Customer Experience EXECUTIVE REPORT ON THE OMNI-CHANNEL CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE. By Brian Cantor

Transcription

1 Customer Experience EXECUTIVE REPORT ON THE OMNI-CHANNEL CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE By Brian Cantor

2 Customer Experience Contents Channel Engagement Strategy: The Game Has Changed... 2 Contributors... 3 Multi-Channel Even Losing Races Can Be Challenging... 4 SPECIAL BRIEFING: To Serve is to Provide...13 Channel Engagement Strategy: The Game Has Changed Omni-Channel: Defining a Revolution Omni-Channel: Matters of Preference Omni-Channel: Connecting the Dots Omni-Channel: People Serving People...32 Omni-Channel: Are Solutions the Solution?...35 Omni-Channel: You Say You Want a Revolution, But Do You Want to Make One? The disparity between mindset and execution rears its head in all realms of contact center strategy. It explains why organizations can recognize the efficiency and scalability of cloud solutions but still primarily rely upon on-premise infrastructure. It explains why organizations can tout customer-facing metrics like CSAT score, Net Promoter Score and Customer Effort Score as true barometers of performance yet continue to perform as if average handle time and average speed of answer are the bigger priorities. It explains why organizations can publicly aspire to be like Zappos but continue to overlook opportunities to improve culture and drive greater employee engagement. More than merely applicable to channel engagement strategy, the seemingly inescapable gap between thinking and doing serves to uniquely complicate the matter for those businesses aiming to stay ahead of the curve and on the pulse of customer demand. Per Call Center IQ s annual survey on channel strategy, only 4% of organizations believe becoming an omni-channel business is an improper, misguided or unnecessary objective. The other 96%--an overwhelming majority accepts omni-channel as the appropriate ambition, if not standard, for today s businesses. Whether the customer engagement hub is known as a call center, contact center or interaction center, today s businesses believe it must be an omni-channel one. Unfortunately, many of those businesses find themselves grappling with the preceding and less aspirational requirements of a multichannel world. Still working to introduce a substantive myriad of web- and mobile-driven channels, let alone with the same robustness and agility as media like telephony and , businesses are essentially struggling to catch up to an idea that is already dramatically behind the times. Insofar as 96% aim to become omni-channel, today s businesses do not simply need to offer comprehensive, customer-centric levels of engagement in numerous channels. They need to do so in a manner that creates a unified, consistent, seamless experience for customers who define their preferences and engagement efforts not necessarily by channel but by objective. If their action has not even risen to the ambition of the lesser, simpler approach to channel engagement strategy, can businesses realistically attain the standard created by the omni-channel revolution? If they are barely at the back of the multichannel line, how can they possibly jump to the front of the omni-channel one? The task is not easy. The solution is not obvious. Businesses will not be able to plug in a system, press the on switch and rapidly transform into an omni-channel organization. Businesses unable to call themselves multi-channel in the status quo will not be able to dismiss all of their existing limitations when pursuing the newer, revolutionized standard. But they can successfully pursue that standard. This report, which draws upon insights from Call Center IQ s annual study and expertise from seven experts with diverse backgrounds and varying ideologies, uncovers a course of action that will allow businesses to not only patch the holes in their multi-channel template but redraw the lines of their business to meet the demands of the omni-channel marketplace and the omni-channel customer. callcenter-iq.com 2

3 Customer Experience Contributors Mike McShea Contact Solutions Richard Dumas Five9 John Cray Enghouse Interactive Lonnie Mayne InMoment Henry Eakland HP Autonomy Ted Bray Virtual Hold Technology Ryan Hollenbeck Verint callcenter-iq.com 3

4 Methodology and Demographics In July and August of 2014, Call Center IQ conducted this research with collaboration from an audience of customer service, customer experience and contact center professionals. Representing buy-side organizations, vendor organizations and independent consultancies, respondents contributed insights via a web survey and/or targeted, one-on-one interviews. Requests to participate were issued irrespective of company size, call center size or region, assuring that the sample represented a global customer management audience. Participation did, however, skew slightly in favor of large organizations. 33% of respondent organizations employ at least 5,000 individuals. A total of 57% tout workforces in excess of 500 employees. Only 24% of the surveyed organizations operate with less than 100 names on their payrolls. That the majority of participants represent large enterprises did not, however, notably skew the data in favor of large contact centers and/ or customer service functions. While 36% of businesses operate with more than 250 agents, 21% do so with less than 10. Example respondent job titles included Executive Vice President, Corporate Strategy, Customer Contact Center Manager, Head of Customer Service, Director, Customer Care, Vice President, Sales, VP, Client Solutions, Senior Vice President, Call Center Operations, Operations Director, Director of Support, Director of IT, Vice President of Business Development, Director, Customer Care, Head of Digital Customer Service, Senior Vice President, Service Center Operations, Customer Advocacy Manager, Vice President, Customer Experience and Customer Success Manager. Representing a skew in favor of business leadership, 51% of respondents identify as either directors, vice presidents or C-level executives. A staggering 88% of respondents are at least labeled managers within their organizations. An additional 7% are analysts, while the remaining 5% identify themselves as either team members or administrative personnel. Multi-Channel Even Losing Races Can Be Challenging To professionals with their sights set on a seamless, consistent omni-channel customer experience, including those experts interviewed for this report, multi-channel is child s play. It is a relic of the antiquated perspective that internal factors within the business not the demands of the external customer base should drive contact center strategy. If a business is customer-centric, these professionals would argue, it is focusing not simply on where it offers customer service but how it builds an entire customer engagement framework to support the needs, expectations and desires of today s marketplace. But to the majority of organizations, even multichannel represents a concept of ambitious progression rather than constricting regression. Given a host of potential definitions, respondents most commonly selected allow a customer to connect in his preferred channel at all times as the proper multi-channel conception. Supported by 44% of respondents, that multi-channel definition commanded nearly three times more affirmation than any alternative. callcenter-iq.com 4

