Tough love for retail customer service policies

In this article from the Business Insider, the author describes how brick-and-mortar retailers are trying to offer better service to try to better compete with online competitors.  Sounds like a good idea, right?  Customer service is the one thing that folks in a shop can do better than a website, so might as well focus on improving that.

Nope, not good enough.

The problem with this way of thinking is that it's old-fashioned retail.  And unfortunately for many brick-and-mortar retailers, a lot of them have very old-fashioned cultures and ways of running their businesses.  What they have to do is ask the consumers what they want, and (this is a very important part) be willing to roll the dice and make investments in some drastic changes if necessary.

Sure, maybe I am biased because I am a career researcher.  But in doing the work that I've done over my career, I have seen many times when consumers would tell me what they want in a study, management would be unwilling to make a change, and a year later, some other company was doing it, it became all the rage, and the first company was officially behind in the game.

Here are some things that I am seeing out there in retail world:
1)  Customer service doesn't mean what it used to mean
It always bothered me that old-school retailers always think that "customer service" always has to mean how nice a store employee is to you.  But service means so much more to shoppers.  It means did you give me what I want, and am I happy about it.  There's a lot going on in the world, in case you haven't noticed.  I can practically blink my eyes and twitch my nose and anything I want will be right in front of me by first thing tomorrow morning, and my credit card will be automatically charged.  So you think it's enough for someone to pounce on me as soon as I walk into a shop and say hello, and subsequently follow me around while I shop?  Wake up and flip on your Apple II computers, retailers.  If you ask customers how good your customer service is, you may mean one thing, but their answer will mean something completely different.

2)  Yes, some store employees are rude.  Probably more than you realize.  And that's unacceptable.  But they don't need to be in your face every second, either.
It seems to me that a lot of "revamped" customer service policies or training modules are really weak, basically asking employees to say hello to guests more quickly, and maybe even have more employees on the floor.  Now, I ask you--is that really revolutionary?  Many people now are used to an automated world of the internet, mobile devices, and figuring out what they want on their own.  Yes, be there for us if we need help.  But if you jump from around the corner ever two seconds scaring the bajeezes out of me asking me if you can help me, you're just going to creep me out enough to make me leave and shop at Amazon.

3)  The conveniences, pricing, and other appeals available with online retailers have changed the game permanently.  A smile or a "can I help you?" in the store isn't going to change it, and it isn't going to be enough.
Apps.  Seamless ordering however I want, without bombarding me with requests to buy more or add on warranties or insurance or other crap.  Reviews I can rely on.  One-step ordering.  Make it easy for me.  If I want something, don't tell me it's only available online, or only available in the store.  Put a stamp on it and get it to me--I don't care how you do it.  Go above and beyond for me.  That's service.  Check out Zappos.  They do it right.

To you, old retailers, service means store employees saying "can I help you?"  That's not enough.  Ask your customers what service means to them.  Even ask them in different ways--ask them what was the last time a business did to go out of its way to make them happy, and what did it do.  Learn from that.  If I hear one more retailer say that their new "customer service policy" is to have a race to see how quickly they can say "hello" to a guest once they enter the store, I'm going to throw up on their 1981 shoes.

With great power comes great responsibility

Greetings again old friends of the blogosphere.  Today I come to you on a topic that is of timely importance to a large amount of people around the world:  the Olympics.  Specifically, in the United States, getting information about the Olympics from finding schedules to results to video leaves us largely at the mercy of NBC, with the exclusive rights to Olympics coverage in the States.

There has been a lot of controversy and criticism of NBC with these rights, which as it turns out, come with great responsibility.  The Olympics have widespread appeal, which means that while the holder of the media rights will undoubtedly win in the ratings, it will also be expected to deliver up to expectations, which are set quite high.

Let us look at just a few of the controversies.  Broadcasting the Olympics used to be straight-forward:  show a few things during the day because well, you could.  But most things could be shown in primetime, 1) because that's when most people were watching TV, 2) with the Olympics being held in various parts of the world, it was almost always taped, and 3) No one really knew the result until you broadcasted it anyway.

The problem is, we now live in the day of social media, and in a global society.  Other parts of the world are no longer a distant mystery because we are all connected via the internet, and news is reported in real time via CNN newsfeeds, NY Times email alerts, and Twitter.  True, there are still folks who will go home from work and curl up to watch the events in primetime, content with knowing that it is not broadcast live.  But chances are, with all the news outlets they bump into throughout the day, they still found out who won the event, spoiling the surprise before they even had a chance to walk into the door at night.  Even in the last Olympics in Beijing, Twitter was just a baby and didn't have nearly the usage it does today.

It's a different ballgame now.

NBC gave it a half-assed effort.  They allowed you to watch events online.  But you had to have a cable subscription (which is another issue--understandable that they have to make money somehow, but is that really the spirit of the games?  That only the folks with cable can watch, and everyone else is screwed?).  And some high-popularity events, like gymnastics, were still unavailable online so that NBC could hold them hostage for higher primetime ratings.  But again, you probably already knew the result before you got a chance to watch it, even if you tried to watch it live and were denied.  So, in effect, instead of making everyone happy by covering all its bases, NBC made everyone furious by only doing everything halfway.

It's a tricky scenario to figure out, but it's fair to be harsh on NBC because they are a media company, and this is a media issue.  They took on the responsibility by paying big dollars for the exclusive rights, and as a media company, they should be able to rise to the challenge of mastering a multi-channel media experience.

As a shout-out to someone who describes this disappointment far better than I can, I give you this satire article from the New Yorker.  Enjoy.

And in case you still aren't sure what the fuss is all about, here is more.