finds the person who will really make a difference to our business. Then they start in the role and we expect them to 'fit' into the organisation and to adapt their skills according to what's needed in the role.

The process on X-Factor doesn't set winners up to succeed. History shows that winners of the X Factor often don't experience long term success afterwards. Do we set up new employees to succeed or to disappear after they have joined?

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

Effective? Or efficient at being ineffective?

I recently had a conversation with an executive in a large UK based business.  He was telling me about his concerns about the current extraordinary focus on cost reduction in his business specifically and in the UK economy in general.

In this age of austerity it does of course make sense to be efficient and prevent unneccesary costs.  But he went on to explain that the problem is that the focus on removing cost has become such a high priority that it's replaced a common sense view to running the business.  It means that people cut corners in order to save money.  It means that focus on the customer within the business has become secondary and consequently it means that their customer experience is deteriorating.

That's a problem when customers are saying that the experience already falls short.  And yet .....they are congratulating themselves on cutting costs out of the business.

He went on to express his fear that what they're doing is to become more efficient but less effective in delivering what customers want.  Or put another way - more efficient at being ineffective.

Not a good strategy!

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

What has no place in your organisation?

I listened to a radio programme earlier this week about the proposed ban on bullfighting in Mexico City.  It's apparently a big and very contentious issue as it has been popular throughout the country since the conquistadors introduced it more than 500 years ago and for many people is part of Mexican culture.  Although Spain is still recognised as the home of bullfighting, Mexico City has the largest bullring in the world and the sport (I know some argue it isn't a sport) is a popular pastime in the country as well as being a source of employment for thousands.

But in recent times its popularity has been waning and a growing number of Mexicans now actively oppose it, regarding it as both barbaric and an unwelcome reminder of Spanish colonialism.  And legislators in will soon vote on whether to ban it in the city.

In the programme one objector said that "it should have no place in modern day Mexico."

His statement made me think.  I wonder how many organisations have leaders who have thought about and communicated for their people what has no place at work - what behaviours and actions are totally unnaceptable?

Many do of course have a set of values which are intended to provide guidance for how people should behave at work.  I often hear leaders in organisations talking about how important theirs are and, providing they're not simply posters on a wall, they provide employees with guidance about what things they should do.  But far fewer provide the same level of guidance about things they should not do. 

And yet in organisations who do, employees often tell me that the clarity about unacceptable behaviours is as useful, if not more so.  The negatives can provide a clarity that's sometimes missing in the positive statements which by their nature are usually examples of the type of desired behaviours.  In contrast the negatives are often more specific and draw out explicit examples of what does indeed have no place in the organisation.

Is it clear what has no place in your organisation?  And if so, would it be clear to everyone?  Thinking about and clearly communicating this is a useful way of steering behaviour providing there are supporting measures and consequences for anyone who ignores the 'rules'.

I wonder if some of the highly publicised scandals in recent years would have happened if the companies involved had communicated what had no place in their business?

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

Big banks - customers complain every seven seconds!

According to figures released over the weekend a record 2.2 million customers complained to Britain’s biggest banks during the first six months of this year.  Or, put another way, a customer complained every seven seconds!

The banks were deluged with complaints about mis-sold insurance, investments and mortgages - pretty much the things that are core to their business.

This prompted Justin Modray of the financial website CandidMoney to comment: "Banks seem to have a total disregard for their customers.  They might project a friendly face, but behind the scenes they're pressuring staff to hit ambitious sales targets which inevitably leads to mis-selling, a key cause for complaint."

It all paints a sorry picture, reinforced further by the LIBOR scandal - which is likely to escalate as investigations continue.

And yet the banks claim that the problems are exceptions and that customers are at the heart of their culture.  It just doesn't add up.

So the question is whether Boards and Executives don't understand their culture and how it influences the behaviours of their people or they understand it but they really do have a disregard for their customers.  My view is they genuinely want to have positive and mutually beneficial relationships with them but this is undermined by two things.  Firstly, short term thinking prevails, resulting in an unhealthy focus on the achievement of targets - at all costs.  And secondly, that they don't understand in sufficient detail how this focus translates into processes, behaviours and ways of working that damage the relationship and produce complaints.

Fundamental change is still required.  But a pre-requisite for that is a deep understanding of the current culture, its causes and its implications.