5 Allow a customer to simultaneously communicate via multiple channels and Allow a customer to connect in more than one channel at all times, the next two most popular definitions, best represent the multi-channel concept for 17% and 15% of businesses, respectively. At its linguistic core, multi-channel reflects maintaining a presence in more than one channel. That businesses are adhering to loftier standards speaks favorably to their customer management mindsets. Unfortunately, embracing an aspirational conception of multi-channel is meaningless if the business does not establish and execute a strategy for realizing that vision. Collectively, the aforementioned three definitions reflect how more than threequarters of businesses approach multi-channel. For one to successfully claim that action has met idea and that the marketplace actualized the rhetoric of the multi-channel movement he would have to prove that three-quarters of businesses are consistently operating in accordance with at least one of those definitions. They are not. Only 44% of businesses believe their operations align with one of the aforementioned definitions. Only 7%, moreover, say their existing strategy allows a customer to connect in his preferred channel at all times, which is the most popular conception of multi-channel. Businesses are aware of the multi-channel concept. They believe it involves more than simply introducing a second or third channel within which they can sometimes engage with customers. They recognize that it is a concept driven as much by customer demand as it is by organizational convenience. The awareness and philosophical acceptance of a particular multi-channel conception has not, however, produced universal and successful execution of that idea. By virtue of their inability to create a successful multi-channel experience, businesses find themselves revering a dated, antiquated practice as a point of strategic aspiration. That, naturally, puts them at a significant disadvantage when it comes to adopting the more ambitious and comprehensive omnichannel approach to customer engagement. Q1 What is the most accurate definition of multi-channel? 14.6% Allow a customer to connect in more than one channel at all times 13.4% Allow a customer to connect in more than one channel during regular business hours 43.9% Allow a customer to connect in *his/ her* preferred channel at all times 2.4% Allow a customer to connect in *his/her* preferred channel during regular business hours 6.1% Allow a customer to connect in channels preferred by the majority of customers at all times 1.2% Allow a customer to connect in channels preferred by the majority of customers during regular business hours 17.1% Allow a customer to simultaneously communicate via multiple channels callcenter-iq.com 5

6 Q2 Which definition best describes your organization s current approach to multi-channel? 7.3% We are not currently a multichannel business 24.4% Allow a customer to connect in more than one channel at all times 29.3% Allow a customer to connect in more than one channel during regular business hours 7.3% Allow a customer to connect in *his* preferred channel at all times 4.9% Allow a customer to connect in *his* preferred channel during regular business hours 4.9% Allow a customer to connect in channels preferred by the majority of customers at all times 12.2% Allow a customer to connect in channels preferred by the majority of customers during regular business hours 6.1% Allow a customer to simultaneously communicate via multiple channels Calling all Channels To meet even the most basic standard of multi-channel, businesses need to offer communication opportunities in more than one channel. To meet a standard that requires them to satisfy customers in their preferred media, let alone consistently do so at all times, businesses need to commit meaningfully to those channels. As a baseline, to provide a good customer experience, you should be able to give the customer whatever they want in whatever channel they want, declares Contact Solutions McShea. While actions like launching a Facebook page and installing a live chat application technically bring a business into multiple channels and thus give it the linguistic right to claim existence as a multi-channel provider, they do not inherently assure the business will function as one. Establishing a presence in a channel and creating platforms for legitimate customer engagement are two vastly different things. With respect to that distinction, it is important to consider not only the channels in which businesses exist but the nature of their existence within each channel. If an organization addresses numerous types of customer inquiries within a given channel, it is unmistakably rendering that channel more capable of accommodating customer demand. If an organization arms a channel with dedicated resources, budgetary allotment and staff, it is undeniably creating a more robust platform for customer engagement. If it actively monitors performance in that channel, it is irrefutably giving it a more fundamental role within the overall customer engagement strategy. By declaring that they are not adhering to the most popular definition of multi-channel, today s businesses revealed that they have not met the previous standard for channel engagement strategy. But it is not until exploring exactly how they are approaching the multi-channel question that the marketplace can best understand why they feel disconnected from that standard and what they must do to move out from behind the multi-channel curve and get ahead of the omni-channel one. callcenter-iq.com 6

