oneux | designing experiences

do customers want a relationship with brands?

In an HBR article, entitled  'Why your customers don't want to talk to you'  the authors argue that  customers prefer self service channels to face to face interaction with employees. They also raise the concern that this may be because customers 'never wanted the kind of relationship that companies have always hoped for, and that self service now allows customers the "out" they've been looking for all along.' Quite an interesting thought.

They also claim that channel hoping, customers' movement from channel to channel when interacting with a company, increases the likelihood of them being disloyal. That is an easy one to fix. Just design your service holistically. Look at all your touch-points as part of the same service, not as independent channels.

You never know maybe your customers do want to have a relationship with you, but at the moment that relationship is painful... for them.

disjointed brand experiences

Service design is about ensuring brands offer the same experience across touch-points. That is, approach to service, language, tone of voice, and overall message of what the brand represents are consistent whether I  visit a brand's website, talking to the staff in one of their stores, or getting a letter through the door. You may think that this is basic stuff and that brands, especially multichannel ones, know how to do this. Not really; it is so often that brands deliver a confusing and disjointed message, one that only helps undermine their core values, whatever they are. 

Here is an example: I recently bought a phil&teds (notice the lower case) buggy and had to contact their customer support.  By the way, I knew nothing about the brand and had never bought or seen any of their products before. So, I went online and came across a brand that uses a lot of colour, humour, and language that says ‘we do not wear suits here’, (see Image).  ‘Brilliant’ I thought, they must be a really friendly company and will have no trouble dealing with them. Which was true but after I submitted my query I received the following message:

“The correct course of action is for you to return your product to the place you purchased it from. The retailer will assist you in resolving the issues that you have and if necessary they will then refer to us for further assistance. As your contract of sale is with the retailer, this course of action must be followed in every case and should allow the matter to be resolved as efficiently as possible. “

Confused? I was; my perception of the brand was completely reversed. While there is nothing wrong with the message the image it portrays is one that says “we definitely wear suits here’. Which only leads me to question whether the website is the result of some wacky design agency or worse, the brand is being dishonest.

Think building a consistent brand across touch-points is easy?  Think again.

Donald Norman: responses to his essay

Here are some more posts that respond to Donald Norman's recent article on Design Research:

• Pasta & Vinegar

• Portigal Consulting

• neuroexperience

• putting people first

needs first, technology last

I have just finished reading Donald Norman’s article ‘Technology First, needs Last’. The premise of his essay is that design research is useless when it comes to ‘revolutionary innovation’ while it can be useful when applying incremental improvements to existing products. It also helps, wait for this,  to make products ‘ever more attractive [!!!]’.

I could complain that Norman’s argument reduces design research to a superficial, cosmetic element of the innovation process, but I won’t. Instead I’d argue that his essay really lends to the argument that design research and especially design thinking is absolutely crucial, if not critical to designing in our time.

Norman’s essay focuses on products and how technological innovation can make them possible. He argues that technological revolution, i.e. the invention of new product categories has never been the result of a ‘detailed consideration of human needs’. To support his argument he lists a range of products invented in the last century. These range from the airplane to the cellphone, or mobile phone for us Europeans.

He must be right, but then so what? Is it not the case that products are dead? Is it not true that we are shifting our attention from product development to service development? If this is the case – and it is – then technology cannot in itself and by itself solve the challenges we are facing. As Tim Brown puts it ‘a purely technocentric view of innovation is less sustainable now than ever’. Services are centred on people’s needs, not technology.

Of course the technology needs to be there but can we really depend on the technologists to come up with the right invention before we start tackling both minor every day and major global challenges? Is it not also possible that design research can unearth needs that will help change the application of existing technologies? If this is possible, then can we really call these improvements ‘incremental’? Creating a new category of products as part of a service ecosystem, is design revolution no matter if the products are based on existing technologies.

In a service economy needs come first and technology second, well no, actually technology comes third, after needs and service innovation. Technology enables innovation it does not drive it. I would however agree with Donald Norman that we better leave technological inventions to lone inventors, but then again are they ever lone?

outsourcing the customer experience

Can parts of a customer experience be outsourced to 3rd parties and still maintain a seamless brand experience across touchpoints? Monocle’s recent decision to bring their subscription service in-house after some not so favourable customer feedback shows it is harder than probably imagined. If a small, but strong, brand like Monocle found it hard to get a third party to behave and deliver a decent brand experience to its subscribers, then what hope do mega brands have?
Outsourcing certainly helps with managing costs and getting a service to market quicker than attempting it in-house; but to what cost to the brand and its reputation?  What businesses see as interim solutions carrying a small risk of not getting it exactly right are exacerbated online via social media.

