The time has come for the contact center and customer handling environment to jettison the term, ‘deflection.’ There is an inherent prejudice in the word when used in the context of customer service, that is, it is an operational view.
The word itself comes with some psychological baggage. I hate to resort to the dictionary, but I must in this case, as it is illuminating. Deflect carries the meaning to ‘redirect from oneself blame or guilt.’ Ouch. Were the adopters of this word subconsciously interpreting a customer’s issue with a product as pointing blame at the organization for a deficient product? Hmm.
Regardless of the underlying evolution, it’s time the industry stopped using this language in customer handling. The idea of ‘deflection’ belies the thinking that it is very much a cost savings behavior; move this customer’s inquiry from the costly telephony agent channel to a less costly channel such as self-service or a digital channel. This thinking has no place in a customer handling environment.
I’ve heard many arguments in support of the routing to alternative channels away from voice. Among them ‘customers like to help themselves,’ or ‘we are getting them to a channel where there isn’t a wait,’ and ’customers don’t like talking to an agent.’ It must be acknowledged that these assertions are partially true. With an increase in the volume of inquiries, the difficulty in hiring & training agents, and the high attrition rate of agents means that contact centers are always woefully understaffed and in a perpetual state of training. Providing alternative channels is a sound strategy.
However, the idea that customers don’t want to talk to agents is not exactly true. IDC’s recent CX Path Survey, which surveyed individuals familiar with their contact center, gave some interesting insight into why customers choose agent-assisted channels such as Web chat, SMS and telephone. In the multi-response question 50.5% of the organizations indicated that ‘comfort with talking to a human’ was the number one reason for selecting an agent-assisted channel closely followed by ‘convenience’ at 47.3% and ‘complexity of interaction,’ at 43.1%. While use of AI and automation can address aspects of ‘convenience’ and ‘complexity of interaction’ with channel availability and generative AI for specific content, replacing ‘comfort with talking to a human’ is more difficult.
Another thought on the motivations behind ‘deflection;’ specifically cost savings. ‘Deflection’ to less costly channels may not be the panacea to the cost problem. Again, according to the IDC CX Path survey, 44% of the respondents indicated that on average their customers moved through three channels before achieving a final resolution to an issue. Of the respondent base 22.1% indicated two channels, 20% four channels and 8.4% five or more channels. Astoundingly, only 3.2% of the respondents estimated that a typical customer used only one channel before reaching a resolution.
Consider the customer’s perspective at the point they reach the resolution, either by themselves or with an agent after escalation. The customer has used a number of resources and still ultimately may have ended with an agent-assisted channel and potentially voice. There is a cost in this scenario in terms of customer tolerance/happiness etc., as well as the cost of putting these channels in place.
What is my solution then? Don’t have multi-channels? Don’t move customers to other channels if agents will be the ultimate answer? No. Stop thinking about ‘deflection’ and focus on ‘the path of resolution’. I know, I know, everyone is trying to resolve problems. My thesis is to consider all channels part of the solution and leverage it as part of the journey. If a customer escalates, that isn’t a bad thing in and of itself. It is a bad thing if the flow through the channels wasn’t leveraged. Each channel should collect information that is context rich, and that context should move with the customer as they move across channels. Assume your customers are going to move through multiple channels. Each channel should perform its own triage so that when the customer reaches the agent, the agent is fully prepared to quickly help resolve the issue.
But what should the new word be that better represents a customer-centric viewpoint of the contact center?
It needs to reflect:
- You deserve our time. You paid money to us and bought our product; you have a right to service. This is a business transaction.
- We want to help you. Really, you showed us your confidence in buying our product. We want to honor that.
- We want to help you as quickly as possible, in the channel you prefer, at the time you prefer. At this moment, it is about you and not about us.
- If you start with self-service, that is ok, but if it doesn’t resolve or satisfy your issue we will capture all that you have communicated and carry it along to the next channel with context to resolve the issue as quickly as we can.
- If we do a good job in honoring our commitment to service a product that you deserve timely service on, then we hope to have earned your continued business. Only then does it become a ‘relationship.’ (Don’t get me going on loyalty. That is one-sided. We’ll save that for another day.)
Back to the question of what to call it? What is a better name? We used to have What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get in publishing applications – WYSIWYG – it was pronounceable.
- Right-Channel-Right-Time – RCRT?
- Efficient Handling?
- Simply ‘Resolution?’
We’ll work on the name. Please send suggestions. The point is, deflection is out, and ‘positive customer handling with the customer in mind’ is in.
