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