7 Channel Offerings: Where Businesses Connect The customer engagement hub might be widely known as a call center, but for today s businesses, it is most popularly a platform for engagement. A whopping 96% of businesses confirm that they connect with customers via . A lesser, but still extremely significant, 94% say the same of engagement with a live telephone agent. Not simply the most commonly offered channel, is also the most accommodating. 44% of businesses confirm that they handle customer service, marketing and sales requests via . The same is true for the website/faq channel in 36% of cases, of the live telephone channel in only 32% of businesses and the in-person/onsite interaction forum in just 27% of them. Used specifically for customer service by 34% of businesses, rarely functions specifically for marketing or sales purposes. No respondents said they are using exclusively for marketing, and only 4% of businesses rely on it solely for sales. A more notable 12%, however, rely on to tackle a hybrid of support and sales inquiries. When it comes to channels specifically geared towards customer support, the telephone IVR system is the most popular choice. Relied upon by only 16% of businesses for the full suite of inquiries, 4% of businesses for exclusively sales inquiries and no businesses for mere marketing endeavors, IVR is used exclusively for customer service by 44% of organizations. Ultimately, 81% of organizations rely on IVR to communicate with customers. Due to the greater flexibility provided by a human agent, live phone support plays a more diverse role within businesses. It functions exclusively as a customer service center in 30% of businesses but represents a hybrid sales and support channel in an equal 30% of businesses. 32% use it for the complete combination of marketing, sales and service. While their application is not as versatile and varied as it is for phone and , several other channels represent engagement platforms for the majority of businesses. 88% of businesses an overwhelming majority depend on corporate websites and FAQ sections to communicate with customers. Primarily viewed as a customer service channel, it is used exclusively for that purpose by 36% of businesses. An equivalent percentage uses it for the combination of service, marketing and sales. A communication option for 80% of businesses, the Facebook social network also represents a particularly attractive engagement avenue. Used exclusively for marketing by 20% of businesses, Facebook is proving itself to be an increasingly popular channel for all forms of customer interaction. 17% of businesses use it for the combination of marketing, sales and support while 19% harness its power specifically for customer service tasks. It might not receive the same commitment as the phone and channels, but it is definitely one of broad relevance to businesses. Reflective of dramatically growing support for social media, Twitter rises above the 50% utilization threshold for the first time ever in a Call Center IQ research study. An impressive 76% of businesses connect with customers via Twitter. While Twitter, like Facebook, is a popular marketing channel, it is actually most commonly used by the customer service function. 21% of businesses use Twitter exclusively to support customers; 18% do so exclusively to market their businesses or to engage in an allencompassing flavor of communication. Other engagement channels operated by the majority of businesses include web self-service (76%), in-person/on-site service (67%), YouTube (61%), mobile self-service (59%), Live Chat (57%), LinkedIn (57%) and Text/SMS (55%). Channels struggling to gain prominence include mobile app interaction (35%), Google Plus (31%), virtual agents (27%), video chat (21%), Tumblr (16%). callcenter-iq.com 7

8 Q3 In which channels do you engage with customers? No Yes - for Marketing Yes - Marketing & Sales Yes - for Customer Service Yes - Service & Sales Yes - All Yes - for Sales Yes - Service & Marketing Telephone - live agent Telephone - IVR Live chat (web) Live chat (mobile app/ website) Video chat Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Google Plus YouTube Tumblr Other Social Network Web self-service Mobile self-service Text/SMS Text for call back Click for call back In-person/on-site Virtual agents callcenter-iq.com 8