Is it really worth it?

The problem with Starbucks

Howard Schultz is on a mission to revive, rescue, resurrect, reinvent  Starbucks as the big ship (15,000+ stores worldwide) needs to correct its route. A recent FT article describes how the new CEO is planning to help Starbucks reclaim its position as the best coffee house experience on the high street.

The problem
Schultz himself agrees that Starbucks is no longer the ‘quintessential experiential brand’ it used to be. As the brand grew it somehow lost its identity and has become a nondescript coffee shop among the many coffee shops now on every street corner.

The remedy
Schultz is hard at work trying to inject some of that early day appeal back to the brand. New coffee machines, less smelly foods and a better customer experience will help bring people back to Starbucks.

Well, will it work?
As I mentioned in a previous post, global brands like Starbucks need to observe and understand what attracts customers to the service in the first place as well as clearly define their offering.

Clearly defining the service and offering does not mean identikit stores in all corners of the world. It feels disingenuous and somehow sad that the only Starbucks in my hometown in Greece looks identical to my local Starbucks in the South Bank in London. While the quality of the product needs to be the same, the elements that build up the experience do not; consistency of experience does not mean consistency of the different elements that create that experience.

If Starbucks aims at recreating a community feeling at each of its stores then it is doubly important that local idiosyncrasies are taken into account when designing the space and service. For example, communal tables may be a great idea for a branch near a university where students want to gather in groups and work on projects, but may prove an unfortunate design decision for a branch in Canary Wharf, the financial heartland of London, where head-hunters do not want to share their tables with eager eavesdroppers.The spatial design, range of products, and overall approach need to reflect the local sensitivities. 

A sense of community cannot be manufactured and certainly not dictated on unassuming customers. Having a 'community notice board' does not make Starbucks a community hub. It is usually small touches and interventions that work. A good example is Monmouth, my favourite coffee shop in Borough market. For £2.50 you can get a plate and help yourself at the  bread, butter, and jamsittin gin the long communcal table. A great excuse to start a conversation with people enjoying the same great breakfast.

making the big, personal

I borrow this title from some pitch work I recently did for a big, well, massive blue chip service company. One of the issues raised was the disconnected experiences customers feel when interacting with the service. Wealth of products/service offerings and a multitude of touch-points make it hard for the service provider to develop and maintain one consistent voice, message, and eventually service experience.

By 'consistent service experience' I do not mean an unsurprising and predictable experience that leaves people unimpressed, but a series of diverse experiences that share an underlying theme and philosophy that weave through all interactions with the service and the service offering itself.

Before starting to tackle the issue, we looked at service experiences people love and identified a series of attributes that contribute to that positive experience: Respectful, observant, staff that embody the company philosophy, are some of the elements of a positive personal service experience. We also found that small, frequently independent service providers, are the ones that exhibit most of those virtues.

Hence the question: how can you make the big personal?

Companies, such as Starbucks have tried it. As this month's (issue 16) Monocle editorial reminds us, Starbucks current problems partly stem from the fact that it pretends to be 'a community player but ultimately falls short on both spirit and product'. So how can a global brand offer a personal experience? The answer lies in understanding what attracts customers to the service in the first place as well as clearly defining the service. Sounds simple but requires commitment and an open culture.

service you care about

Tyler Brûlé, in his recent FT column, laments the state of the hospitality and service industries. As well as stating the need to set up a hospitality school, he urges business owners to 'take a microscopic look at how their businesses are being represented and what staff are being allowed to get away with. Put simply, if yours is a service business, why are so many policies anti-customer?'

There are two separate issues here: First, the policies that underpin the service delivery. Were these designed with the customer in mind? When was the last time they were reviewed? Are they flexible enough to be tailored around specific customers and their needs? Is there a process of capturing those needs? Has management got first hand experience of the service provided? Basically are the policies tied to business objectives and the bottom line or to customers and service delivery?

Second, there are the staff that deliver the service. I’d argue, as well as looking into what the staff are getting away with, it will also be useful to find out why the staff feel the need to get away with substandard service. Have they been included in the design of the service? Are they empowered to define the service and feedback to the management? Basically are the staff treated as the brand ambassadors that they are?

Service design, user/customer centred design -call it whatever you want - can both give answers to those questions and help design a service that meets Mr Brûlé’s standards and hopefully exceeds them. He can still set up a school though!

extraordinary service brands

In the weekend edition of IHT for March 1-2, 2008, Joe Nocera talks to Millard Drexler, CEO of J.Crew and finds out that his hands-on approach helps him deliver value for J.Crew. "Visiting stores, quizzing the staff, critiquing everything in sight - and most of all, meeting customers - is at the core of how Mr. Drexler runs J. Crew."

