The Customer or the Company Line

I was walking out of a meeting in New York yesterday and noticed that I had a missed call -- It was American Express who had called to alert me that someone in London was trying to charge $500 in telecommunications equipment (most likely, mobile phones) on my card.

Later that night, I was online paying my Capital One MasterCard and found that someone used my card on December 14th to purchase something with a vendor based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia...and that person wasn't me.  Christmas is the high season for credit card fraud and I was living it. The only two credit cards I have were both under attack.

The way the two companies dealt with the fraud situation was so different that it became a real time case study on the "best" and "worst" practices for dealing with customers.  The key difference came down to the rep's ability to deal with me as a customer, versus sticking to the company policy.

The Best and the Worst

Detecting Fraud

American Express
I had been in London a couple of weeks ago, and most likely, one of the night clerks at the hotel where I stayed sold my Amex card number.  American Express, knowing that I had recently purchased train tickets to New York the day before, figured out that I couldn't be in two places at once, and stopped the transaction from going through.

Capital One
Clueless I had to report the fraud.  Granted the two transactions were only $10.50 each, but the location of the transactions should have flagged them for further investigation.  I caught them more than a week after the charges were made, Capital One had plenty of time to detect and investigate.  Living in McLean, VA, which happens to be the headquarters of Capital One, I know folks who work there, and having had MasterCard as a client for the past six years, I know a good bit about the credit card business, and CapOne.

I know that CapOne has very sophisticated models for segmenting and targeting customers, analyzing purchasing behavior, etc.  They have no lack of intelligence or technology that would prevent them from detecting fraud, it just may be a matter of focus.

Dealing with Fraud
American Express
Closed my account, alerted the merchant, and sent me a new card via Fedex.  It arrived the next day.

Capital One
Questioned me not one, but three times about whether I knew the merchant and if I had made the purchase.  I asked the CapOne rep to give me more information on the transaction.  She said she couldn't because the details were in Arabic.  I pulled the website, and it was in Arabic.  Despite not speaking or reading Arabic, and stating that several times, I was questioned about the transaction repeatedly.

After closing the account, I was then told a new card would be sent in 5-7 days, and that a form would be sent that I would need to fill out and return.  I asked what additional information they would need that I hadn't already reported.  The rep didn't have an answer, only telling that it was company policy.  At that point, I was "done" and ask for a manager.

I asked the same question to the managers, again the same answer.  I then reminded her that the date was 12/21, the last week before Christmas, and both of my credit cards were used fraudulently.  She said that she understood and would get a new card out to me in 2-3 days.   At that point, I asked for her manager, and finally, I was transferred to the Fraud department.  

Allen was nice enough, and was able to explain the reason for the form.  They needed a signature authorizing that I did not make the transactions so they could dispute the case.  I asked Allen if they were recording our conversation (as Amex did), and if we could just use that to support the case.  The answer was "No. We need the form."  Allen did say that he understood my situation, and would express a new card to me in 2-3 days.

Dealing with the Customer  
Over the years, I've done a good bit of research on defining the "Customer Experience."  When you ask customers what they want, the answers are fairly consistent regardless of company or industry:

• Know me - customers want companies to know them and understand their situation...how their product or services fits a need.  They also want them to anticipate and serve their needs.  With the increased use of social media, that has only increased. 
• Serve me - resolve my issues quickly...turn the "unpleasant into the pleasant."  Remember that I'm the customer, and I have options.  
• Empower me - give me access to resolve my own issues, or empower the employee that I'm speaking with to do it for me.

It sounds simple but it's, as I just experienced, difficult to execute.  The CapOne reps and managers were very nice but they weren't empowered to resolve my issue, or go off script.  Both call centers were outsourced, and probably all reps and managers I spoke with were following company policy and scripts.  The difference was that Amex knew my situation, anticipated my concerns, and resolved my issue in one phone call with one rep -- efficiently and stress free.

Two shopping days left, what's in my wallet?   American Express.

Turning Data into Dollars

Last month I had the chance to be a panelist at a forum hosted by Wolfgang Jank and the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland.  The topic was on Informatics – Data Driven Decision Making in Marketing.

Per my usual M.O., I agreed to participate without knowing what I would discuss.  As I was looking through past project work I made the discovery that this was a topic that I had spent two years working on. 

What’s interesting about the topic is that everyone will agree that they should be more data driven, or fact based, with their decision-making.   Heads will nod when it’s discussed, it’s intuitive, and so the question…and the problem, is why doesn’t it happen?

The company I was working with had an abundance of data but were faced with two consistent problems related to the use of it:

• Reps wanted better insight
• Customers wanted a POV

The first issue we probably spent a good six months on defining what an ‘insight” was, how to create it, and who was responsible for doing it.  The second issue was more complicated and took much longer.

Over that two-year period I learned how challenging it is for an organization to use one source of data effectively across the enterprise.  Some of the challenges we uncovered were typical such as lack of resources, process, and funding.  Others were more challenging: People funded their own resources and research to support their strategy, budget or group. 

To begin to solve this complex problem we created a “data value chain” (see below).   The starting point was having one centralized source for data.   As we discovered, as data flows from across the organization to the customer, enhancements were needed to make it more valuable, like growth rings on a tree. 

As data became more customized, and localized, it grew more valuable.   This helped to identify why, for example, research that was being produced at corporate was not often used by the sales teams…it lacked relevancy, especially in regions outside of the US. 