9 Channel Offerings: Who Facilitates the Connection? Media like , web pages and telephony often accommodate all or at least multiple- -forms of communication between a business and its customers. No longer relegated to marketing causes, social networks like Facebook and Twitter are demonstrating increased versatility and thus increased application in customer service environments. As the multi-channel concept continues to establish footing in businesses, channels are coming to serve the more holistic purpose of engagement rather than a particular type of engagement within businesses. The growing universality of channel function does not, however, remove those channels from the organizational silos to which they have historically belonged. 71% of respondents, for instance, say that their customer service department owns the live telephony channel. An additional 13% leave the keys to that channel with the operations department. Even though the call center is being portrayed as a more multi-dimensional engagement center, it remains very much rooted in the traditional customer service and operations wings. IVR ownership is also rooted most notably in customer service (58%) and and operations (12%). Due to its technological nature, however, it also finds itself controlled by the IT function in 9% of businesses. While no businesses claim to use exclusively for marketing, 13% say the marketing function owns the function. That total, however, pales in comparison to the 57% ownership rate for the customer service function. 11% of businesses allow IT to guide the effort. Like telephony and support, ownership of social media is also determined by traditional party lines. Channels like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn, Google Plus and Tumblr most often belong to the marketing function. The owner in 33% of businesses, marketing is also the most prominent party behind web/faq strategy. Save for its 19% frequency of ownership when it comes to in-person/on-site interactions, the sales or business development team rarely dictates channel strategy. While IT plays a role in guiding web, and self-service strategy, it is not the most common owner for any communication type. The C-level, operations and human resources functions also assume uncommon leadership preferences within the realm of channel strategy. Channel Offerings: Where Businesses Should Connect Before a business can focus on optimizing and integrating its contact channels, it must select the channels in which to focus its efforts. While a totalitarian approach to customer centricity requires that the business operate in virtually all channels if it promises to serve a customer on his preferred terms, then it must be able to account for the terms of every individual customer a pragmatic one allows for businesses to operate with respect to costs and benefits. Once a business does deem a channel valuable, however, it must commit itself to offering an efficient, effective suite of engagement options within that channel. If not, it is guilty of the same idea-action disparity that undermines so many potentially valuable customer management strategies. To identify any such disparities, the Call Center IQ study asked respondents to reveal the channels in which they feel they should be operating. If organizations make no attempt to actively engage within all of those channels, they are failing no matter which definition of multi-channel they embrace. They are failing. While the range of channels in use is the largest ever reported in a Call Center IQ survey, it still pales in comparison to the range businesses claim they should be using. Not one of the twenty one channels presented to respondents was deemed unimportant by a majority and only one (Tumblr) was deemed unimportant by more than 35%--but a handful are not actually being utilized by a majority of businesses. Save for , no channel, meanwhile, is being used by every organization that feels it should be using the channel. callcenter-iq.com 9

10 Phone (live agent), and web self-service are all deemed important by at least 95% of businesses, but only actually commands that level of utilization. Offered by only 76% of organizations, web self-service is subject to a particularly large gap between its utilization and its perceived importance. At least 90% of businesses believe they should be interacting via FAQ/web pages, mobile selfservice, live chat and IVR, but none represents an active channel for that percentage of businesses. While the 88% utilization rate for FAQ/web pages is close, the 58% support level for live chat and 59% level for mobile self-service trail their accompanying importance ratings by a considerable margin. The virtual agent approach, which by virtue of its 27% utilization rate is a virtual non-factor in today s market place, is deemed valuable by 73% of businesses. Few comparisons so notably demonstrate the disparity between thought process and action. Believing they need to be able to accommodate customer preferences at all times, today s customer-centric businesses naturally know they must be prepared to support a wide array of contact channels at all times. That they are not doing so at least not remotely to the level they believe is necessary provides a pessimistic counter to the optimism generated by the fact that far more channels are being supported this year than last year. Businesses are moving in the right direction, but they are not moving all the way in that direction. They are not, by their very own admission, sufficiently multi-channel. Channel Offerings: Engage Like You Mean It Even when judged against the simplest standard offering some form of customer engagement businesses are not as committed to the myriad of available contact channels as they feel they should be. Participation levels match or exceed value assessment for only one of the twenty one most common platforms for engagement. For as damning as that picture is, it only scratches the surface of the story. Simply allowing for the possibility of engagement in a channel is not the same as committing to it wholeheartedly. Looking simply at the channels offered by businesses, therefore, presents an inflated perspective of the state of multi-channel. While thirteen of the available 21 channels are offered by the majority of businesses, only 9 receive dedicated staff and/or resources from a majority. Particularly victimized by the disparity are the mobile self-service and live chat channels. Offered by 59% and 57% of businesses, the two receive dedicated resources from only 49% and 37%, respectively. Offered by 88% of businesses but only the subject of dedicated focus in 75% of them, the website/faq channel also receives a notably weaker investment level than its prevalence let alone perceived value would seemingly require. The disparity is even greater when it comes to the channels for which businesses measure performance. Only 8 of the 21 channels receive performance management focus from the majority of businesses, and only two receive such attention from more than 75% of businesses. Performance in , one of those channels, is surprisingly measured by only 76% of businesses. Considering that it is now the most popular contact channel with penetration in 96% of organizations, its lack of universal performance focus vividly underscores the extent to which offering a channel is not the same as striving to optimize that channel. Offered by the majority of businesses, channels like FAQ/web sites, live chat and mobile selfservice receive performance management attention from no more than 50% of businesses. Mobile self-service is on the radar for only 38%. Without measuring performance, businesses cannot possibly assure they are optimally satisfying customers within a given channel. They also cannot possibly be sure they are operating the channel with optimal cost efficiency. So whether today s businesses feel motivated by a philosophy of customer centricity or guided by an emphasis on cost containment, they are at risk of greatly bottlenecking or even crippling success. callcenter-iq.com 10