Nocera describes how Drexler has 're-established his almost visceral connection to the customer'. He mentions how J.Crew's CEO spends time every day going through customer emails, visiting stores and talking to his staff and customers on the shop floor. Drexler does not see anything special about his approach: "People want to be listened to and they want to be respected. Besides, this is how you learn what is on their mind. What can be more important than that?"

Drexlers' almost obsessive attention to his customers' and staff needs is typical of managers running powerful service brands. Powerful in that they are immersive and present a coherent and consistent face to all those who come in contact with any of the brand's touchpoints. In Uncommon Practice: People who deliver a great brand experience, managers are unanimous that when it comes to providing a great service, staff come first. That means taking time to hire the right people, getting them to experience the service, and rewarding them for great service [one of the five compensation indices at Virgin is 'virgin professionalism' ].

Wally Olins also highlights the importance of getting the staff to live the brand when he lays out his rules for sustaining service brands:

• Organise your operations around the brand
• Train your people to live the brand
• Behave the way you talk
• Always remember your staff are the brand
• Be consistent and coherent
• Treat customers with respect
• Listen to customers
• Lead by example from the top

I wonder how many CEOs of our familiar everyday brands pause to consider their staff and customers... 

service brandng: the journey

In Wally Olins' On Brand, the author devotes an entire chapter to service brands. There he introduces the concept of 'journey', or rather different types of journeys, that anyone who comes in touch with the brand goes through.
He returns to the topic of services when he provides guidelines on how to create and sustain a brand (chapter 9). When talking about behaviour, one of brand's four senses, and service brands, Olins argues that 'every kind of service that we buy is behaviourally driven or influenced..... Airlines are also a classic example of behaviourally driven brands. We almost always judge an airline on the basis of the service we receive; not how long it took to get from Budapest to Amsterdam but was the experience was like from the moment we arrive at the airport till the time when we pick up our luggage" (p.182). In other words, it is the journey one takes through the brand that defines their experience not the product itself.

Absolutely spot on. However, the journey begins well before deciding to engage with a brand. Arriving at the airport is certainly not the beginning of the customer journey. By the time you get to the airport you have already bought into the brand. The journey starts well before that: at the point when you decide to take a holiday, and you have to choose not only which airline to fly with but also whether to fly at all.

When designing that experience, the service provider needs to look at every touchpoint and see how they (the brand, if you wish) talk to the potential customer.

unforseen circumstances

I recently came across this sign at a hospital in east London. The sign reads: 'Due to unforeseen circumstances there is a delay in this clinic of approximately .... hrs. We apologise for any stress this may cause you.'

Well, not that unforeseen since the hospital felt the need to design and buy a sign that permanently sits at one of the clinics. Did the fact that they had to get a sign not ring bells about the processes they follow that allow such regular 'unforeseen' circumstances to affect the level of service they provide?

What message does the sign send to the patients waiting to be seen?

when user centred design improves quality of life

Monocle, one of my favourite magazine runs a quality of life index sponsored by HSBC. Among a list of bars, hotels, and services, there is an entry for the uraniastrasse car park in Zurich where a small improvement for the users of the car park has made finding a parking space a painless experience.  The improvement? A simple electronic display at each bay displaying the number of  free spaces and where they are. Think about it next time you find yourself driving round in circles in some multistory inhumane cement block on a Saturday morning.

ensuring excellent service at the point of delivery

In previous posts I mentioned the need to empower the people who deliver the service and create a working culture employees can and will feel proud of.
But how do you maintain and reinforce an employee centric culture for a varied employee base? How do you make sure customers receive a consistently excellent experience across all touch points? Pret a manger is an example of a company which delivers a positive brand experience. The idea is that customers have the same high quality experience when they visit a Pret in any city or country. This is generally true, but there will be cases where customers experience a service that does not much the brand as the service is delivered by people and is not fully automated.
Here is an example: I have been visiting the same Pret every morning for a few months now and have been more than happy with the service. The other day however, I visited a different Pret and I received a brand shock, the Pret experience I received was nothing like what I came to expect. The setting was familiar but the choreography was all wrong. I will spare you the details but it suffices to say that the whole experience fell short of what Pret got me used to and it all had to do with the way the service was delivered by the Pret employees.

So how can we make sure that the experience offered remains consistent? Some ideas:

• Remind staff of brand values
• Maintain a physical environment that reinforces the brand
• While allowing staff to rewrite the rules, ensure these stay consistent to the brand values

good services need to be...