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

15 words I don't want you to use to describe me when I'm your customer

Words are important.

The words we use reflect our thoughts.  And influence what others think and feel.

And it follows that the words used in organisations reflect their cultural mind-set.  And that culture then influences the behaviour of people who are part of it.

That’s why, when I’m a customer, I’m interested in the words the company uses to describe me.

So here are 15 examples of words I’d rather not be used to describe me:

1.       Caller – a term often used in call centres to describe people telephoning.  When this is the case, the management information will also usually refer to ‘calls received’.

2.       Applicant – term used to describe a person who has applied for a product or service.

3.       Account-holder – a common phrase used in banking and financial services to describe someone who has a product with the organisation.

4.       Insured – term used to describe someone who has an insurance product.

5.       Cover – a term sometimes used in restaurants, reflecting the number of available seats.

6.       Complainant – word used to describe a person who is complaining.

I know these first few aren’t particularly derogatory.  You might even say they’re benign.  The problem is that they de-personalise me, and every other customer.  I’m not a caller, I’m a real person, a customer – and the success of your business ultimately depends on your relationship with me, and other customers.  Don’t forget who I am by using alternative words.  It’s easier to accept losing a call or caller than it is losing a customer. 

But there are others that are more derogatory, and interestingly generally apply to potential customers before they buy;

7.      A Punter – this phrase was originally used to describe customers at the racecourses tracks but has extended in use to mean anyone who could be persuaded to part with their money.

8.      Prospect – someone who is interested in the product or service and needs to be influenced to buy it.

9.      Be-backs - customers in many sectors that after an initial conversation promise to come back and buy but never do.

10.   Cones – refers to passengers on cruise ships.  It apparently references the ‘Saturday Night Live’ TV programme, in which ‘Coneheads’ were people who eat large quantities?

I definitely don’t want to be described like this.  The use of the words is negative and / or assumes that I should be influenced, taken advantage of.

But possibly the worst words are in car sales.  Here’s a few examples:

11.   Stroke – a time-waster who really have no intention of buying.

12.   Bumblebee – a person who can’t decide between several cars.

13.   Roach – someone with bad credit.

14.   Laydown – someone who is willing to pay the advertised price for the care without trying for a discount.  This type of person is also sometimes called a ‘grape’, as in “I stepped on a grape”.

And my final example was illustrated by Greg Smith, Executive Director and Head of Goldman Sachs United States equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.  He revealed in an open resignation letter his discomfort with how customers are referred to as ‘muppets’ i.e. stupid. 

 

In his letter he said that culture was “always a vital part of Goldman Sach’s success.  It once revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients.”  He went on to describe how it had instead become purely about making money and that culturally this translated to pushing customers to buy products that made most money for the business rather than what was best for them.  Muppets, and other words and phrases, illustrated perfectly how people thought about customers.

What words do people in your business use to describe your customers?  And are they likely to positively influence behaviour so that they deliver an experience to customers that will mean they come back again and again?

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield       
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

Tuning the brain: piano tuning causes structural changes to the brain

New research undertaken at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging at University College London and Newcastle University suggests that working as a piano tuner may lead to structural changes in the memory and navigation areas of the brain and that the degree of change correlates with the number of years the tuner has of doing the job.

The researchers found that changes occur in the nerve cells where information processing happens and in the connections between brain cells and that the changes weren't related to age of musical expertise but were related to the amount of time doing tuning.

Previous research has also illustrated structural changes related to musical training and also to the navigational expertise of taxi drivers.

I guess the research confirms what we already knew.  When we were young our mothers told us that 'practice makes perfect' i.e. the more we do it the better we become at it.  I never imagined though that part of the process may actually be structural changes to the brain?

It does perhaps point towards an explanation about why it's so hard for some leaders / managers to 'get' customer and employee engagement - lack of practice (and focus) means they don't improve.

And it also explains why my golf is so poor!

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: (0044) 07906650019 

When even good intentions backfire...

So LOCOG (the organisers of the Paralympic Games) have been accused of discriminating against disabled fans by making them use a premium rate 'helpline' to order tickets.  On the LOCOG website, disabled people are told: "If you require a wheelchair space, you will be able to purchase one, subject to availability, by calling 0844 847 2012."  Able bodied customers don't need to contact the helpline and can instead buy tickets online from the website.