11 Q4 To which channels do you devote dedicated staff and/or resources? No Yes - for Customer Service Yes - for Sales Yes - for Marketing Yes - Service & Sales Yes - Service & Marketing Yes - Marketing & Sales Yes - All Telephone - live agent Telephone - IVR Live chat (web) Live chat (mobile app/ website) Video chat Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Google Plus YouTube Tumblr Other Social Network Web self-service Mobile self-service Text/SMS Text for call back Click for call back In-person/on-site Virtual agents FAQ/web info pages callcenter-iq.com 11

12 Q5 In which channels does your organization measure performance? No Yes - for Customer Service Yes - for Sales Yes - for Marketing Yes - Service & Sales Yes - Service & Marketing Yes - Marketing & Sales Yes - All Telephone - live agent Telephone - IVR Live chat (web) Live chat (mobile app/ website) Video chat Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Google Plus YouTube Tumblr Other Social Network Web self-service Mobile self-service Text/SMS Text for call back Click for call back In-person/on-site Virtual agents FAQ/web info pages callcenter-iq.com 12

13 SPECIAL BRIEFING: To Serve is to Provide The customer experience covers more than the mere way a business retroactively responds to customer inquiries. From pricing strategy, to the quality of product utilization, to sales and marketing development, everything that affects a customer during the course of his engagement with a brand is a component of the customer experience. A business, therefore, should not approach channel engagement specifically through the lens of customer service. Channels must always be introduced and optimized in accordance with how they can optimize the totality of the customer experience. The customer service perspective does, however, paint a very vivid picture about an organization s channel capabilities. Insofar as a multi-channel organization, let alone an omni-channel one, is striving to connect with customers in their preferred channels at all times, it naturally must be able to respond to customer inquiries in each of those channels. Outbound marketing and sales initiatives are absolutely part of the customer experience, but insofar as they can be implemented with their own, pre-selected parameters, they do not speak as notably to an organization s versatility. Customer service, insofar as it at least partially hinges on the demands of the external customer base, is a far better reflection of that agility. It is thus a far better reflection of whether an organization is in position to use a channel for engagement rather than merely for communication. As an auxiliary benefit, it also reveals the extent to which the call center, which is typically perceived as a customer service hub, is transitioning into a contact center. For the call center to warrant a broader term, the boundaries of its engagement must extend beyond calls. Demonstrating a legitimate commitment to customer service via channels like live chat, mobile applications and social media is one of the best way to prove deserving of the contact center label. Service Environment: Where Communication Evolves Viewed through the lens of customer service, the term call center has enduring relevance. A staggering 74% of businesses confirm that live agent telephone support represents a service channel for all forms of customer inquiry. Only 5% of businesses provide absolutely no customer support through telephony. Collectively, both statistics establish the phone channel as the premiere option for corporate customer service. Whether the issue is a quick, transactional one, a deeper, strategic one or anything in between, if it involves customer support, odds are strong that a business is in position to handle it over the phone. At least a partial product of tradition, the organizational preference for telephony does not run counter to customer preference. Customers, even younger customers, actually prefer talking to a live person when they have a problem, explains Virtual Hold s Bray. If they need to do something on their own, they ll use self-service or social, but if they have an actual issue, they want to talk to a live person. Predictable given its prevalence as a communication channel, is also a preferred support channel for businesses. 65% are in position to handle all issues; only 20% say they do not provide any form of customer service through . Several other channels commonly provide some form of customer service, but no others function as all-encompassing support channels for the majority of businesses. IVR, for instance, represents a customer service channel in 80% of businesses but an allencompassing one in only 34%. A significant 27% of businesses prefer to only use IVR to service quick issues. The FAQ/web page avenue represents a customer service channel for 74% of businesses, but a whopping 33%, predictably, use it strictly for outbound information sharing. 23%, callcenter-iq.com 13

