Monthly Archives: May 2017

Digital Communication

Data Point: I HATE Surveys, but LOVE Service

Leave a comment

On a scale of 1 to 5, with one being the least helpful and five being the most helpful, how would you rate the service provided by this blog?

five-seven-points

At some point in our lives, we’ve all been asked to answer similar questions as part of the surveys we are seemingly inundated with on a daily basis.

It is no accident that we, in the digital era, are being asked to take more and more of these surveys, whether online or over the phone. Today, data collection, and the effective use of that data, is becoming an incredibly important industry – one with benefits that can be applied across a variety of enterprises.

One of these enterprises is the customer service industry. And, for better or worse, the survey method of collecting data is tied closely to customer service.

While these surveys can be frustrating to consumers, there is (despite what we all think) a purpose behind these “annoyances.”

The data collected by companies through these surveys (in whatever form they take) and through other methods such as loyalty programs, social media monitoring and analysis of your online behavior enables these businesses to alter their practices in an effort to provide a better service experience for their customers…like you.

How effective these companies have been at responding to customer feedback, at least the feedback represented by the data they have access to, is up for debate, but the potential to use this data to improve the customer service experience is immense.

There is clearly a financial element to the interest in improving customer service. Better customer service means happier customers, which, in turn, means repeat business and more money.

So, the motivation to get this right is strong.

The question is: How, in today’s world of “Big Data” can businesses, large and small, leverage the data they are able to collect to provide the best possible customer service?

  • They can use the data to assess a widespread feeling among customers about a particular area of service and adjust accordingly. If the data shows a prevailing feeling that, for example, room service at a hotel is slow; the hotel can implement changes to improve the speed with which food is delivered. Food always makes customers happier. This works on the flip side as well. If there is a particular point of service that is trending well, businesses can highlight this or expand it, if possible.

 

  • They can take advantage of patterns associated with individuals to provide a more personalized experience. To carry on the hotel example — if a frequent visitor to a hotel has, on several occasions, asked for extra towels in the room, the hotel can use that information to ensure that extra towels are already in the room at check-in. Wouldn’t you feel special if there were a lot of towels in your room (just like you like)?

 

  • Another step in the direction of personalized service involves the use of customer preferences to offer suggestions for other services/products the consumer may enjoy. There is enough data out there to establish these types of preferences. If, for example, I’m at my hypothetical hotel, and they know that, in the past, I’ve asked for a reservation at an Italian restaurant, and a new, critically-acclaimed restaurant recently opened in the area, they could offer to make a reservation for me when I arrive, without having to be asked.

The possibilities abound. When companies are truly able to harness the potential of data to improve customer service, all consumers will benefit.

While it may be a little while before the true potential of data-based customer service is realized, businesses can start to improve customer service by altering the way this data is collected — maybe by being a bit less aggressive in the survey arena.

 

Digital Communication

This is ONE Opinion – You should DEFINITELY get more

Leave a comment

It’s been happening gradually for more than two decades and, unless you were really paying attention, you probably didn’t notice it. I know I didn’t until recently. I’m talking about the trend of telecommunications mergers set off by the 1996 Telecommunications Act. This little piece of legislation made it possible for a single media company to control previously unheard of numbers of media licenses. Under these rules, one company, for example, could control most of the media outlets in a given area.

“What’s the big deal?,” you say.

“It’s called capitalism,” you say.

And you’re right.

It is the way businesses in our country function. They’re in the telecommunications business to make money and, if there is a way to make more money, these companies owe it to their shareholders to do so.

I’m not saying there is anything wrong with that approach.

I am, however, saying that there are some subtle, yet significant, drawbacks to the proliferation of recent telecommunications mergers.

Perhaps the most insidious of these is the decline in female and minority ownership of media companies.

As a few companies, mostly led by white males, amass vast media holdings, more and more small media companies, many led by people in the “other than white male” demographic are being pushed out.

This is a problem both socially and culturally.

Why?

