In a recent LinkedIn post Simon Harrison – The Founder, CEO and Executive Partner of Actionary – asked the question: “Why do vendors, analysts and marketers talk about the ‘channel of choice’ when it comes to customer engagement?”
For Harrison, the notion in the customer service and experience sector that every customer has a specific, preferred channel for contacting companies is simply wrong.
He argues that the channels used by customers depend entirely on the circumstances of the specific query/problem, as each channel offers a different level and type of support.
For the concept of a “channel of choice” to exist, every channel would have to offer exactly the same customer service, which, according to Harrison, is not the case:
“If you want a quick answer, need someone to explain it to you, it’s complicated = phone. If you need a written record = chat. Outside of business hours = search yourself,” he wrote.
Until there is the same level of ownership in a chat as there is in a call, or it is easy enough to do complicated things in chat or get the transcript of a voice call, you will continue to use the channels.
“You really have no choice.”
But how did other CX experts react to Harrison’s comments?
For and against
Not surprisingly, Harrison’s comments sparked a heated debate among several customer service and experience experts, who made arguments both for and against the idea of a “choice channel.”
Euan MatthewsThe Director of AI and Innovation at ContactEnginereiterated Harrison’s view that it is a mistake to assume that all channels offer the same performance and experience.
Matthews points out that the fact that customers consistently prefer one channel or frequently switch between several suggests an imbalance in channel performance that needs to be investigated, rather than proving that customers have a preferred choice.
The director of ContactEngine advocates either improving poorly performing channels or eliminating them altogether. He writes that it is better to “focus on offering one channel that delivers exceptional performance/experience for customers than offering many that only deliver average performance/experience.”
First Direct is a great example of this – one phone number, always answered quickly, never asked to call another number, but put straight through to the person who can best help me without me having to repeat myself.
Another expert who agreed with Harrison’s contribution is Senior Vice President at Genesys, David Norriewho believes part of the problem is that customer service departments are under pressure to add “every new channel/modality.”
Norrie points out that some of the best-in-class companies have already begun to move away from this model and are instead focusing on “reduction/targeted design,” which will result in channels tailored to specific experiences becoming increasingly “commonplace.”
For Oriana AscanioThe Global Marketing Events Manager EMEA at FoundeverThe bigger problem is that many brands simply don’t offer the full range they could.
She also points out generational differences between customers and explains that she believes social media is often the quickest way to solve a problem:
“Personally, I usually look at social first because I feel like if someone else has posted about a similar problem, I might be able to find my answer. However, you’d be shocked to see the number of brands that think that asynchrony on social is not only OK, but the norm… and I’m talking a week or two delay here.”
While Ascanio seems to agree with Harrison’s basic assumption, he has a different opinion about the reasons why the “channel of choice” does not work, Elaine Lee refutes the proposal entirely.
The Managing Director from CX and marketing consulting companies ReynoldsBusbyLeeargues that she herself has preferred one channel over another before, even though neither offered a faster or better service – it was simply her preference at the time.
“I’m not sure why I chose that channel – I wasn’t concerned about the cost of the minutes, as that was covered by my plan, and I wasn’t concerned about long hold times, as I knew I would have to wait on any channel,” she explains.
All I can tell you is that chat felt like the right channel at that moment and it was my preferred channel. I could have called but decided against it.
She believes the concept is not as “rigid” as Harrison makes it out to be and that scenarios like the one she describes are common among clients.
Lee’s claims are supported by Andy DackA Partner Solutions Engineer at Zoomwho also believes that the argument is not as “black and white” as Harrison suggests.
For Dack, the crux of the problem is identifying the specific outcomes a company wants to deliver to its customers. He explains that the increasing number and variety of touchpoints means that some channels are better suited to handling certain requests than others.
“We just need to understand what those journeys look like and make sure we provide the best mechanism for each customer contact,” he writes.
For HarrisonHowever, Dack’s comments actually support his claim:
The post talked about a phrase, ‘channel of choice’, saying that it is a personal choice whether one prefers voice or chat, and that this is a misnomer because, as you said, certain results are better achieved with certain channels.
He argues that contact center channels are secondary to creating effective customer journeys and play a less important role than the way a company makes its customers feel, suggesting that companies focus too heavily on a “channel of choice” when it is often outside of their control.
For more insights and opinions from Simon Harrison, watch the July Big CX News show, where the CEO of Actionary discusses breaking news from Google, Salesforce, Five9 and HubSpot.