14 nonetheless, have found a way to turn their web pages into more robust channels capable of addressing all inquiries. While it cannot handle all issues for a majority of businesses, web self-service is most commonly used in that fashion. 65% of organizations use self-service as a customer support channel, and 28% use it to address all inquiries. No form of customer support is more popular within the web self-service lane. The same goes for in-person/on-site care. Almost all of the 50% of businesses (and 42% of all businesses) that offer an in-person form of customer support position it to handle all forms of customer support. Twitter, which is also a customer service option in 50% of businesses, is not as versatile. According to the survey, 21% of businesses use it specifically for quick issues. 16% use it primarily for outbound information sharing while only 5% approach Twitter as a full-service customer service destination. Channels not commonly used for any form of customer service include mobile self-service, Google Plus, Tumblr, mobile applications (live interactions) and virtual agents. From most to least prominent, they are used as support channels in 39%, 21%, 21%, 18% and 10% of organizations. Q6 To what extent do you use the following channels for service? Not offered Information-sharing only (outbound) Point-of-contact only -- issues then escalated to other channels Service for quick issues, deeper ones routed to other channels Service for deeper issues, quick ones routed to other channels Service for all customer issues Telephone - live agent Telephone - IVR Live chat (web) Live chat (mobile app/ website) Video chat Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Google Plus YouTube Tumblr Other Social Network Web self-service Mobile self-service Text/SMS Text for call back Click for call back In-person/on-site Virtual agents FAQ/web info pages callcenter-iq.com 14

15 Service Environment: The State of Multi-Channel Service Channel availability makes no guarantee of performance. In fact, insofar as a more widely offered channel is subject to a wider array of challenges and a wider pool of feedback, it is possible that it will also be subject to more frequent and harsher customer criticism. While that phenomenon might not affect a channel like telephony, which has been a focus of perfection efforts for decades, it likely does impact newer, yet prominent channels like corporate websites and web self-service. Sure enough, businesses identify the frequently used FAQ/web page channel as their worst performing. On a converted scale of 0-5, with 0 representing completely dissatisfied and 5 representing completely satisfied, the channel scored a mere 2.8. Web self-service, which is also employed by the majority of businesses, scored a similarly low 2.9. It tied other social networks as the second-worst-performing service channel. Other weak performers include Google Plus (3.0) and mobile self-service (3.0). Given its longstanding reign as the primary contact channel, telephony predictably received the highest marks from businesses. Respondents scored performance in the channel at a 4.3/5. In-person/on-site, another traditional channel, also scored well it was the second-highest-rated with a 3.9/5. Other top performers include live chat (3.9/5), video chat (3.8/5) and YouTube (3.8/5). Insofar as neither video chat nor YouTube is widely used for any form of customer service, let alone to handle complex issues, it is clear businesses are content with the limitations they impose on some channels. Video channels play a particularly compelling role in customer service, but businesses are very happy with what they are contributing. Customers are less content. And businesses, interestingly, are very aware of that disparity. In an attempt to identify any inconsistencies between an organization s internal contentedness and performance in the external marketplace, the survey also asked respondents to rate the experience within each channel from the customer s standpoint. While the scores were less glowing, live phone support (4.0) and in-person/on-site (3.8) again ranked as the best-performing channels. Web self-service and FAQ/web pages again ranked as the worst channels (both scored 2.9). YouTube and video chat, however, scored notably lower. Viewed internally as some of the best-performing channels, they were among the worst performers from the customer perspective respondents gave both a score of 3.3/5. While that score does not reflect a terrible performance, it does reflect a notably weaker one. It suggests that the business performance perspective is at least somewhat misaligned with the customer perspective. And insofar as that is true, business decisions about channel involvement are at risk of being corrupted by flawed data. callcenter-iq.com 15

16 Q7 How would you assess your organization s performance in the following channels (converted to 0-5 score)? How would customers grade their experiences when engaging with your business in the following channels (converted to 0-5 score)? Telephone - live agent Telephone - IVR Live chat (web) Live chat (mobile app/ website) Video chat Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Google Plus YouTube Tumblr Other Social Network Web self-service Mobile self-service Text/SMS Text for call back Click for call back In-person/on-site Virtual agents FAQ/web info pages callcenter-iq.com 16

