!NNUAL /NLINE #USTOMER %NGAGEMENT 3URVEY 2EPORT
!..5!, /.,).% #534/-%2 %.'!'%-%.4 3526%9 2%0/24
!NNUAL /NLINE #USTOMER %NGAGEMENT 3URVEY 2EPORT CONTENTS
!BOUT % CONSULTANCY
!BOUT C3CAPE
)NTRODUCTION $E½NITION OF CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT 7HY CUS TOMER ENGAGEMENT IS IMPORTANT
%XECUTIVE 3UMMARY
2EPORT HIGHLIGHTS -EASURING CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE $ELIVERING ON CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE AND CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT "ARRIERS TO A MAGNI½CENT CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
0RO½LE OF 2ESPONDENTS .UMBER OF RESPONDENTS 0RO½LE ¯ COMPANY OR SUPPLIER 'EOGRAPHY 3IZE BY TURNOVER 3IZE BY NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
&INDINGS -EASURING CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE %XTENT OF CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE MEASUREMENT #USTOMER SATISFACTION ,OYALTY ,IKELIHOOD TO RECOMMEND (OW CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE IS MEASURED #USTOMER EXPERIENCE MEASUREMENT ISSUES #USTOMER %NGAGEMENT -APPING CUSTOMER EXPERIENCES TOUCH POINTS 7ORKING IN CROSS FUNCTIONAL TEAMS %XCEEDING CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS %NGAGING WITH YOUR AUDIENCE %NGAGING WITH CUSTOMERS CHANNELS AND TECHNOLOGIES 3EGMENTATION AND 0ERSONALISATION -ETHODS OF SEGMENTATION ,EVEL OF ONLINE PERSONALISATION "ARRIERS "ARRIERS TO MAGNI½CENT CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE "ARRIERS TO INVESTING IN TECHNOLOGY
!..5!, /.,).% #534/-%2 %.'!'%-%.4 3526%9 2%0/24
)NTRODUCTION Customer engagement is the topic of the day. With the growing excitement around Web 2.0, how we attract and develop relationships with our audiences has taken on new imperative. Customer engagement is the best measure of current and future performance; an engaged relationship is probably the only guarantee for a return on your organisation’s or your clients’ objectives. The interactive experience that digital media provide has transformed our ability to engage with our customers and clients. Digital media are flexible, offering us opportunities to capture more data, faster than any other medium. But how effective are we in engaging our customers? How ready are we to exploit our chosen medium? And what will future customer relationships look like? These are questions that this report goes some way towards answering. To further aid our understanding of customer engagement, I would like to offer up this definition: 2EPEATED INTERACTIONS THAT STRENGTHEN THE EMOTIONAL PSYCHOLOGICAL OR PHYSICAL INVESTMENT A CUSTOMER HAS IN A BRAND
The key word here is investment. How do we persuade our customers that we are worth their time, effort, money and commitment? We won’t be able to engage everyone, and we must accept that those who do engage with us will do so to different degrees and in different ways. Customer engagement isn’t a nirvana that
can be reached; it is a process of developing and nurturing relationships. The results in this survey indicate how organisations today are undertaking this task. If it isn’t already, we predict that the process of customer engagement will become one of, if not the, central focus of your digital activities in the coming years. We hope that you find the information provided here valuable as you develop and extend your engagement strategies. Our ambition is to conduct the online customer engagement survey annually in order to provide a valuable benchmark for organisations of all kinds to assess their state of readiness and effectiveness in this area. We welcome your feedback on the survey and would love to include examples in future reports of how you have used the data to further your organisational aims. Lastly, it is essential that I thank my colleagues: Nathalie Rothschild, Theresa Clifford and Dave Chaffey, as well as my CEO, Rob Killick, for his inspiration and support, Eileen Pevreall for her encouragement and Ashley and Linus at E-consultancy, who made the survey and this report possible. 2ICHARD 3EDLEY cScape Customer Engagement Director r.sedley@cscape.com * An adaptation of a definition provided by Ron Shevlin (http://marketingwhims. blogspot.com/2006/04/disengaging-from-arfs-definition-of_05.html)
!..5!, /.,).% #534/-%2 %.'!'%-%.4 3526%9 2%0/24
7HY #USTOMER ENGAGEMENT IS IMPORTANT
%XECUTIVE SUMMARY
Customer Experience and Customer Engagement have become increasingly important in recent years because of growing competition across all sectors and lower switching costs for customers. If people are not getting the kind of service they want, whether online or offline, then they have never been more inclined to go elsewhere. For many organisations, effective customer engagement is a prerequisite for customer loyalty and retention. Success in this area can also drive acquisition as a result of recommendations from other customers. Increased use of digital channels by consumers has presented new challenges for businesses because they need to ensure that they are delivering an online experience which is in keeping with their brands and joined-up with what is happening instore or via call centres. A consistent approach and smooth execution both online and offline is therefore crucial for retaining customer loyalty and is also necessary for ensuring that brands are enhanced by a positive experience rather than damaged by inconsistencies. Of course, this is easier said than done because it often involves so many different departments and functions within organisations. The nirvana of a “single customer
This cScape-sponsored Customer Engagement Report, is based on the findings of a survey carried out in October and November 2006. More than 800 respondents, all internet and / or customer experience professionals, both ‘client-side’ and from agencies, completed the survey which contained questions about customer experience measurement, methods of customer engagement and barriers to effective delivery.
