Tag Archives: #Content in Context

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.

 

#SoundCloud app update fails Product Management 101

Posted on by
Reply

The Golden Rule of Product Management is ‘under-promise and over-deliver’ (otherwise known as ‘managing expectations’). If anyone needs a case study on how NOT to release a new app upgrade, SoundCloud is proving to be a rich source of material…..

Background image via SoundCloud - post-production editing by the author

Background image via SoundCloud – post-production editing by the author

Last week, SoundCloud broke the Golden Rule by releasing a new version of its iOS phone app before it was finished. It did so without telling its customers in advance – not even the paying subscribers. Only after a considerable backlash on Twitter and Facebook (and a growing number of 1-star ratings in the iTunes Store) did the company start addressing customer complaints, via a rather anodyne blog. Based upon user comments, this response has failed to placate subscribers. While SoundCloud admitted that the shiny new release was not the final product, it was unable to give any indication when the rollout will be completed.

For the uninitiated*, SoundCloud is to audio what YouTube is to video. It allows customers to upload audio files that can then be shared with and downloaded by the community of users. It is entirely powered by user defined content:

  • content created and uploaded by content creators, and
  • content curated by users (via re-posts, playlists and social media interaction).

Audio content takes the form of:

  • music, mixtapes, podcasts, radio programmes and spoken word contributions.

Social media content takes the form of:

  • likes, feedback comments, and data on the number of plays, likes, downloads, followers and re-posts.

Many content creators are Pro Users, who pay upwards of $70 a year for the privilege. In return, they get a platform for hosting and distributing their content, and access to a global community of listeners. However, unlike other music streaming services such as Spotify and Pandora, SoundCloud does not charge listeners (yet), nor does it carry 3rd party advertising or sponsored content (yet).

Although SoundCloud has been highly successful (thereby contributing to the decline of MySpace?), it faces a range of competitors – from Twitter Music and Bandcamp to Mixcloud and 8tracks (as well as the aforementioned subscription streaming services).

In recent months, there has been some industry speculation about SoundCloud’s next business move, mostly in relation to increased monetization. There has also been some commentary about copyright infringement, a new cookie policy, and access to SoundCloud’s back-end data by major record labels. Leaving aside the usual conspiracy theories (Big Brother is listening in on you), future commercial relationships with major labels could mean that record companies with more marketing budget than talent may be given preferred access to listeners’ accounts and activity, in order to promote the next generation of Lady Gaga wannabes. And this prospect has no doubt contributed to some concerns among the user community, especially content creators that fuel SoundCloud’s platform.

From the start, SoundCloud has done a couple of things really well (in addition to the widgets for embedding sound files in 3rd party websites, and a few other technical tools): first, it has made it easier to discover new music; and second, it has enabled thousands of independent and unknown musicians to get some public exposure. The mobile app has now seriously compromised both of these features, because a lot of the existing functionality has been removed or suppressed pending the ‘full’ release (admittedly, these functions are still supported on the desktop version).

In short, the new app release has created the impression that SoundCloud is focussing on listeners (rather than content creators) and plans to make it much easier for major labels to connect with consumers, thereby squeezing out the independent musicians, producers and labels who have helped to make SoundCloud successful in the first place.

*FOOTNOTE: Declaration of interest – I maintain a Pro User subscription to SoundCloud under my nom de musique.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT: Credit is due to ‘Do Androids Dance?’ (itself a beneficiary of the SoundCloud user community) for continuing to cover this developing story

Let It Bleed: Expert Advice for Building Your Dream #Startup Team

Posted on by
Reply

Building a perfect team while also building a business can make or break any startup venture. Thanks to Startup Victoria, a panel of startup experts came together at last week’s gathering of Lean Startup Melbourne (with generous support from BlueChilli, General Assembly, The X Gene and hosts inspire9) to share their wisdom and insights.

To kick-off, Didier Elzinga, founder and CEO of Culture Amp gave a lightning talk on the theme of why culture eats strategy for lunch (a phrase often attributed to Peter Drucker). In a startup environment, culture is a key asset (especially in the beginning when you might not have much else…) so it’s not something you can easily pivot – in fact, culture is the fulcrum around which the business creates momentum. Most of us understand that our brand is our promise, but we often overlook that our culture is how we deliver it:

“Culture is what you are willing to bleed for, so who are you willing to bleed with?”

Didier then joined fellow panelists Tim Webster, formerly of Uber and now with Kllective, and David Hobson from Elance-oDesk to discuss how to build a successful startup team:

First, the team needs to feel a sense of connectivity, regardless of their workplace logistics. That means having opportunities to get together in person, and not just on conference and video calls. It will also be easier to establish and maintain a positive working environment among remote teams if the organisational intent is clearly stated from the start, backed by relationship building and appropriate communication tools.

Second, hire people for their core skills (hacker, hustler, hipster…) but only if they are also willing to learn, grow and evolve. It’s also essential to hire people in market. Use behavioural interview techniques to help identify the right people – whatever the role. Candidates are less likely to tell you what they think you want to hear; and it’s easier to explore how candidates got from one job to another (not so much what roles they have held).

