Social media and customer service: take 2 – crisis communications, educating, engaging

Just re-read my last post, and wanted to expand on it slightly, because I think I make it appear as if the main value in “listening” online is to enable you to respond and engage with users who don’t like your company, product or sector and in this way help shape the online debate in the long-term.

First, it’s not always just the long-term that matters. Something goes terribly wrong, you’ve got a PR calamity on your hands, you’re in crisis communications mode and your online response needs to be very much short-term because the web is where bad news spreads the fastest. What do you do? These are, in short, the steps to take:

1. You establish your position and what you’re going to say (this is valid for offline as well as online communications.) If you’ve done something where you’re patently in the wrong, admit to it, apologise, and take very tangible action to make amends. If the bad press is actually unrepresentative and you simply want to correct it, try to be nice about it i.e. don’t say that whoever is spreading the news is a so and so, but just correct the mistake.
2. You set-up an online hub on your website where you publish your apology, rebuttal, immediate response or whatever. All updates should be made here first and all your other communication should point here.
3. You get the best online monitoring set-up (using a specialised agency) and set up a dedicated team that will deal with follow-up.
4. When you come across the story in reputable blogs or other sites, fora etc., you respond (being humble and staying on message..) and direct users to your hub. Result? If done well, you’ll slow down the spread of negative press while your response becomes part of the story, rather than just what went wrong.

Second, it’s not just about engaging with naysayers. You want to produce content that educates people beyond the negative press you’re getting, meaning that you don’t just communicate in response to criticism. You also need to proactively produce content that can contribute to the debate. And you want to engage with people who actually support your position too: tell them you appreciate their material and provide them with other content, and over time, build up relationships with them. This is probably the most important element of a long-term approach, as you’re helping to nurture a community of ambassadors who support your position.

UPDATE: just came across this post about online crisis communications (in French.)

Social media and customer service: would it work with issues?

I’ve been reading about how social media is transforming customer service for a while now (came across this article on Econsultancy about this very topic today) and am wondering to what extent the same approach is viable when it comes to regulatory issues and the like in Brussels.

Here’s the gist of how social media has been impacting customer service:

1. Disgruntled customer complains about a company’s product on Twitter (or whatever.)
2. Company has a social media monitoring set-up and picks it up.
3. Company responds to customer in blog comment, directly, on Twitter etc. in calm and measured way, apologising and offering a solution of some sort.
4. Customer is happy, says so, others who have followed conversation are impressed.

Is this a lot of work on just one customer? It might not have been in the past because people’s word of mouth networks were limited, but now, individuals can potentially reach millions of other online users, so listening and responding to single customers can have a massive positive knock-on effect. A company that is seen to be engaging and looking out for its customers becomes highly valued and the story can spread online. Plus if bad reviews are simply left to fester they too can spread untouched and even reach the top of search rankings so that people who search for a company or its products online might come across a blog entry slating it amongst the first few items. Bottom line is it’s good for the company.

What if the same approach were adopted by companies and other organisations who communicate on issues in Brussels or elsewhere? Online conversations are increasingly shaping public opinion and it’s the job of good communicators to tap into them and try to help to shape and shift the debate. What if, say, company X produces “nasty chemical Y” which people are writing about on Twitter or their blogs, expressing concern, and company X were to respond saying something along the lines of: “We accept and understand your concern. We’re trying to do our bit. The University of Z has issued a report which relates to your concern. Might be of interest? Here’s the link.”

It’s tricky, but I think it could be work as part of a long-term strategy aimed at tapping into the right conversations, nipping concerns at the bud, and slowly shifting the debate online.

However, I’d make sure the following guidelines were adopted and scrupulouslty adhered to:

• Humility at all times!
• Don’t use corporate gobbledygook but communicate like you would with a normal person.
• Always keep in mind that what you say might spread, so make sure it’s appropriate to multiple audiences.
• If you’re providing material, try to use third-party content whenever possible: far more credible than your pretty brochure.
• Don’t interact with nutjobs. For some individuals and in particular single-issue pressure groups, their issue goes beyond concern for people and the environment etc. It’s an obsession and they’ll never ever be convinced by your arguments. If you try to communicate with them directly they might use it against you in some way. Do interact with people who are concerned but don’t have all the facts.
• Be proactive as well as reactive: make it part of broader social media approach i.e. don’t just, say, respond on Twitter to people who are concerned about your issue, but also communicate independently. Otherwise it’ll just look like damage limitation rather than serious engagement.