view” is frequently beyond reach for reasons which are explored in this report. The challenge of engagement has become even greater in the so-called world of Web 2.0 where the customer voice is amplified across the internet more loudly than ever and brands are losing the power to dictate their agenda. Communication between businesses and customers is now flowing more freely in both directions, with organisations under pressure to make sure they are leveraging new technologies to improve rather than tarnish the brand experience. Emerging digital platforms and technologies now present an unprecedented opportunity to connect with audiences but, at the same time, there is more opportunity for things to go wrong and for those mistakes to become public. It is hoped that this report provides a useful benchmark for organisations to see how they compare to their peers and also to provide a context for understanding relative strengths and weaknesses, as well as opportunities and threats in an exciting age. Although many organisations are experiencing difficulties in optimising customer experience, this study is intended to be a positive report about the aspirations and opportunities for companies.
The report shows a significant gap between what organisations are aspiring to in order to engage their customers and deliver an optimal customer experience, and the reality of what they are doing, or are able to do, in order to meet these goals. In the new digital age and the world of Web 2.0, there are more channels available to engage and communicate with customers. But while there is an unprecedented level of opportunity for organisations, the changing landscape also creates new challenges when attempting to create a consistent end-toend experience. While relatively new technologies and features such as Ajax and user-generated content are either being used or are “on the radar”, the reality is that many organisations are struggling to organise themselves to deliver a basic level of customer experi-
ence and customer engagement even across existing channels and technologies. The level of customer experience across channels is difficult not only to measure, but also to implement. Without the right kind of cross-channel measurement and benchmarking in place, this is even more challenging to get right. The difficulties encountered vary depending on the size of organisations. The gap between the aspirations and the reality is caused by barriers which fall into a range of categories, including technical issues and those relating to company culture and leadership. In particular, supplier-side respondents (generally agencies) believe that there is a lack of boardroom buy-in which causes difficulties in delivering the best possible customer experience. Company respondents recognise these issues to a degree, but it is the agency respondents who see this, along with lack of management vision, as being a particular handicap for organisations.
!..5!, /.,).% #534/-%2 %.'!'%-%.4 3526%9 2%0/24
3URVEY HIGHLIGHTS -EASURING CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
Just under half of company respondents said that they only occasionally measure customer experience (“and not as often as they should”), with a further 9% saying that they never measure this at all. 31% do this “whenever they can”, while a further 13% say they are evangelists.
(ALF OF RESPONDENTS BELIEVE THAT
PERSONALISED
EXPERIENCES ARE
ESSENTIAL FOR AUDIENCE ENGAGEMENT
Two thirds of in-house respondents said that their organisations measure customer satisfaction on a regular basis, whether weekly (12%), monthly (18%), quarterly (20%) or yearly (16%). Some 30% said that they never, or very infrequently, measure satisfaction. $ELIVERING ON CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE AND CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT
There is a gap between what organisations realise is important and what they are actually doing in practice. 64% of company respondents believe that joined-up online and offline experiences are essential for engaging with their audience. However, some 60% of companies are either not very advanced at mapping customer experiences and identifying touch-points (36%), or admit they have to start looking at this because they are not doing it all (24%).
