Shouninjutsu

I don’t usually blog about this sort of thing. The folks at Grokdotcom (especially Melissa) do a great job of critiquing specific online and customer service “experiences” (disasters), but I just tend to shrug them off and move on.

But recently I’ve had a string of really bad experiences with live chat. Often enough and bad enough that I wanted to comment and point out some common threads I’ve noticed in the poor application of chat technology. Ok, and also just to vent. Here’s a session I had last night on the Apple website, as I was preparing to purchase a MacBook Pro and decided to check out the financing option:

*************************************

You are chatting with Alan, an Apple Expert

Hi, my name is Alan. Welcome to Apple!

Alan: Hi, How are you?

You: Hi. I am looking to do this just to finance a MacBook Pro to replace one I need to return to work. How likely is it that I will be approved?

Alan: I don’t really know. The Juniper Visa Card is associated with Barclays Bank.

You: Are there other financing options?

Alan: You can use a Bank Debit card.

You: A debit card is not financing. That’s cash. Do you know if the card is any easier to qualify for because it is sponsored by Apple?

Alan: Just another minute…

[Almost 5 minutes later]

Alan: The Juniper Visa Card with iTunes Rewards is a credit card issued by Juniper, a division of Barclays Bank Delaware.

Alan: There are two ways to apply. From the main page of the Store, apply before you shop by clicking on the ‘Juniper Visa Card with iTunes Rewards’ tile - OR - apply from the ‘Select a Payment Method’ page during the Checkout process.

Alan: I would recommend filling out the application as they are very good at getting back to you as to weather you are approved.

You: Again, my question is: do you know if this is any easier to qualify for because it is sponsored by Apple?

You: And do you know which credit bureau they check for your credit scores? Can you find out for me?

Alan: I can’t find out for you because it is not sponsored by Apple. It is a completely separate company.

Alan: In Chat I do not have access to personal information.

You: Do you know of any companies that do leasing for Apple equipment?

Alan: I really don’t.

You: Can I get a transcript of this conversation?

Alan: Yes, but only by copy and paste on your end.

You: Ok. signing off. I’m disappointed that this chat was totally non-helpful and didn’t even answer my direct questions. Thanks anyway.

Alan: Thank you for visiting the Apple Store. We appreciate your business.

Thank you for contacting the Apple Store. If you require further assistance, please call 1-800-MY-APPLE.

*************************************

“We appreciate your BUSINESS?!” I walked away and they (at least for the moment) LOST my business solely because of this crappy experience. If you are not going to support a feature/function (like financing) any better than this, DON’T BOTHER DOING IT.

And by the way, how about that fabulous personalization (How did they know my name is “You?”).

Yes, I realize that “live chat,” like pretty much all CRM application, is not at fault in and of itself– a technology can only be as good as the people using it. But I think chat has the following problems:

High expectations relative to the actual benefits- when we “chat” with an online sales rep, we expect to be able to converse with him or her as we would an actual salesperson in a store. But on the internet, “chat” technology and culture is really oriented towards and has really evolved from idle, abbreviated messaging among friends. more like idle chatter. Build a professional sales tool on that foundation? IMO DATS DUM 4 SHUR

Difficult implementation- I’m not talking about how hard it is to get working technically, I mean that it’s hard to train, monitor and balance the necessary quality of service cost effectively. I know– I ran and consulted for some of the earliest, largest multi-touchpoint (phone, email, chat, automated self-service FAQ) contact centers in the early dotcom days. A typical chat rep will be multi-tasking up to 4 chats at a time, while also doing email customer service. Can YOU have 4-6 conversations at a time? So of course, the obvious solution is to outsource your chat to a call center in India. Yeah, let me know how that goes.

The moral of the story is– how many times do we have to say it?– any tool or technology is only as good as the people and the plan behind it. Chat is just one of those “touches” that once you get over the “gotta have it” impulse, is particularly hard to execute well. And because of its immediacy and real-time “voice” can be more damaging to customer relations than most.

Was it Mark Twain who said it?

“It’s better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you’re stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.”

Another moment of inspiration spurred by some discussion at Grokdotcom.com as a result of a couple of recent articles,

 Google an Yahoo Starting Social Networks

FaceBook Follies and LinkedIn Lure

 I don’t knw if I should be paying the guys at FutureNow, or they should be paying me, :)but I find the discussions there stimulate some of my most salient (at least I think so;)) thoughts.

————————————–

So how many “friends” do YOU have on MySpace?  LinkedIn contacts? Phonebook entries on your Treo?  Email addresses in Outlook?

How much data do you have indexed?  Technorati tags?  Diggs?  Bloglines RSS feeds?  Podcast subscriptions?  Twits?

Do we really need more “social networks?”  Do we really need even more information thrown at us?  WAVES of information that we can’t conceivably completely assimilate let alone make any real use of?

————————————–

It seems to me that there is more than enough data and information out there.  More than 25 years ago, Alvin Toffler wrote a book called “The Third Wave.”  He observed that economic society to that point had gone through 2 previous waves– the Agricultural Wave and the Industrial Wave– and that we had now reached the cusp of what he called the “Information Wave.”  But is there any doubt that in the last 25 years we have moved way beyond the swell of an information wave?

• How many websites are indexed by Google?  (7,490,000,000 indexed for the letter “a” alone)
• How many books can I buy at the click of a mouse at Amazon?  (9,611,286)
• How many movies are available at my local Blockbuster store (2,500) let alone online (over 80,000)?
• How many channels are running right now on my DirectTV digital satellite– ALL of which I can TiVo for later viewing so that I can watch back-to-back Law and Order day and night, 24/7 for the next 3 months if I so choose?