17 Service Environment: Creating Limits Per disparities in performance assessment, it is clear businesses and customers are not perfectly aligned on channel strategy. Businesses might declare a philosophical commitment to customer-centricity, but when it comes to making decisions, they draw from more than the voice of the customer. But if not exclusively customer sentiment, what does dictate channel strategy? Which factors play the greatest role in determining where and how a business communicates across the spectrum of existing contact channels? Businesses say technology and system limitations play the greatest role in determining where a business communicates. That driver scored a 3.4/5 on a scale in which 0 represented not a factor and 5 represented paramount factor. With a score of 3.2, concern over cost also ranked as a top inhibitor. Customer sentiment and behavior were not, however, irrelevant to the consideration process. With a score of 3.1, existing customer behavior ranks as the third-greatest driver of channel strategy. Stated customer demand also possesses relevance with a 3.0/5, it follows concern over staffing and resources (3.1) as the fifth-greatest driver. Indeed, organizations reluctance to commit to web, social and mobile channels the way they do telephony has some footing in actual customer data. There might be a lot of demand for mobile support, for chat support and for social support from the increasingly connected audience that wants to communicate with their brand on their channel of preference, explains Five9 s Dumas. But when you look at some of the numbers a little bit more closely - you see that the expectations for response times on non-voice channels are not as high as they are on voice. And with those reduced expectations comes justification, flawed or not, for reduced focus on performance within those channels. The weakest five drivers include outsourcer/ partner recommendations (1.4/5), consultant recommendations (1.7/5), competitive offerings (2.5/5), tradition (2.7/5) and concern over privacy/liability (2.9/5). Despite its lower overall score, tradition actually plays a paramount role in more organizations than stated customer demand or existing customer behavior do. 24% of businesses ascribe the highest possible level of influence to tradition; only 20% do the same for each customer-centric motivator. One of the bottom five overall drivers, privacy/ liability is a paramount influencer in 28% of businesses. Concern over systems and technology is a top driver in 26%. Q8 What role did the following factors play in determining service levels/offerings within each channel? Not a factor Slight factor Moderate factor Important factor Paramount factor Tradition Lack of familiarity/unsure how to start or measure Cost concerns Staffing/resource concerns Technology/systems concerns Privacy/liability concerns Customers stated demand Existing customer behavior Competitive offerings Consultant recommendations Outsourcer/partner decision/recommendation callcenter-iq.com 17

18 Q9 How do you most notably assess customer demand for engagement in a particular channel? 40.9% Volume of customer inquiries in the channel 11.4% Quality/depth of customer inquiries in the channel 20.5% Customer behavior 20.5% Customer sentiment/feedback/ stated preferences 2.3% Customer demographics/profiles 4.5% Competitive offerings 0.0% Channel popularity Service Environment: Conveying Limits Some will blame it on a lack of customer demand. Others will blame it on cost and resource concerns. Others, still, will cite limitations created by existing systems and technology. And no matter what they say, some have nothing other than laziness or organizational inertia to blame for their failure to introduce a full suite of customer contact channels. Regardless of the reason for limitations on their channel offerings, businesses will, inevitably, interact with customers who are unable to receive service on their precise terms. Whether the channel is not offered (at least at a given time) or not robust enough to meet the customer s needs, it will fail to deliver exactly as requested. When that happens, a business is unequivocally falling short of any so-called commitment to customer centricity. It, through strategic routing and an overall commitment to resolution, might be able to avoid dissatisfying that customer, but it cannot claim it is giving that customer precisely what he wants. Insofar as many businesses recognize their channel strategies are imperfect, they naturally recognize the inevitability of this shortcoming. There will come a time in which they have to tell a customer they cannot meet a precise demand. They will, therefore, have to concede a hole in their customer centric philosophy. Confessing the inability to serve a customer in a given channel, therefore, is more than simply making a statement about an organization s channel offerings. It is acknowledging a gap in the business commitment to the customer. How it communicates that gap is, therefore, an important strategic question in and of itself. For the largest portion of businesses 42%, in fact failure to provide support in a given channel is no excuse to ignore inquiries in that channel. That percentage of businesses confirms that it responds to all inquiries in all channels even if the response merely involves letting the customer know the inquiry needs to be escalated to a preferred medium. Believing it to be reasonably consistent with the omni-channel mindset, Contact Solutions McShea shares in that philosophy. Even if you re not able to serve them [in a given channel], allow them to initiate the interaction, and then come back to them with a solution even if that solution is to switch to a different channel, says McShea. That type of response is still better than not being available in a channel at a given point of time. Agreeing, HP s Eakland adds, It is probably true that a company cannot afford to staff and offer an immediate answer to a chat or Tweet 24/7. It must, however, possess the ability to give a reasonable and perhaps automatic but always friendly response that provides the customer with other options. callcenter-iq.com 18

19 Hoping to preclude the need for a response, 29% explicitly advertise internal channel preferences (and thus implicitly reveal limitations). They, for instance, will only list a customer support phone number on their websites if telephony is their preferred customer service venue. Knowing that some customers will first visit their preferred channel, 22% of businesses list limitations on or within each channel. A business with a limited social media strategy might, for instance, reveal that its Twitter account is for marketing only. 4% of businesses passively route and attempt to condition their customers by ignoring inquiries in non-preferred channels. Service Environment: Conveying Limits Across every 2014 Call Center IQ survey, respondents have made one thing clear: improving the customer experience is a top priority. That commitment to improving the holistic customer experience does not, however, confirm that businesses are notably planning to improve the scope of their channel offerings. Due to a variety of inhibitive factors, many businesses will refrain from making sweeping additions to the number of channels they offer and even from making improvements to the channels within which they currently engage with customers. Recognizing those inevitable limitations, observers should not be surprised if businesses prioritize certain channels when developing their addition and optimization strategies. Logically, the priority channels should include those deemed most important to customers and those most notably lagging when it comes to performance. Unsurprising given the extent to which businesses feel they should be offered, the mobile app (real-time interaction) and live chat channels will be the most commonly introduced new channels over the next 6-18 months. 22% of businesses not using the channels plan to start doing so during that period. 22% of businesses that say they are currently using live chat, meanwhile, plan to significantly increase their commitments over the next 6-18 months. Other channels for which utilization levels will grow dramatically include web self-service (38% of businesses are using and will significantly increase that use) and FAQ/web pages (23%). Despite being one of the most prominently offered channels, the phone remains on the improvement radar. 18% of businesses say they plan to significantly increase their utilization of the telephony channel, and an additional 14% confirm that they will make slight increases over the next 6-18 months. While 10% of businesses will at least slightly decrease utilization, a far larger 38% say they intend to at least slightly increase use. A similar dichotomy exists for in-person; 8% will decrease utilization but 21% will at least slightly increase it. What the majority of businesses will not be doing over the next few months is initiating fringe channels. Virtual agents and video chat, which are not used by the majority of businesses in the status quo, will remain unused by the majority 18 months from now. callcenter-iq.com 19