The cost of bad service

Some companies invest vast sums in Customer Service. For good reasons too: maintaining customer satisfaction high will -  a) keep people coming back; and b) turn them into your best marketers via positive word-of-mouth (assuming the product/service meets expectations of course).

Nonetheless, the service provided by scores of companies remains really poor. Clearly they’re so short-sighted as to think that the benefit gained from saving on good service will not have far-reaching implications.

I thought about this a few weeks ago when I was in Italy. After having booked my flight on Easyjet, I arranged to rent a car from their partner, Europcar, which I’d pick up in Milan. There was a change of plan: I got a lift instead and so did not need the car (mum was worried about me driving in the fog!) So I called Europcar to cancel my reservation, except they couldn’t, and told me to call Easyjet. They didn’t have the number though, and there’s none to be found on the Easyjet site either, just a contact form. Oh, and small-print stating that I should call Europcar direct if I need to cancel or alter my booking. So in short, there appeared to be no easy way to cancel my reservation. And next time I need to rent a car I’ll probably use Hertz.

Like me, tens of other people probably encounter the same problem every day, but Europcar and/or Easjyet probably think that streamlining their cancellation process is not a worthwhile investment. I understand to some extent: they’re doing well i.e. they have plenty of customers already, and they offer highly competitive prices partly because they keep costs down in other areas, so don’t think it’s worth it. And it’s not as if it’s that measurable. If you could calculate exactly how much it cost them, they might take notice, but working out how many customers switch to Hertz because of what I experienced plus how many others are put off by people like me telling them that the Easyjet-Europcar set-up can not be trusted is impossible.

Another instance I thought of happened on Filicudi (one of the Aeolian islands off Sicily – see previous entry) in 2007. I rented a boat for a day but when I was out at sea, I suddenly got stuck. The engine seemed to work, but the propeller would not turn and the boat was immobile. Luckily, there was a yacht nearby which I managed to attract. The yacht owner then proceeded to feed me, let me use his phone to call the boat-hire company (yes, mobile phone reception at sea – go figure), and take the engine apart and tell me that the propeller should have been changed years ago as the friction had worn it out so much that it could not connect with the bit of the engine that made it turn. Two hours later, the boat-hire people showed up. No apologies – they said it was my fault as I had sailed over a plastic bag (total BS). They changed the propeller and left in a huff. Later on, when back at their shop, they not only tried to charge me the full price of €90 but wanted me to pay €150 for the propeller. I obviously kicked up a fuss but still ended up paying €50 for hiring the boat.

Result? When I next rented a boat I went to their competitor; I went back to Filicudi this year and rented a boat off the same competitor. That’s €180 they lost already. Plus I told at least ten other people that I got ripped off. It’s a small island, so I’m guessing that these ten people will at some point tell ten other people that the company can not be trusted, and so on. I presume that this alone will result in at least five conversations per summer where someone asks: “I want to hire a boat. Where should I go?” and the reply will be “go to Company B as I’ve heard that Company A rips people off.” That’s €450 at least. Sure, these figures are arbitrary, but I’m pretty sure the company missed out on my €180 plus at least these €450 per year because of my experience. And if instead of being so short-sighted as to try to make a fast buck off me, they’d showed up within ten minutes, had apologised profusely, and offered me a boat for free for a day at some point, I’d have gone back at least twice and the conversation regarding companies A and B would have been reversed: “try Company A – I hear they’re really great!”

This was meant to be a short post but has turned into a rant. Moral of the story? Customer service is worthwhile, but some companies don’t bother with it because they’re too short-sighted. However, if it were easier to measure the precise value of it – the power of word-of-mouth (whether positive or negative) is nearly impossible to calculate -  companies would probably invest in it a lot more.