Disabled customers are understandably upset at being forced to pay 41p per minute to make these calls and a Facebook protest group has already attracted many supporters.

So have LOCOG discriminated against disabled customers by preventing them from using the same process and by focing them to pay the additional telephone charges?  On the face of it they have - although I suspect it's unintentional and accidental rather than by design.  In truth my guess is that they decided it would be a good idea to do something to provide them with additional facilities, to do something specifically to help them.  It would seem that the problem is twofold:

1. The implementation of the idea has been poor and;
2. The quality checking of implementation failed to identify the issue.

Could it have been prevented?  Undoubtedly.

And what's the lesson to be learned?  Involve customers.  Had part of the process been to involve some disabled customers in the design and implementation of the idea I don't think we would have been reading criticism of LOCOG in newspapers over the weekend.

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: (0044) 07906650019

The legacy of London 2012? What the games showed us about how businesses can reconnect with their people and customers.

So the Olympics are over for another four years and apparently people in Britain, having been enthralled and absorbed during the event, are now eagerly anticipating the Paralympics.  That’s perhaps surprising because there was huge debate beforehand about whether the £9.3bn cost was a worthwhile investment.  Post the games the consensus seems to be that it generated a sense of pride and confidence that made it all worthwhile.  So why the change of view?

Undoubtedly the success of Team GB athletes contributed.  Each medal won added to the celebration and went some way towards changing a national belief that we’re not very good at sport (fuelled no doubt by regular failures at our national sport – football).  But it was more than that.

There was great enthusiasm for superb performances by athletes of any nationality.  The public recognise the sacrifices they make to be able to compete at all at this level.  And there was an appreciation that the vast majority (excepting the disqualified Badminton players and a few drugs cheats) competed hard but fairly, within the rules of the game.  Winners and losers were gracious and complimentary of the efforts of others.  And they all recognised and valued the support they received from the public that came to watch them and support their efforts.

I believe these were the real reasons the games were so successful.  The behaviour of the athletes themselves was what made the difference and resonated so deeply with the British public who responded in kind.  All of this was very different to what we’ve come to expect in recent times.  These behaviours have been noticeable by their absence, replaced instead by a willingness to bend and break the rules in pursuit of self-interest.  In sport, following the last Rugby World Cup, Graham Henry, coach of New Zealand who won the tournament labelled England as “world champions of wasting talent” as their campaign faltered amidst accusations of a culture of self interest and a group of players more motivated by money than focused on performing at their best.  The same accusation is often levelled at multi-millionaire Premier League footballers.  They’ve been variously described as arrogant, aloof and detached from the real world.  Paulo Di-Canio, famous ex-player and now manager of Swindon Town recently talked about “fantastically talented players whose desire goes down when they get a big car and a gold and diamond watch”.  And it’s not just the footballers – for the owners of many clubs it all seems to be about money.  The leading clubs have it and do all they can to prevent poorer clubs getting a bigger share, and smaller clubs chase it – sometimes putting their entire existence at risk.   

But perhaps sport simply reflects the society in which it exists.  The last few years seems to have been characterised by scandals resulting from dubious behaviours by those involved.  Most recently it’s been Barclays Bank and the fixing of LIBOR but there are numerous others: MP’s expenses (and prior to that cash for questions), NoTW ‘phone hacking, Financial Services mis-selling of PPI and other products.  Examples aren’t difficult to find. 

Moral standards have been declining for some time.  As a Society we’ve slowly allowed our expectations (of ourselves and others) to fall and the result is that we’ve lost the clarity that previous generations had about what’s acceptable and unacceptable.  We’ve created an environment in which self-interest thrives without appropriate checks to prevent excesses.  And so some push the boundary beyond what many feel is acceptable.   

Returning to the Olympics, my view is that the games were so popular specifically because the athletes behaviour was a reminder of how society used to be, and how we’d like it to be again.  And this surely provides a huge opportunity for companies in the UK to adopt these values and behaviours and make them part of their culture and their brand.  The window of opportunity may be limited, but companies who are able to do just that may be the success stories of the next decade.....

 LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

10 Questions to identify how important customers are in your company

Apple, Amazon, USAA, Virgin Atlantic, Zappos, Southwest Airlines, John Lewis,  – great companies whose success is built on how they have established enduring, mutually beneficial relationships with customers.