Because the fewer viewpoints we are exposed to, the narrower our thinking becomes. Our nation was not built through mass agreement or homogenization. We cannot afford to go down this path.

Diversity matters in all areas and ownership of media properties is no different.

Even if you’re not currently in school, try to think back to when you were. Now, imagine you’re writing a paper. Would you feel comfortable turning it in knowing you’d based it on one source? Likely not.

You’d want a wide variety of sources and you’d want the ability to, after looking at varied viewpoints, form your own opinion.

You should expect the same in life. However, if certain demographics are removed from the mass media equation, we are going to hear from only one voice and that is something we cannot afford.

As I said earlier, I don’t blame the companies amassing these holdings and pushing others out. They’re simply doing what they should do. This wouldn’t be possible, however, if government regulations prohibiting this sort of business weren’t removed.

Competition and diversity made this country what it is and competition and diversity should continue to play a role in the telecommunications arena. This can only happen if diverse media companies are allowed to get in the game.

Without the support of our government, specifically the FCC, however, they won’t be able to compete with the bottomless pockets of the bigger telecommunications conglomerates.

Our culture needs diversity in media. If the trend toward consolidation continues, we could, in a worst-case scenario, end up with one giant media company only providing content they approve of. There would be no debate. There would be one viewpoint. One voice. To me, this is unacceptable.

Digital Communication

Anybody Got Some Spare Parts? Bridging the Global Digital Divide

Leave a comment

In the last few years, I’ve had the opportunity to travel quite a bit (job-related.although I wish it were personal) and I’ve seen firsthand the global digital divide. There is no question it exists. I’ve been places where you can access the Internet from literally anywhere at lightning-fast speeds and I’ve been to places where the Internet may as well have never been invented. Not surprisingly, the latter of these conditions manifests most consistently in less-industrialized nations.

There are certainly factors at play beyond the level of industrialization in a country, however. In some cases, the government in power does not want its citizens to have access to the information on, or the public platform available via, the Internet. In other instances, the citizenry doesn’t have the financial means or the education to use the technology required to access the web even if it is available. In still other situations, the problem is as simple as a lack of appropriate telecommunications infrastructure.

This is where I’d like to focus my attention.

To close the global digital divide, even a little, a framework for service needs to be in place in those nations where it doesn’t currently exist. Without this framework, education regarding Internet use and whether or not those in power want the people to have access is irrelevant.

So, how do we get the right telecommunications infrastructure in place in areas/nations that can’t afford to do it themselves (assuming they have the desire)?

The answer, at least to me, seems to lie in private enterprise. In the United States, in particular, we have several giant corporations with the technical and logistical ability to help “wire” those nations without any or, at the very least, functioning Internet service.

wired world
That said, they are private organizations built on the premise that they exist to make money. Large (in this case huge) philanthropic undertakings do not generally pad the bottom line. Therefore, there needs to be incentives in place that will encourage Internet service providers to lend a hand in areas where their help is desperately needed – both with equipment and infrastructure.

Tax breaks seem to be the obvious offering in the short-term. For each project completed in an area on the wrong side of the divide, Company X will get a write off of X amount of dollars. There has to be something in it for the provider for this to be viable.
There is an additional, albeit less altruistic, motivator. Enabling service enables more people online. This means more money comes into the provider and the businesses that depend on Internet service. Think of it as a start-up investment with slow returns.but, as we have seen in our country, once you’re online, you’re “addicted.” The return on investment will come.

So, private enterprise can work to help close the global digital divide or the chasm can continue to grow.

dreams.metroeve_chasm-dreams-meaning

For now, these service providers control access, but what if, in the not-too-distant future, there comes along an innovator who develops a way to give free access to all without a physical infrastructure? I don’t have the technical knowledge to even contemplate how that could work, but it would be a truly cataclysmic occurrence for those who are financially dependent on providing what some people think should be a right as a service.

Until that day comes, I think that one solution to closing the global digital divide is represented by the telecommunications companies of the world banding together to help provide the infrastructure necessary to do so. They, I have no doubt, will be rewarded in some way – even if it isn’t financially.