Great customer service starts with the basics.

In today’s marketing world, there’s so much emphasis on high-tech, sophisticated approaches to customer service, we tend to overlook the basics.

Here are two stories that suggest that good customer service really starts with the basics. Both stories are true. And while the examples concern a consumer real estate business, the lessons can apply to nearly any service business.

In the first case, a real estate agent sent a prospective home buyer copies of ten MLS listings of homes for sale. The next day, the buyer called to tell the agent that there were two properties that he was interested in. When he called, another agent answered the telephone and told him, “Becky just stepped out of the office. She’ll get back to you in about 30 minutes.”

Thirty minutes went by, a day went by, a week went by. The agent never returned the prospect’s phone call. Understandably, the buyer interpreted the agent’s non-response as disinterest in his business. He contacted another agency and eventually bought one of the two properties through the new agent.

The price of the missed phone call? Approximately $10,000 in commissions.

In another case, a prospective home buyer left several messages at an agency about some properties they had listed on their Internet site. Again, the buyer’s phone calls were not returned. Finally, in frustration he called and spoke to the agency owner, who apologized profusely for the oversight. “I’ll send you some information about our properties right away,” she promised.

The buyer expected to get the material in a day or two. But five days went by, a week passed, ten days went by, and still the information never arrived. Finally, he called the agency again, there was no answer, so he left a less than flattering message with the owner’s voice mail. He also told his story to another agency, as well as to several of his friends.

The owner, it should be noted, never called to apologize, or at least explain why she never sent the materials.

In the first case concerning the lost commissions, the agent most likely never returned the customer’s phone call because she never got the message in the first place. In the second case, we can assume the owner of the agency intended to send the materials, but simply forgot to do so.

As noted at the outset, we spend a lot of time and money on sophisticated customer relationship management programs, high-tech tracking systems that measure service quality, and employee training and re-training. However, these two stories suggest that many businesses would be better off focusing on the basics. . . .

For example, do you know that phone calls are being returned promptly at your business? Are you sure, or are you jus assuming they are? Customers expect to have their phone calls returned promptly. Unless they tell you otherwise, “promptly” to a customer means today – tomorrow at the latest.

Are employees checking and returning their email and voice mail messages regularly? In some cases businesses installed voice mail to alleviate the problem of lost or missed telephone messages, yet employees allow their messages to back up for days, forget to return calls, or – the worst offense – use their voice mail as a way to avoid customer “interruptions.”

If you are worried that customer calls are not being returned, consider setting up a centralized location for messages so that none get lost in a pile on someone’s desk. Instruct your staff that messages should include the name of the person who took the message, the time of the call, and – obviously – the name and phone number of the caller.

If nothing else, “audit” your telephone message procedures. Make sure they are clear, and that everyone in the office knows the procedures, as well as the financial impact when service procedures are not followed.

In our second case, the agent who forgot to send the customer the requested information simply needed to ‘fess up and apologize for the oversight. We’re human beings, not machines, and most people are willing to forgive a mistake, as long as the guilty party owns up to the error. Good customer service starts with taking responsibility for the customer. In this case, the owner of the agency failed to take responsibility, irritating a prospect and setting a bad example for the other agents in her office.

Some years ago a company that actually has a terrific customer service record established what they call their “Ooops!” fund. They use it to buy gift certificates at local restaurants or gift baskets from local florists. Whenever they goof up with a customer or prospect, they apologize promptly and send one of their “Ooops!” gifts. When they do make mistakes, which is rare, they are ready to make amends with the customer. By preparing for such an eventuality, it is easier for them to admit it when they make a mistake – and it is easier to make things right again.

This second case also demonstrates how important internal or personal support systems are to good customer service. A “support system” might be as simple as a personal information manager or Daytimer that reminds you of your appointments, your to-dos, and your phone calls. Many sophisticated computer-based and Internet resources are available. The idea is to have some sort of back-up system, so that when the frontal lobes fail (or wherever in the brain we remember these things!), the customer doesn’t suffer as a result.

Good customer service starts with the basics: returning phone calls, replying to emails, following-through as promised, and recovering promptly and graciously when we make mistakes.

Over-reliance on customer feedback is hurting local retailers.

