Is there a limit to customer-centricity?

[gajarvis]

Please see:

http://networking.ittoolbox.com/blogs/featuredentry.asp?i=8276

Which CRM tools would you recommend to direct marketers?

 

[directmarketingadvice]

What's "customer-centricity"?

Steve

 

[Cornish Steve]

Graham,

I read your well-written article. It covers a lot of topics, each of which could be discussed at length. I'd like to comment briefly on three of them:

- I agree that we should not just blindly listen to customers. We should challenge statements and demonstrate leadership. Sometimes, by understanding a customer's pain points, we can offer a solution that is better than the specific patch they are requesting.

- Permission based marketing, in my opinion, is a pain in the neck. The government has established laws that go far beyond data protection. It's an intrusion on the supplier's centuries-old right to contact potential customers. Sure, there are people who abuse the system, but the answer is not for the government to dictate who we can and cannot contact and by what means.

- I agree that organisations should be built around meeting customer needs at a profit. Customers should indeed be kings and queens - although some do act rather like spoilt princesses.

 

[gajarvis]

What's "customer-centricity"?

Steve

This is explained on my ITtoolbox blog. At a basic level it involves talking with the customer about his or her needs, desires, and expectations and focusing all of your organisation's resources and strategies on delivering them. The opposite of customer-centricity is where a company does what it thinks the customer wants, needs, desires and expects. The other term associated with customer-centricity is that of being 'customer-led'.

To a degree agressive salespeople are being myopic; they do not listen to the customer, and to a degree this isn't helped by the ethos of Customer Relationship Management, which sees customers as serfs rather than as kings and queens.

Even if you are determined to get a sale out of someone, whether liked or not, if someone says that they need something in writing, then you are more likely to get a sale if you do as they ask. After all, the most important element of any relationship, commercial or pesonal is the creation of some form of emotional connection or another type motivational incentive that gives a reason to buy from a company.

Should we be afraid that some people won't reply if we do as they ask? It costs to send out literature for sure, but just maybe they might come back, or recommend your company for practising good customer service. Being pointed to a website is fine while you're speaking to someone who's willing to chat about it, but people often have other things to do. So even dropping them an email, so that they can explore whether they want a relationship with your company or not, is far better than it being pushed down their throats.

With regards to leadership and innovation, which is still going to be necessary at times, it should be undertaken in a more persuasive and encouraging manner. Pushy salespeople only give their profession a bad name. If you want to know how to connect with customers, and increase sales without being too agressive, please feel free to contact Andrew Dugdale, Chairman of ICDL ([email protected]).

Good customer service also starts with happy employees, and not misaligned call centre agent performance targets that only back up a Service Level Agreement (SLA), while doing nothing to provide benefits to the customer.

At the Ion Group customers are encouraged to have conversations with the agents, while with some other call centres the customer has a limited amount of time to ask and have his or her query solved. Otherwise if you are that customer, you'll just have to call back! This is so that they, not the Ion Group I add, can maintain high call volumes to meet their internal targets and, of course, rip off the customer in the process. Personally I prefer the Ion Group's approach, it is more likely to develop a profitable, long-term relationship with their client's customers.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

At a basic level it involves talking with the customer about his or her needs, desires, and expectations and focusing all of your organisation's resources and strategies on delivering them. The opposite of customer-centricity is where a company does what it thinks the customer wants, needs, desires and expects.

That just sounds to me like the difference between doing proper market research and guessing.

Pesonally, I think the market's desires and expectations are the starting place, but just the starting place. And that a key function of business is the ongoing process of seeking ways of delivering more than they expect.

I think the whole "customers are kings" notion is plain wrong. Business is about the two-way exchange of value (usually a product or service in exchange for money).

Of course, by tailoring our services to the client, we make them more valuable and receive more money, but that's just common sense, not serfdom.

After all, what's the point in tailoring them to anyone but the (intended) client?

As for how this fits into the theories of "customer-centricity", I really don't know.

Steve

 

[WakingDragon]

This seems to be splitting hairs. Even with leadership, R&D and strategic vision, all companies are doing is trying to work out "what the customer will want next".

Without customers you are nothing so there is no limit to the extent that companies should be customer focussed.

 

[Cornish Steve]

This seems to be splitting hairs. Even with leadership, R&D and strategic vision, all companies are doing is trying to work out "what the customer will want next".

Without customers you are nothing so there is no limit to the extent that companies should be customer focussed.

But I think the point of the article is that we don't build structures and processes to reflect the importance of the customer. If the customer lies at the centre of our thinking, then processes should be built around that centre. This is a valid point.

 

[gajarvis]

Sure everyone needs to attain value, and it is a two-way street, but the customer is said to be king for a good reason: customers have the potential to make the difference between a company being profitable and loss-making. So all of your thinking and strategies should be aligned as much as possible to that of your customers. This doesn't negate your own needs, and there will always be a compromise between being customer-centric and introspectively company-centricity or shareholder-centric.

At a basic level it involves talking with the customer about his or her needs, desires, and expectations and focusing all of your organisation's resources and strategies on delivering them. The opposite of customer-centricity is where a company does what it thinks the customer wants, needs, desires and expects.

That just sounds to me like the difference between doing proper market research and guessing.

Pesonally, I think the market's desires and expectations are the starting place, but just the starting place. And that a key function of business is the ongoing process of seeking ways of delivering more than they expect.

I think the whole "customers are kings" notion is plain wrong. Business is about the two-way exchange of value (usually a product or service in exchange for money).

Of course, by tailoring our services to the client, we make them more valuable and receive more money, but that's just common sense, not serfdom.

After all, what's the point in tailoring them to anyone but the (intended) client?

As for how this fits into the theories of "customer-centricity", I really don't know.

Steve