Half of company respondents say they regularly work in cross-functional teams. Agencies believe that companies, generally speaking, rarely do this. In terms of company responses, 5% said they were seamless, with 45% working in cross-functional teams “with a few gaps”. Some 34% said that they only worked in cross-functional teams “occasionally”, with a further 14% saying they are not joined up at all. However, only 2% of agency respondents said the majority of their clients were seamless and only 17% said there were typically just “a few gaps”. About half (49%) said that the majority of clients only occasionally worked in such teams, with 27% saying that their clients are not joined up at all. Half of respondents believe that personalised experiences are essential for audience engagement, with a further 44% believing they are useful. Despite the perceived importance of personalisation, 37% of company respondents are not providing personalised online experiences at all. The vast majority of company respondents believe that frank and open discussions about products and services are essential or useful (50% and 46% respectively). Soliciting user-generated content (UGC) is regarded as essential by 29% of compa-
nies and as useful by 47%. However, 24% do not believe that facilitating UGC is important. In terms of what companies are “doing now” to engage their customers, email (78%), natural search (65%) and paid search (62%) are the channels or technologies most commonly utilised. In terms of what is being planned in the next 12 months, user-generated content (42%), Rich Internet Applications / Ajax / Flash (36%) and Corporate Blogs (35%) are the most likely to be on the company agenda in the next 12 months. There is an eagerness to embrace new channels & technologies (Web 2.0-type technologies and innovations) in spite of difficulties in getting some fundamentals in place in order to build a seamless customer experience (for reasons explained in the “barriers” section below). Companies are most likely to segment their customers according to the value to their organisation (44%), demographics (43%) and customer lifecycle (39%)
"ARRIERS TO A MAGNI½CENT CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
The biggest five barriers to a magnificent customer experience are deemed to be: 1) Lack of resources / time (regarded as being a “great barrier” by 66% of company respondents) 2) Disconnected systems & technologies (50%) 3) Lack of skills and training (38%) 4) Lack of finances (37%) 5) Lack of regular processes and / or suitable methodology (36%) For comparison, figure 34 shows the top five barriers as perceived by supplier respondents: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)
Lack of resources / time (64%) Lack of skills & training (56%) Lack of boardroom buy-in (49%) Organisational culture (44%) Lack of regular processes and / or suitable methodology (44%)
It is apparent from this analysis that lack of boardroom buy-in and organisational culture are seen to be more pressing issues by agency respondents than by companies themselves. The difference is particularly noteworthy for lack of boardroom buy-in, with 49% of agency respondents believing this
!..5!, /.,).% #534/-%2 %.'!'%-%.4 3526%9 2%0/24
0RO½LE OF RESPONDENTS to be a major barrier compared to 30% of company respondents. From the company perspective, the greatest barriers to investing in technology that improves customer engagement are: 1) Lack of implementation skills (perceived as a great barrier by 37% of company respondents) 2) Lack of management vision (36%) 3) Inability to prove ROI (35%) The agencies see the same factors as the top three barriers but in a different order, and to a different degree [figure 36]: 1) Lack of management vision (57%) 2) Inability to prove ROI (55%) 3) Lack of implementation skills (39%) Agencies are perhaps more aware of leadership issues holding back client organisations than companies are themselves. Lack of management vision is seen as a particularly major problem by agencies, cited as a great barrier by 57% of supplierside respondents.
.UMBER OF RESPONDENTS
More than 800 respondents took part in the 2007 Online Customer Engagement survey, sponsored by cScape. The exact figure was 805.