Third, although you can outsource your IT, accounting, legals, HR etc., don’t outsource your culture. Getting the right fit of people to match what your culture needs is paramount. Set out the issues that aren’t negotiable or that you won’t argue about – but keep realigning with your culture to mitigate the risk of monoculture.

Fourth, focus on the end game – but don’t overlook the need/opportunity to seek new revenue streams. This diversification can be challenging for founders, but if channelled appropriately can result in ‘creative dissent’.

Finally, brand and culture are what customers think about when they hear a company’s name. So, this may require a balance between individual goals, and team and organisational outcomes.

 

Oxygen Ventures brings some fresh air to Australia’s #Startup Community

Posted on by
1

Last week, Larry Kestelman’s new investment vehicle, Oxygen Ventures gave 5 local startups the opportunity to bid for a share of A$5 million in funding at the inaugural Big Pitch night in Melbourne (#thebigpitchAUS).

item_034_s

The Judges at the Big Pitch

 

The #Startup Contenders

Drawn from over 300 applicants, the hopeful candidates (in alphabetical order) were:

Bluesky  Shopping portal for leading fashion and lifestyle brands.

ECAL On-line event and brand marketing calendar launched by E-DIARY.

etaskr Enterprise productivity solution that allows employees to ‘bid’ for in-house projects based on their expertise.

KartSim New go-kart game for PCs, from developer Black Delta.

WeTeachMe Booking platform for short-courses and special interest classes.

After each contestant made a short presentation, they were questioned by a panel of judges, comprising CEOs, entrepreneurs, corporate advisers and business development experts from a range of well-known organizations. Most of the questions related to the startups’ revenue projections, funding requirements and growth opportunities – but some were grilled in more detail about their business models and financial performance to date.

How did the participants fare on the night?

The Joint Winners were ECAL and WeTeachMe – with the People’s Choice Award (based on audience votes) going to KartSim.

My sense is that ECAL came out on top (with A$2.5m of funding) on account of their early success in signing up a number of high-profile sporting franchises in the USA and Australia, demonstrating their growth potential – otherwise with 1 million users, but only $440,000 in revenues, you’d have to think the business model would struggle.

WeTeachMe was successful in attracting A$2m in funding because the business model is simple, it falls into the growth category of lifelong learning, and the platform had already achieved significant productivity gains for its commercial clients. Plus it has the potential to scale up and go international.

With KartSim, I admit I have no interest in computer games, but it would seem to me that with a headful of (virtual) Steam behind it, the developers might be better off tapping into crowdfunding opportunities, as the early interest suggests ready and eager buyers out there, enabling a successful commercial launch without giving up any of the equity.

Feedback from the panel on Bluesky suggested that despite offering a ‘one-stop-shop’ for consumers, the margins generated from the sales commission model would be insufficient to cover fulfilment costs (so it would only ever be a transactional purchasing platform); nor would the retailer aggregation model ever be allowed to encroach on brand or retailer loyalty schemes, thereby limiting the options to develop added-value services for customers.

As for etaskr (which I have featured before), it is still one of the few B2B startups that I have seen, which may make it appear less attractive to potential investors, since there seems to be some wariness around anything that is not consumer-focussed, or that does not play in a 2-sided market. Personally, I think this type of productivity tool is just the sort of tech startup that we need as it taps into the technological, organisational and demographic changes facing the modern workplace, and current attitudes towards job structures, collaboration and employee engagement and retention.

Footnote: What is ‘Disruptive’?


Interestingly, one of the Big Pitch sponsors was Uber (current darling of the startup community – if not of taxi drivers) which has been making presentations around town on what it takes to market a disruptive startup.

For me, there are three key attributes to a #disruptive startup:

  • Technology
  • Business model
  • Market engagement

A business like Uber ticks all three boxes – its proprietary technology comes in the form of the algorithms that track things like customer usage and vehicle capacity (not so much the apps which are similar to other peer-to-peer and #sharedeconomy solutions); the business model is rather like a network of city franchises (a common global platform with local autonomy); and the disruptive market entry strategy is designed to by-pass highly regulated industry structures – although Uber also likes to stress that it is working with taxi regulators.

Of the five startups that competed at the Big Pitch, only etaskr brings an element of disruption, because it is using a technology solution to challenge traditional notions of what a job is, and allows companies to tap into in-house resources that they might not otherwise be aware of. KartSim has some proprietary programming, but at the end of the day is just another computer game. WeTeachMe and Bluesky are trying to bring operational efficiencies to disparate markets, but they are both broker-aggregators, and don’t appear to have proprietary technology or unique business models. And ECAL is a neat content management solution to a problem that companies have been aiming to solve in other sectors – such as travel, education and health services – although it is not trying to break the existing market nexus between suppliers and customers.

But full marks to Oxygen Ventures, its partners, sponsors and the participants themselves for bringing a fresh perspective to the startup pitch night experience.