Category Archives: Customer Service

Joining Australia Post’s “National Conversation”

Posted on by
1

In a previous blog, I offered some thoughts on the possible digital future for AusPost. In response, I have been contacted by one of their social media consultants, drawing my attention to the “National Conversation“.

First, I acknowledge that AusPost is attempting to have an “open” conversation with customers, but I don’t see how this is really helping, other than generating a range of (conflicting) opinions, with little cohesion around the key issues. Participation rates in the Topics to date has been very erratic (in terms of numbers, and geographic distribution).

Second, I have read CEO Ahmed Fahour’s latest address, and frankly it did not inspire me. Basically, it was a whinge about the decline in letter volume, and the “challenges” of the Internet (which, as he says, has been with us for 25 years…. hardly a new event!) I also think there are some factual inaccuracies in Mr Fahour’s assumptions: I don’t believe that Australians are any less digital citizens than their OECD counterparts – they have always been reasonably early adopters of new technology (as evidenced by the number of smart phones and tablets). Where they have been slow is in moving to online services, but this is in large part due to poor Internet services (notoriously slow connection speeds and restricted bandwidth, and exorbitant access fees), coupled with a paucity of reliable online platforms – which is ironic given the push towards eGovernment, eCommerce and the digital economy around 1999-2001.

Third, and staying on the topic of eCommerce, the one recurring theme that does emerge from the National Conversation so far is the high cost of sending small parcels. I agree with some of the feedback that it is often cheaper (and quicker!) to order consumer items from overseas online retailers. Shouldn’t Australian consumers expect to benefit from the economies of scale to be achieved from a growing parcel business?

Finally, my previous blog suggested that digital transactions are the future for AusPost (while acknowledging the need to maintain its statutory obligations for letter delivery) – but apart from e-mail and bill payments, Mr Fahour’s address was rather silent on this point. That scares me, as it suggests a lack of vision for an integrated digital strategy. After almost 5 years in the job, you’d think a few more ideas would have emerged by now.

(Afterthought: maybe AusPost should check out what Shomi is doing – a local start-up with some smarts in linking the physical and digital worlds.)

Stripe’s John Collison: “Better to be #disruptive than incumbent”

Posted on by
Reply

In a Melbourne fireside chat with Paul Bassat (hosted by NAB and Startup Victoria) Stripe‘s co-founder and President, John Collison offered the insight that “it’s better to be disruptive than incumbent”.

Incumbency comes with all the baggage of legacy data, semi-redundant systems, siloed business operations, and customers with long memories.

Whereas, a nimble and agile startup like Stripe can cut out inefficient and lazy business processes – especially in areas like online and mobile payment systems. And in doing so, a disruptive service can make us think, “how did we ever manage before this was invented?”

Collison was careful, though, to point out that Stripe is working with the banks, not against them, in case anyone thought his company has designs on becoming a fully fledged financial institution. “We simply want to make the payments business more efficient.”

Stripe’s approach is to leverage engineering skills and solutions “to fix first world and middle class problems”. Precisely so – why would you want to undermine the system (payments and transfers between banks and their customers) that gives rise to your very existence?

Collison also reflected that never before has it been possible for such a small number of people to create such enormous value, very quickly – citing the fact that WhatsApp had a mere 55 employees when it was acquired by Facebook earlier this year for $19bn. (Stripe itself, founded in 2010, had about 100 employees when it was valued at $1.75bn around the same time.)

While WhatsApp does not yet generate revenue, its valuation as a disruptive IM platform is largely based on a notional value per user, and what that may represent in terms of data from customer analytics or premium pricing for add-on services.

But you don’t even need to be a startup business to disrupt an existing market, as the music industry continues to discover to its cost – you simply need to be part of the demographic that is used to “free” stuff, has no real concept or appreciation for IP, refuses to pay for anything on the internet, and develops brand loyalty based on likes, shares and number of views. Even Stripe would be out of business if everyone switched to peer-to-peer money transfers without wanting to pay commissions or transaction fees.

 

 

 

 

Why is Customer Service still the Achilles’ heel for the Service Industry?

Posted on by
3

Recent experience has reinforced my deeply held belief that for many service providers, enhancing the customer experience is the last thing on their mind. But when customer service is possibly the one true competitive advantage you can have, why do so many service providers perform so badly when dealing with their own customers?

We know that competing on price alone can be a race to the bottom where nobody wins, and everyone loses. Competing on technology only gets you so far, especially as we operate in an increasingly open-source environment. And first-mover advantage is not always an option, unless you can quickly recoup the higher investment it takes to be a market leader from Day 1.

I also find it increasingly infuriating that nearly every service provider claims to be poring over their customer feedback, yet their service levels rarely improve. Not only are customers expected to be brand advocates (via social media, word-of-mouth marketing, testimonials, etc.), they are also expected to provide training material for the customer service department (see “Some gratuitous advice for customer service managers – 7 handy hints”).

Last week I had to visit the retail outlet of a major service provider in the communications sector. When I tried to explain how frustrating it is as a customer to discover that the company’s website has different information to what I was being given in-store, I got the following responses:

  • The website is nothing to do with in-store service, and is only there for information
  • It doesn’t matter what’s on the public website, counter staff can only go by the information displayed on their in-house computer terminal
  • If I wanted to pursue the matter, I would have to make a complaint (by phone, or on-line – not in-store)
  • If I was unhappy, I could cancel my purchase and get my money back (and presumably take my custom elsewhere?)

Not one to give in easily, I submitted a detailed complaint on-line. A few days later, I received a call from someone who said she represented the “On-line Support” team. She simply reiterated that the public website was only there “for guidance”, and that the on-line content was managed by a different department. The most accurate information could only be provided at the in-store point of sale. The representative also said she would e-mail the web team, but could not guarantee a response as “they don’t communicate with us” – and this is a major communications business!  (Not surprisingly, the person I spoke to could not appreciate the irony in this.)

Banks, utilities, insurance firms, telcos and government departments are regularly criticised for their poor quality of customer service – from their billing systems, to their habit of building their external service delivery around internal business silos – so it’s somewhat encouraging to learn that one local bank is attempting to address this by providing one customer contact person from start to finish. We can only hope that the idea of consistency and continuity of service will catch on.