For the past few years I have been trying to unravel the mystery of why so many local retailers are reluctant to embrace new marketing technologies such as email marketing and e-commerce web sites. The explanations I get from various small business consultants and web gurus usually fall along the line of “they are resistant to change,” “they are stuck in the past,” “they’re just old-fashioned.”

Barely hidden behind these comments is a raw contempt that suggests that local retailers deserve to fail because they are so “slow to change”

None of these comments have made sense to me. The independent retailers that I know are smart businessmen and women. They are as aware of the challenges as anyone and eagerly looking for solutions. They are not resistant to change. More often it’s a case of not being sure about which change to embrace and which ones will be worth their investment in time and money.

A few weeks ago I came upon another explanation — one that makes sense to me — about the local retailer’s reluctance to embrace new marketing techniques and technology. Last April the Journal of Retailing published a paper, When Do Relationships Pay Off for Small Retailers? Exploring Targets and Contexts to Understand the Value of Relationship Marketing. The authors are Mavis T. Adjei, David A. Griffith, and Stephanie M. Noble.

Their study of 172 local retailers showed that there was a significant difference in the value of customer relationships depending of the audience (customers and suppliers) and local market conditions (highly competitive and dynamic, high levels of customer change). Retailers in their study had an average of eight employees, $634,000 in annual sales revenue, two locations and 18 years in operation.

As you might expect, in most cases the better the retailer’s relationship with customers, the better the store’s performance. In one situation, however, a strong customer relationship actually had a negative effect on performance.

I know that sounds illogical and counter-intuitive, but the study suggests that retailers can become over-reliant on customer feedback. Having that personal, face-to-face contact gives them a false sense of security that they are “in touch” with the marketplace. With that confidence in their customer relationships, they tend to discount what is taking place outside the store.

As the authors of the study explain it –

Market dynamism resulted in a negative relationship between relationship quality
with customers and market responsiveness. This negative moderation suggests a small retailer’s over-reliance on relationship quality creates an inertia effect, thus when practices are changing relying on quality relationships with customers hinders a retailer’s market responsiveness because they fail to adapt to changing marketing practices in the industry.

Independent retailers have been exhorted to embrace new marketing practices and technologies for years with mixed success. As the study shows, the reluctance to do so is not because retailers are stuck or resistant to change. It is primarily because they believe they are already doing what logic tells them they must do: create excellent customer relationships.

Clearly, that is not enough. Now we see that the next step is to maintain those relationships and to monitor and respond to today’s dynamic retail marketplace.

Treating job applicants like potential customers.

An out-of-work marketing executive in Minnesota recently made an emotional — and somewhat threatening — plea for HR departments to show more humanity towards job-hunters.

In “How About a Humane Human Resources?” author Pat Dawson reminds us that job applicants are frequently our customers and prospects as well job hunters.

You know the 15 million of us out there interviewing, applying online, waiting for that next great opportunity? Well, we’re also your customers. We’re still buying cable and cereal and insurance and wireless and shoes and most of the stuff we’ve always bought — albeit a little less often and only after checking prices at 19 locations.

Marketers have spent the last two decades obsessing over branding and brand-building. It therefore seems odd how little attention we have given to the impact of the HR department on brand reputation, especially when it comes to employee recruitment.

On the plus side, we’ve gotten used to the idea of thinking of current employees as customers. Many organizations use internal marketing practices to win employee support for the corporate mission and objectives.

But what about the much larger group of people who wanted to be part of your team but didn’t make the cut? What are they thinking about your company once they’ve been cut loose? Do they see your company — through the prism of HR — as a great organization that treats people — customers, employees, job applicants — as real people ? Do they still want to do business with you? What will they say about your company if your name comes up with neighbors, friends, or future co-workers at some other organization?

Here’s how Dawson put it –

Shouldn’t you guardians of “respect in the workplace” and “human potential” show us some love? When you don’t acknowledge our applications, when you don’t bother to tell us you’ve picked someone else, when an e-mail or call goes unreturned, when you blast out a faceless, nameless departmental e-mail to tell us “you have many fine work experiences — just not the ones we’re interested in,” it leaves a mark.

Let’s be candid: when we are flooded with job applications, many from people who are clearly not qualified and perhaps are applying only to keep their unemployment insurance, it’s easy to think of applicants in impersonal terms. However, as many marketers have learned, it’s not how we define the customer experience, but how the customer defines it. For applicants who have been turned down and feel they have been treated impersonally and carelessly, it doesn’t matter to them how short-staffed you are. The bottom line is that they feel resentful and are likely to find some way to take it out on your organization.

