In an earlier post on using feedback effectively there were ideas on sourcing, evaluating and using feedback from sources on the web and interested parties. Lately I’ve been giving some thought to how companies engage with users who give them feedback directly.
As someone who works on the web a lot, I use quite a number of web-based services. For some, and particularly those that are getting established, if I spot a problem I’ll often send an email or leave a comment so that they can fix it. As someone developing web applications, I know that I would appreciate someone taking the time to point out a problem that I had missed. In the end, I know it will result in a better service for me, and in them being able to offer their customers something that works better.
Having done this a number of times I’ve noticed three levels of response:
1. A Personal Response
This could be someone replying to a mail or a blog comment, and maybe look for more information about the problem, or just saying thank you for pointing it out.
2. An Automated Response
Often when you send a mail to support channels, you will get an automated response saying the message has been received, and is being routed to someone to be dealt with. It has not fallen into a dark black hole somewhere. In many companies, that have lots of customers and support requests, a huge amount of time could be spent personally responding to individual users. Obviously, this time could be more productively used any fixing problems that are identified.
3. The Deathly Sound of Silence
I’ve found that the majority of cases are met with no response at all. This may be because they are feverishly working to fix the problem that’s been spotted, or that the message fell between the cracks never to be seen again. Who knows.
It’s about relationships
I was reading an article on Empathy & Social Media, about developing relationships with customers by establishing trust. In the article, the argument is that Conversation + Sincerity + Empathy = Trust; the idea being that without trust, you will have no customers. It is the first part of that equation that I’m interested in: conversation. If a user of your product or service starts a conversation with you, engaging with them is a useful step. Without doing so, how can there be a basis for a relationship, or any trust?
By way of an example, I recently started using a web-based service provided by an Irish company. When I went to access the service one day, I found it wasn’t working, so I sent in a support request to find out if it was a problem on my end, or theirs. And got no response. When trying to figure it out, I found two more (unrelated) problems, and sent them a mail to let them know. And got no response. I know that this company will eventually be charging for their service, and I also know I won’t be one of their customers. If there is no relationship there, why would I trust (and pay) them to run the service in the future?
Users have options when it comes to many services offered on the web. Establishing a relationship with them is one means of creating emotional switching costs. Doing so makes them less likely to abandon your service for your competitors
The other side of this are companies that proactively look to engage with their customers. By doing so, they develop relationships, find new ideas and get feedback on their services. A recent trend is connecting direclty with customers using Twitter (a service to connect with people and broadcast & receive short messages on the web). There are examples of companies, both in Ireland and Internationally, using this method to interact with their customers. But this is not the only way. Sometimes it’s as easy as responding to an email.
