Archive for August, 2007

Customer Service as Competitive Advantage

In the early part of this year, I read Joel’s 7 Steps to remarkable customer service. The piece resonated with me, and it was one of the reasons that I applied to the SMTP program. Customer service in the world of technology is, generally speaking, an embarrassing and dehumanizing process. Here was a person who believed that there was a better way to do it.

Shortly after joining the company, I asked the question “Why do we give this information away freely? Aren’t we concerned that our competitors are bound to read it, see the wisdom of it, and emulate it?” At that point, I had about 4 weeks of customer service duty under my belt and was confident that this model could be scaled and replicated. Now, after 6 months and lots of conversations with customers, I understand why it is to our advantage to let people know that this is the way we do things.

It is hard work.

Real customer service is emotional labor. You have to dance between being truly empathetic to a frustrated customer’s problem and self preserving as a customer, pushed beyond the limits of human endurance, takes out their frustrations on you directly. The former is the norm and the latter the exception, but both efforts take a lot of energy. Add to that the fact that the problems I am asked to solve are frequently subtly complex technical issues, and I am spent at the end of the day. The payback comes in the form of a tremendous sense of satisfaction from seeing Joel’s suggestions work to make not just satisfied but fanatical customers.

The problem is, I honestly don’t think most of the people that apply for customer service jobs could do it. Either they don’t have the people skills, but are excellent technically, or they don’t have the technical skills. This is not to say that I am a phenom, by any means. It is proof positive of the draw of the promised career advancement once the customer service stint is over. I am willing and motivated to work hard because these are the same customers that I hope to be serving as I move on to QA and Marketing and, eventually, to management. Understanding them, and their needs, gives me the information I need to make decisions and trades-offs about the products on which they rely. If you ask most customer service people what they do, I bet they would say “I answer email and telephone calls”. Customer advocacy is my job. It is the best way to keep customers happy and continue to increase our revenue

You have to get the environment right.

To get people motivated and give them the tools they need to do the job of customer management takes real effort. While Joel’s steps are conveniently broken up to make them more understandable, combined they create the environment necessary to make my daily efforts possible. The entire company is oriented toward the customer. We are constantly evaluating how what we do and what we say will affect our customers.

This is hard to believe for some customers because they have been asking for this one feature (or that one) for 2 years, and we haven’t implemented it. Although it is easy to imagine us in our ivory tower laughing with scorn at your feature request, I can honestly say that we agonize over our decisions as to which features to implement when. We honestly feel badly about not getting to your suggestion, but we can’t cloister ourselves for 10 years writing the next version, so we need to choose.

Our incredibly lenient return policy allows me the freedom to say to someone “Try it, if you don’t like it you get your money back immediately, no questions asked” and “I can’t recommend that you buy FogBugz because it isn’t going to do everything you want” and “I am really sorry that we couldn’t get you connected, here is your money back and a free pass for your next connection”. All of this is intended to show that the second reason we aren’t at risk is that it is almost impossible to replicate this environment without tremendous effort, and true belief that it is worth it.

By telling customers that this is how we do business, and actually sticking to it, we make our customers confident in our ability to make them happy. We get more risk takers and advocates that push our products into markets where they might otherwise go unnoticed. And my life is better because when customers call or email, they (mostly) treat me like a human being that wants to help them, instead of their worst enemy.

We aren’t at risk at all; we have a distinct advantage, a differentiator. While other service organizations understand that these are good ideas, they aren’t able to implement them (the environment isn’t right) or they won’t implement them (don’t want to do the hard work). In the rare cases that I come across one that is able and willing, dealing with the company is such a pleasant departure that I find myself liking them, even if they are one of our competitors.

Software design is easy…

I have been reading about the process of interaction design, and I have come to recognize many of the seemingly innocuous decisions that I made during past efforts that resulted in simply awful design. The scary part is that it is very hard to tell the difference between an harmless design decision and a very harmful one until you have invested a lot of effort in implementing it. Furthermore, good design thrives on a detailed understanding of your users’ desires and expectations.

In this last statement lies a cornerstone of Cooper’s methodology for creating software that really works. I believe that the innate desire of developers and managers alike is to believe they know the user. Therein exists a dangerous pitfall according Cooper. What I am thinking when I say “user” and what you are thinking are most certainly different. Instead, he recommends that people take the time to make up detailed personas that very specifically describe the users.

Doris is a stay-at-home mother with 2 children, ages 2 and 5. She is passionate about mountain biking, and therefore, covets her time to ensure that she can get to the Mountain Biking Club meet-up each week. She is a big fan of Martha Stewart’s style magazine and buys much of her home decor based on the suggestions she finds there.

It is pretty easy to imagine how this kind of description would help to inform design decisions in the software you are making. And when the nearly inevitable feature negotiations start, anyone can say “Doris wouldn’t use this because…” or “This wouldn’t make sense to Doris. She would expect…”. Conceptually simple, it helps to eliminate the ambiguity of the “user”.

The model goes further to suggest that often developers and their managers forget that the user is a person, with feelings. One of the primary goals of every user of technology (who doesn’t think like a computer already) is to not look stupid. Feelings? In software? It makes a lot of sense. Who hasn’t been frustrated when the ATM machine spits your card out unexpectedly admonishing you with a blinking “Transaction Terminated”? If you are like me, you get annoyed every time you hit the print button and the computer seems to forget that you print with the exact same settings 99.995% of the time, and proceeds to present you with a bunch of options that are completely meaningless to you. I am reasonably sure I know how to use a computer, and the process of printing a document makes me question myself. It certainly feels wrong.

Ignoring the sensibilities and emotions may not be a recipe for disaster, but it is almost certainly setting you up for obscurity in the not to distant future. There are numerous counter examples. Try setting up a MySpace account. If you don’t feel at least mildly stupid by the end of that, you are either and actual dolt or so smart that you should apply for a job as a developer where I work. And yet, they have millions of avid users. The space that their application occupies in peoples’ lives is so important, that they are willing to put up with the horror that is myspace page customization. What is interesting to me is that the writing is on the wall for myspace already. Competitor Facebook took the approach of limiting customizations but making sign-up and account management much easier, and people are noticing. It remains to be seen if this will affect the long term viability of the myspace application, but I have a very strong suspicion that it will. I measure this by the fact that I have never met a single fan of myspace (the web application). They like being in touch with their friends, they like being able to post all sorts of embarrassing personal information, but they don’t ever mention actually liking the process by which they do it. In fact, several complain about it.

Ultimately, my point is that design matters. For relatively recent proof, see the iPod that every other person on the street is carrying. It is hard to get it right, and oh so easy to get it wrong. Anecdotally, I can’t think of one product that I love that I would also consider poorly designed. The way most people react to this realization is that they think they need to hire artists, when they really need a social psychologist. When developing new technology we need to think first of Doris. Artists can come along later and make our targeted functional designs pretty.