I did a quick calculation and if I were to spend 8 hours a day to listen to every CD, watch every DVD, read every book, watch every family video and look at every snapshot (figure 15 seconds each) in my house, it would take me over 67 YEARS!  Thank heaven I don’t have satellite TV and internet…oh wait.  I guess I do.

————————————–

Practically speaking, we don’t need any more information.  We need a better ways to filter, select, consume and use it in a meaningful manner.

So let me suggest the title for Toffler’s next book (or maybe I should write it.  Actually, maybe you’re reading part of it right now

The FOURTH Wave– BRAIN Waves

Start using our Brains!  In computer terms, you brain is more than an input device connected to mass storage– there’s PROCESSING power in there!  The intelligent organization, classification and indexing (”intelligent filtering) of what’s already out there is far more important to you and me than just tons and tons or raw information.

So, what are some of the organizing principles we can use to make sense of information overload?  And what IS the “Pareto Proclamation?”

More to come, eventually.

Well, the boys and girls at Grokdotcom (in this case, Jeffrey Eisenberg, in particular) have done it again. They’ve spurred a debate that has inspired me to not only comment on a recent post over there, but to repeat my comments over here on the Shouninjutsu, Ninja Marketing blog.

As time goes by, I hope to be able to spell out more of the Ninja Marketing Philosophy that informs these particular views, but didn’t want to miss the opportunity to “memorialize” these thoughts in the meantime…

NINJA MEETING PRINCIPLES and TACTICS

FOR CONSIDERATION: Having taught countless classes/seminars all over the world on time management and effective leadership skills, here are a few of my personal rules of thumb regarding meetings:

————————-
Never have more than one meeting a day. COROLLARY: Never spend more time in internal meetings on any given day than you are willing to spend the next day doing nothing but talking to real CUSTOMERS (not just “users”– but that’s a DIFFERENT comment<g>).
————————-
Schedule no more than 45 minutes for ANY meeting. Allow (and expect) people to excuse themselves as they see fit after that time.
————————-
Remove chairs from the conference room. Don’t let people get too comfortable, and for Pete’s sake don’t encourage them by bringing DOUGHNUTS!<g>
————————-
Recognize that there are 3 different types of meetings: a) Informational, b)Celebratory and c) Decision-Making. Confuse this context and ensure confusion and frustration.
————————-
Have a very SPECIFIC objective for each and every meeting and never have more than 3 things on the agenda for any specific meeting. Never give anyone more than 3 action items coming out of a single meeting.
————————-
If you need a PowerPoint to get your point across, just send the PowerPoint. Most of us can read.<g>

If an issue is too complex for just a PowerPoint, write it up as a document. Better for one person to spend twice the time to develop a well-articulated proposal (remember what your English teacher said? “If you can’t write it down clearly, then you’re not THINKING clearly”..), than to waste the time of everyone else involved.
————————-
If it’s 2-3 people, it’s a “discussion”– have plenty of those. Organizational theory teaches that any group of over 5 is almost unmanageable because of the multiple permutations and combinations of the vested interests of all involved.
————————-
Understand RID roles for every attendee:

R=RESPONSIBLE- party “responsible” for the specific activity tied to the objective/outcome of the meeting.

I=INVOLVED- not just “INTERESTED,” but those who are directly affected and/or need to provide specific input.

D=DECISION-MAKING- those who will ultimately have to make a specific decision based on the meeting.

Everyone who does not play one of these roles can “stay home”…
————————-
Don’t insist or expect EVERYONE in attendance to actively participate. Don’t create a culture where people feel that they MUST comment continually just to prove they are “smart,” or “engaged” or “part of the team.”

****************************

Those of us who thrive in decentralized work environments (26 locations in virtually every time zone) have learned that most seemingly “necessary” meetings truly are NOT. Use technology to monitor and collaborate, foster trust and individual accountability and focus on smaller, manageable discrete tasks to cut down on time wasted in meetings.

Why is it so many of “my” best ideas seem to come from others? <g>

Robert Gorell has another great article at Grokdotcom entitled “Rubel’s Twitter List Trumps Godin’s Bestsellers.”  Rather than try to recap it, I encourage you to go read it for yourself.

 I WILL however revise and repost here a couple of my personal comments on the article:

EXCELLENT article, Robert. DEAD ON.  And LOVE Jeffrey (Eisenberg)’s statements about marketing’s “occupational hazard” of overestimating our own importance to our audience. Now THAT is a book idea (though I’m not sure who would want to read it– further evidence of the uncomfortable truth in the statement…).

Also excellent points by Jim (Novo).  As a founding team member of MyFamily.com/ Ancestry.com, one of the web’s early HIGH TRAFFIC (fastest growing site of 1999) and yet supposedly STICKIEST sites (top five in terms of frequency, length of stay and other such metrics), I can attest that advertising and engagement are almost universally inversely-related.

And even more sobering is that while “engagement” may consist of multiple “micro conversions,” that doesn’t in any way guarantee the “final” conversion, where people take out their wallets and choose to buy your product/service rather than bread and milk. Whether you fumble mid-field or 1 yard from your opponent’s goal line, you still lose the ball and don’t put up any points.

Again, having been on the roster of “Team CMGI” during those bubble years, saw it first hand and have INCREDIBLE war stories…hey, maybe I should write a book! Any of you marketers out there want to read it?