How close is your company to their standards?  Answering a few simple questions might provide some clues:

1.       What gets talked about most in your company?  Is it customers?  Or is it sales, profit, costs or something else?

2.        Is your company primarily focused on selling to new customers or deepening and extend the relationship with existing ones?

3.       Does the governance process include impact on customers as one of its key assessment criteria?  When decisions are communicated internally is it explained how impact on customers was taken into consideration?

4.       Ignoring the reasons why policies and procedures have evolved as they have, if you were starting afresh and wanted to make it easy for customers to do business with you, would you design them differently?

5.       Are your policies and procedures designed to block / prevent the activity of the small number of dishonest customers or the majority who don’t?

6.       Are customers involved in the design of policies and / or procedures before they are launched?

7.       Does your company constantly seek customer feedback?  And then does it receive it graciously and use it to change the way things get done?

8.       If a customer complains, how are they viewed?  What is the primary aim of the complaints process?

9.       If a business area is a reflection of its leader(s), do leaders in your company think they ‘know better’ than customers?

10.   If you were a customer or your company (and if you’re not, why not?), would you trust and want to do business with it?

How does your company stack up?

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

5 ways employees unconsciously communicate shortcomings in customer focus

What do your employees unwittingly communicate to to customers about how important they are to the company?
Despite the focus on customer service, customer experience and more recently customer engagement, the following examples of employee behaviours are still common - and of course impact how customers feel about the company.

It's Too Much Trouble

I was out shopping for chocolate at the weekend. Needing gifts for 27 people I went into an extremely well known chocolate retailer and explained what I wanted. I expected to be treated as a valuable customer - instead what she assistant said was "I don't know whether I can let you have that many. I'll have to go and look in the stockroom to check we have enough." And then she disappeared behind the scenes, returning a few minutes later with all that I'd asked for. We completed the transaction, valued at £150, but not once did she thank me for my business.
Reading between the lines, what I heard in her words was: "Oh no, now I've got to go and look in the stockroom. How inconvenient, why couldn't you just have a box or two like every other customer."

I suspect that's not what Head Office would have wanted her to communicate.

The Task I'm Doing is More Important Than You

In the village where I live there are two reasonably sized convenience stores. In one, whenever the queue at the tills goes down the assistants emerge from behind the counter to restock shelves, tidy, sweep and keep the store well presented. But when the queue grows again they're much slower to jump back on the tills and often the remaining assistant has to ask for help two or three times before it happens - whilst customers look on.

When they do it what it says to me is: "Tasks around the shop are more important than you - so wait until we're ready to serve you."

Excuse Me, I'm Talking!

The folks who work in the other store in my village seem to really get on well. They never stop talking. No really, they just don't stop! What they watched on TV last night, where they're going tonight, what they think about the weather. Anything goes really, just as long as customers don't interrupt their conversation. I'm regularly served around their conversation without a word being said to me, and sometimes even with no eye contact.

What I imagine them saying behind the scenes about customers: "We enjoy working here. It'd be even better if we weren't always being interrupted by customers."

It's Not My Job


I rang my mortgage provider last week. I was expecting to get straight through to the Contact Centre but evidently got an incorrect extension and spoke to someone in some sort of support area. After he'd asked me what number I rang he said that I'd come through to an incorrect number and that he couldn't help. He then asked me to call a different number. When I asked him to get someone to ring me instead he reluctantly took my number and said he'd pass it on.

What he really meant was: "My job's not to serve customers. Don't you realise I have more important things to do?"

Can You Call Back?

I recently called a company to check on the progress of an order I'd placed for some printing. The guy I'd spoken to when making the order was great, and so I asked specifically for him again. His colleague asked me to call back later as he was out at lunch. Instead I asked if he could take a message and get him to call me back. Given his initial silence, followed by a further long wait whilst he got a pen and paper he said he'd try to get him to call me that afternoon. It didn't fill me with confidence!

What I understood from his reaction was: "We don't take messages and promise to call customers back. It's better not to promise it because it probably won't happen."

Leaders in every business would I'm sure say that these are isolated incidents, and down to just one or two rogue employees. But do they really know whether that's the case? Are they measuring the experience customers get? And whether they are or not, what does it say about the emphasis on customers in the company when these things are allowed to go unchecked?

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019