Here’s Dawson again:

Remember this: Most of us will work again. And when that first paycheck appears in our online account, we’ll be the elephants who never forget the journey we’ve just ended … and how we were treated at all the companies we visited along the way.

While that perspective might seem harsh, it expresses the feelings of many rejected applicants.  Here are some ideas that HR executives can use to make those feelings the exception and not the rule.

1. Establish HR branding and customer service standards. Meet with your recruitment and hiring staff and develop behavioral standards for communicating and interacting with job applicants. Make sure that your standards compliment the broader organizational branding objectives and standards. Communicate the standards to your staff and evaluate their performance during semi-annual and annual reviews.

2. Think like a marketer. As David Packard once said, “Marketing is too important to be left to the marketing department.” Put another way, everyone is in marketing and that includes the Human Resources department.

The contacts we have with job applicants represent a golden opportunity to sell our organizations. Just because they have applied for a job doesn’t mean they really understand your company, its mission, goals, or its contributions to the community and other stakeholders. Through the use of links to appropriate sections of your corporate web site or a small but well-designed brochure, you can educate applicants, create goodwill and — yes — possibly win a new customer.

3. Get the right people to be the ‘face” of human resources. While we need HR staff with good technical, compliance, and number-crunching skills, those who interact directly with job applicants should be chosen with the same care we choose our customer service staff. If necessary, consider customer service training for your employment team.

4. Get personal. Even with tons of resumes and staff cutbacks it is still possible — and essential from a branding standpoint — to treat each applicant as if he or she were a potential customer. Resumes must be responded to on a timely basis– and not with a form letter but with a personal message. Job updates also must be timely and should be personalized.

Through the use of simple automation software, it is possible to do this efficiently and quickly. Just as we expect our regular customer support staff to do more with less — and maintain high brand contact standards — we should expect the same from HR.

5. Get audited. Get an outside pair of eyes to review your employment communications with the goal of making it professional, legally compliant, and customer friendly. An outside perspective can reveal areas where the language can be softened and made friendlier. If an applicant needs to be turned down — and most will — the goal is to leave them wishing they  could still be part of your company, not thankful that they aren’t.

6. Get help. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. Personally, I am not great at interviewing job applicants, but I can write a fantastic letter letting applicants know the status of their application, or even smoothing the delivery of bad news, i.e. “you did not get the job.” If you don’t have the time or are a little challenged in this area, hire someone to do it for you. There are plenty of us out there willing and able to help. It won’t break your budget either, but it will go a long way towards winning new customers and advocates for your brand.

Check with your marketing and public relations departments. Let them know that you want to support the organization’s branding efforts. Ask if someone can review your communications — not from a compliance standpoint — but from a branding and customer relations perspective.

While there will always be hurt feelings and resentment from applicants who are turned down, treating applicants like potential customers and establishing HR branding standards will go along way towards making Human Resources part of the branding solution, and not a problem.

The company you keep: is it helping or hurting your personal brand?

Remember that well-worn expression about being judged by the company you keep?

Mike Myatt, “chief strategy officer” with N2growth, says that executives need to be cautious about the company they keep lest their personal brands, i.e. their reputations, suffer.

The reality is that who you associate with on both a personal and professional basis matters…There is truth in the old axiom which states “perception is reality” and this is particularly accurate when the perception catches fire and becomes a widely held belief. The good news is that if you make sound choices in your personal and professional relationships you will benefit from doing so. On the other hand, should your choices place you in the company of those who are not respected and largely thought of in ill fashion by others, your personal brand will likely suffer as a result.

Myatt uses the example of Barack Obama and the candidate’s long-time association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a minister who was videotaped giving anti-white sermons to his congregation.

There is no denying that Senator Obama’s personal brand has undergone tremendous scrutiny and has received a glut of negative attention as a result of this one single relationship.

Myatt argues that executives should choose their acquaintances based on shared values, rather than a short-term focus on social or business advantages.

Although it is hard to disagree with his premise, the reality is that it often takes time and personal experience with someone before their true value system emerges. Becoming too cautious can quickly limit an executive’s exposure to new ideas, cultures, and attitudes.

To read Myatt’s blog, click here.