• useful
• usable
• desirable
• efficient
• effective
• different
• holistic
• observant
• user focused
• reinforcing loyalty
• integrative
• surprising

This is a list compiled partly at the emergence 2007 conference and partly from my own experience working on user centred projects. A number of themes here, for example, useful, desirable, etc.  will be familiar to all those doing user centred work, while other themes such as holistic, observant, surprising, and reinforcing loyalty are more closely related to service design. I am still working out what integrative is all about!

service providers at the heart of service design

One of the themes that came out of emergence 2007 was the need to include and engage those that deliver the service we are in the mids of (re)desiging.

Chris Downs, from live | work talked about relinquishing control of the design process as a means of empowering service providers. He gave a convincing example form his own work and talked about relinquishing control, which appears quite bold but in closer inspection I see it as still having full control of the process while taking a step back and becoming good facilitators, another key skill that emerged from Oliver King's (from Engine) run panel . 

Bettina von Kupsch, Head of Customer Experience Management, at Swisscom Mobile, also talked about employees being at the centre of how Swisscom understands service and how they go about institutionalising  their approach to 'unbeatable service and quality'. As she put it, 'employees are the key to superior service quality'

The notion of entrusting your employees with delivering a great service is a familiar one. It is a a common theme that underpins almost all of the interviews featured in 'Uncommon Practice'. Companies that have successfully created a valued brand place their employees at the heart of their operation. Employees are valued more than customers while the culture and processes reinforce a sense of pride for being part of the company. In 'Uncommon Practice' Richard Branson of Virgin Atlantic accepts that Virgin is not the only airline that employs talented people, however he argues that Virgin staff feel proud of their job and of the company, as a result the take extra care in their job and make sure they deliver a service that will maintain that sense of pride.

              

       

service design will save the world

This is more or less the gist  of one of the panels and some of the presentations at emergence 2007. Sorry but somehow I have to disagree.
I understand service design as brand experience. There will be cases of course where designing a service is more about communicating a social and not a corporate message. The AIDS epidemic was an example brought up during one of the panels; designing a service around AIDS awareness involves ensuring the message is strongly experienced by all 'users' at all service touchpoints. The driving force behind the design will be to design a consistent brand, oops sorry, message experience not save the world. As designers we are simply not adequately equipped to successfully deliver such a grand task, a service we design might contribute to some world harmony, but that is thanks to the service message itself, with our design enhancing that message.

service design conference

Emergence 2007 will take place between the 7th and 9th of September in Pittsburgh. Hope to see you there. Here are some more user experience design conferences.

connecting the dots

It is really painful to see your clients developing and trialing different services and failing to see that independently they cancel some of each others' benefits while combining the services and streamlining them will successfully meet their customers' needs. It is not that they do not want, after all, user-centred services will increase revenue and keep their bosses and stockholders happy. It is more because different design teams work more or less in isolation with different  project objectives. As an external agency working on a number of projects for a single client you are in a position to first discover customer needs and then identify what elements of each service can be combined to produce what the client is actually looking for: improve the customer experiences and on their way increase their profits. This is another argument for designing the full service across touchpoints than looking at isolated instances and missing the overall service experience.

to all mobile phone service providers

            

 

Provide a service not a phone.
Walk into any mobile phone store and you see people pouring over brochures or checking out the dummy phones. I wonder how many of them check out the services provided by the operators. They will definitely compare prices and take previous experiences into account, they may chose a provider based on who their friends are with.. to save money.. but I doubt whether they will look into the services and especially the level of quality services offered by each provider. The reason for this is that there is nothing really to differentiate between providers. They’ve all done a great job building their image and identity but they have been slow to provide exciting services.

I took a technology company, Apple to awake them from their deep sleep and take notice. The new Apple iPhone is introducing Visual Voicemail for example, a service I would have expected the providers to pioneer not the manufacturers. Let’s just hope that the user centred approach Apple is famous for will rub off on to service providers.

            

       

owning services: a way to service envy

            

 

One of the main distinctions between products and services, is that we use the latter rather than own them. Part of good service design is to encourage use over ownership.

One reason why people become passionate about products is that they can make them their own, they can show them to their friends, they can define themselves by owning them. This strong feeling of ownership cannot and should not be underestimated when designing services. Creating a feeling of ownership could help users become passionate about using a service in the same way as owning a product. This can be achieved by designing compelling touchpoint experiences, or where possible, allowing users to own part of the service.

Take voicemail on mobile phones for example. As a service, voicemail is not owned by the users but rater used: every time a user wants to access their voicemail they have to call into their voicemail service to access and 'use' their voicemail. My experience in researching voicemail suggests that users feel let down by the service because they cannot own it. Simply using it seems like a cheat. So, any way of allowing people to 'own' their voicemail will improve their experience and the service.