Once we got everyone on the same page the next challenge was to align the various groups in the organization across the value chain.   We learned there could be as many as five different groups involved in handoffs as the data moved across the value chain.  This help to explain why product groups were developing solutions without market insights, and regions were not leveraging corporate insights for business development.  

As a result, we had to design process maps, hand-off points, engagement process, etc.   The elephant in the room, and one of the biggest challenges was wrestling with the budget.  The solution for that last huddle was turned out to be pretty simple.  

The corporate “insights” team would work with those regions that wanted to work with corporate.   Those regions had to be willing to fund resources to finish the “last mile”…building solution or customer business cases and solutions.  Even though everyone wanted more relevant insight, and more defined points of view, not all regions were willing to put up the money. 

Finally, to secure the funding to make the fixes we had to be able to answer a very simple question; “how does being more data driven provide value to the organization?”

The answer was getting the data closer to revenue or a sale….”turning data into dollars.”  The epiphany wasn’t that the value was found at the end of the chain but the number of groups, and the coordination needed to be involved to reach that destination. 

The Social Manifesto: An E-piphany About the Impact of New Technology

I’m on the plane returning from Munich, Germany, and I’m having a "Jerry McQuire" moment.

Today’s Financial Times has an article on Mark Zuckerberg entitled; ‘This is just the early stage.’ In the article, “Zuck,” as friends call him talks about the new technologies and enhancements Facebook will be rolling out soon.  One of which is Facebook Deals, which according to Zuck, will transform the way local businesses reach consumers as they walk down the street. I had to laugh when I read that, as I thought about my previous night’s experience at the Christmas Market in heart of old town (Altstadt) Munich.

For those of you who have never been to Germany in December, christmas markets start at the end of November and go through Christmas. The markets, that seem to occupy every square in town, are a mix of vendors selling everything from Gluhwein (a seasonal drink of warm wine) to Christmas ornaments of all types. But, what is must remarkable, is the experience that it creates.

The streets are filed with families, tourists, business people, and college students as they mix drinking, eating, socializing and shopping. I was in a packed square with fresh fallen snow, carolers atop of the Rathaus, with probably 5000 people jammed into a city block, surrounded by vendors and stores filled with shoppers. It’s as close to as you can get to seeing the North Pole and Santa’s workshop.

So, it struck me as funny that Zuck could think that he could change that experience with Facebook. Zuckerberg tells the reporter, David Gelles, that “Facebook’s unique map of human relationships will change business forever.”  To that I say, Facebook, and Zuck, you know nothing about human relationships, and, with the help of other new technologies, you are helping to destroy it.

You only need to watch a pack of teenage girls texting while at the mall, or a father on his blackberry at his child’s sporting event to see it. New technologies are enabling to us to be absent from the present…more so than ever. One thing I noticed last night was the revelers were not checking their phones or texting, they were in the moment, enjoying each other and soaking in the experience…except me.

I was busy sending texts and photos to my wife and my kids pretending that they were with me, when what I really wanted was to have them there or to hear their voices. It left me hollow, longing and lonely, the reason I’m having my Jerry McQuire moment.

New technologies are a double edged sword. They can enable good and bad, depending on how we used them. They promise greater “interactions” or “engagement” but that’s not to be confused with, or substituted for, relationships. They are not the same. And for business, don’t confuse your followers as loyal customers, because they are not. Most people are engaging for selfish reasons, they need or want something.  What they don’t want, or need, is a relationship with a vendor who only wants to sell them something.

What it has done is enable us to be more self-centered and lazy. "But Scott," you say, "how can that be? I’m busier than ever, new technologies are helping stay in touch.” Allow me to explain.

The phone eliminates the need to have to go see someone, email and text freed us having to place a call, and now you can simply tweet or post a comment and wait for someone to “Like” it, or leave a comment. No need to get involved, just do it and feedback will be sent to you. “Ah, 10 people like my comment…that makes me feel good.” Really?

Relationships take work and sometimes they can be painful, but they make us feel alive. They’re not easy, and you can’t automate them. Time is finite, and how we spend it, along with those experiences, helps define us. We can’t make more of it, or get it back. The more time we invest with technology means it is coming from something or someone, and it’s keeping us from something, or someone.

Perhaps what Facebook, and other technologies are doing is redefining how we think about ourselves. Technology allows us to express ourselves without having to invest a whole lot of time or emotion. We can go broad without having to go deep.

People now measure themselves by how many friends or followers they have. but what does that mean? To me it means that we are taking time away from family members or customers to interact with people who we don’t, or hardly, know. Why?  Because it’s easy, convenient, provides immediate gratification, and we can carry it around with us at all time…it’s a social security blanket.

The voice in our head saying; “just go online and see what people are posting on your wall, it’s happening now…you should check.”  It’s leading us down the wrong road. More time online means less time spent offline.  I went to Germany...and I almost missed being there.

Facebook now has over a half a billion users. It’s a runaway train.  It fills a need, but so does fast food. Plenty of people have told us that eating it is bad for us, but it’s convenient, cheap and the high salt content keeps us coming back for more. But just as fast food restaurants offer the 1000 calorie meal, they also offer healthy alternatives.  It’s up to us to make the right decision.

Our Facebook pages may feed the ego and give us a sense of immediacy, but it won’t nourish the soul, or satisfy our desire for intimacy.  To borrow liberally from Jerry McQuire; ”Technology, you don’t complete me…and you never will.”