20 Q10 How will your organization change its commitment to the channel over the next 6-18 months? Using, will stop using Using, will significantly decrease Using, will slightly decrease Using, will not change Using, will slightly increase Using, will significantly increase Telephone - live agent Telephone - IVR Live chat (web) Live chat (mobile app/ website) Video chat Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Google Plus YouTube Tumblr Other Social Network Web self-service Mobile self-service Text/SMS Text for call back Click for call back In-person/on-site Virtual agents FAQ/web info pages callcenter-iq.com 20

21 Omni-Channel: Defining a Revolution The previous sections of this report stress a fundamental difference between the multichannel and omni-channel concepts. Arguing that the latter represents a more distant point on the curve of progression, they suggest that an organization struggling to meet the standards of multi-channel is even more distantly removed from earning the omni-channel label. A logical assertion from a linguistic standpoint, in which multi-channel refers to operating in more than one channel while omni-channel involves engaging in all of them, it might seem inconsistent with the findings of the survey. The largest share of respondents, after all, declared that multi-channel refers to satisfying customers in their preferred channels at all times. Insofar as a business would realistically have to be in all channels at all times in order to meet that standard for multi-channel, would it not effectively be operating as an omnichannel business? Once it meets that standard for channel engagement, does it really require more progress before it can fairly describe itself as omni-channel? The answers to those respective questions? No and yes. Just as businesses operate with an elevated standard for multi-channel, so too do they for omni-channel. According to the report s expert contributors and respondents, omni-channel does not simply refer to the practice of offering all possible channels as engagement options. It refers to a strategic vision that typically regards channel universality not as an end goal but as a baseline requirement. Omni-Channel The Expert Perspective Ted Bray, Virtual Hold: Omni-channel is integration across the channels as it relates to the customer care function. Multi-channel involves providing information or solutions channel-by-channel; the channels are not necessarily integrated. Lonnie Mayne, InMoment: If we look at multi-channel, it s more about a transactional and operational nature. They do talk about providing some consistency, but we look at it as being more transactional and tactical. It is more about capturing the transactional information as opposed to reaching out. Omni-channel is two-way; it involves capturing and also reaching out and getting the information. Omni is more strategic and more about the experience - is it a consistent experience at every moment of the process. Richard Dumas, Five9: From our perspective, omni-channel has been talked as an aspirational goal as the holy grail supporting all channels. It requires being able to share context and share transactional data and being able to maintain an institutional memory of everything that has gone on in every channel. In an omni-channel company, the customer can engage in one channel, and the system can understand what they ve done and where they were in a previous transaction. John Cray, Enghouse: When people say omni-channel, they mean that their customers can cross-channels in real-time. When you have omni-channel communication with a customer, it spans more than a single media type. It is a full-blown interaction with a customer that, on the fly, can move from one channel to another. It is no longer the case that a customer chooses a channel and that it is it. There is an initial choice of channel, but from that point forward, it becomes an opening thing.. Both the agent and the customer can choose alternative forms of communication. Mike McShea, Contact Solutions: Omnichannel, from our perspective, involves offering the same experience across all channels. Multichannel simply entails providing multiple points of entry into the contact center. Ryan Hollenbeck, Verint: There has been a shift from an multi-channel mindset to an omni-channel mindset. Now, it really is about the customer s choice. The channels are offered by the company, but they are chosen by the customer. Henry Eakland, HP: Multi-channel is an insideout approach. It involves saying, We ll do the best we can with the channels in which we provide service, but we re not really taking the longer term customer view into the equation. Omni-channel is more of an outside-in approach. It involves listening to customers, understanding where they are spending their time, recognizing how they are using the different channels and developing a communication strategy that has a clear view towards accommodating that sentiment and behavior. callcenter-iq.com 21