ents. The differences make for interesting reading and together the streams give a useful “state-of-the-nation� picture of where companies are at generally. &IGURE
0RO½LE ¯ COMPANY OR SUPPLIER
The 800+ respondents were fairly evenly split between “client-side� employees (i.e. those working as part of in-house teams) and those who work for agencies and consultants (i.e. suppliers of some description). For the record, there were 391 inhouse respondents and 414 respondents from the second category. For the purpose of the two streams of analysis contained within this report, inhouse or client-side responses are described as company findings (meaning organisations generally, including government bodies and charities, but excluding suppliers). The data from agencies, suppliers and consultants is described as agency findings. The questions asked of respondents were positioned slightly differently depending on which of these two streams they fell into. Individuals working for companies answered questions about their own organisations. The agency respondents were asked to answer questions on the basis of what “the majority of their clients� were doing. The results for each question are split according to the two streams of respond-
¹ #USTOMER ENGAGEMENT IS ABOUT PUTTING THE CUSTOMER AT THE CENTRE OF EVERYTHING WE DO AND MEETING THEIR NEEDS EFFECTIVELY )T´S ABOUT TALKING TO CUSTOMERS ABOUT THE THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO THEM IN THE LANGUAGE THEY USE AT THE RIGHT TIME AND THROUGH THE CHANNEL THAT IS MOST CONVENIENT TO THEM ² *EREMY 7ILLMOTT 5SER %XPERIENCE $ESIGN -ANAGER 6ISIT ,ONDON
!..5!, /.,).% #534/-%2 %.'!'%-%.4 3526%9 2%0/24
'EOGRAPHY
Respondents were asked if they were based in the UK, rest of Europe, North America or “Other�. About 70% of respondents are based in the UK. For the main analysis, we have included all respondents together, irrespective of location. There is not enough non-UK data to make robust comparisons between different geographies although, at an indicative level, the answers point to more similarities than differences across the different regions. (See figures 2 and 3)
&IGURE #OMPANY 2ESPONDENTS BY GEOGRAPHY
&IGURE !GENCY SUPPLIER 2ESPONDENTS BY GEOGRAPHY
&IGURE #OMPANY 2ESPONDENTS BY TURNOVER
&IGURE !GENCY SUPPLIER 2ESPONDENTS BY TURNOVER
3IZE BY TURNOVER
We believe that company revenue information is the most enlightening area for crosstabulation and have included analysis by annual revenue (for the company results) in the main body of the report. We have not included this slice of the supplier-side responses as we do not feel it adds as much value. The respondents are nicely split across the different turnover bands, which enables a meaningful analysis of the differences in results depending on company turnover. (See figures 4 and 5) 3IZE BY NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
(See figures 6 and 7). Cross-tabulation by number of employees yields similar results to analysis by company turnover, as one would expect. An analysis of the whole survey using this cross-tabulation is available from E-consultancy on request.
!..5!, /.,).% #534/-%2 %.'!'%-%.4 3526%9 2%0/24
&INDINGS &IGURE #OMPANY 2ESPONDENTS BY SIZE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
&IGURE !GENCY SUPPLIER 2ESPONDENTS BY SIZE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
-EASURING #USTOMER %XPERIENCE %XTENT OF CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE MEASUREMENT
Just under half of company respondents said that they only occasionally measure customer experience (“and not as often as they should�), with a further 9% saying that they never measure this at all. [See figure 8 below]. There is a marked discrepancy between what in-house respondents say about the extent of their customer experience measurement and what supplier-side respondents believe is the case for the majority of their clients. A total of 44% of company respondents say they are either “evangelists� in this respect (13%) or that they measure customer experience whenever money and time allow them to (31%). However, only about a quarter of supplier-side respondents (26%) put the majority of their clients into these two categories (6% and 19% respectively), with two thirds believing that their clients “only occasionally measure customer experience and not as often as they should� [see figure 9 below]. The agency responses are useful because they give a good indication of what organisations are typically doing. There are three possible conclusions to draw from this difference between company and agency
respondents. (This difference between the two streams is also apparent with regard to the extent of measurement of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty and likelihood to recommend) a) The client-side respondents participating in this survey are more bought into the importance of customer experience measurement than “the average companyâ€?. b) Companies are not measuring the customer experience as much as they think they are. c) Companies are measuring customer experience more than agencies give them credit for. Table 1, on page 10, shows that organisations with a turnover of more than ÂŁ150m are the most likely to be customer experience evangelists. Just under 70% of companies in the ÂŁ10-ÂŁ50 million category admit to not measuring customer experience as much as they should. There is typically more commitment to the customer experience as companies get larger. Of course, the larger the company, the greater the challenges are in terms of providing a seamless end-to-end experience. #USTOMER SATISFACTION
satisfaction on a regular basis, whether weekly (12%), monthly (18%), quarterly (20%) or yearly (16%) [see figure 10]. 30% said that they never, or very infrequently, measure satisfaction. Organisations are more likely to measure satisfaction than customer loyalty or likelihood to recommend. The slicing of this data by turnover [table 2] shows that smaller organisations (under ÂŁ50 million turnover) are the most likely to be the ones that very infrequently or never measure satisfaction, particularly in the ÂŁ10-ÂŁ50 million category. Answering on behalf of their clients [figure 11], agency respondents believe that measurement of customer satisfaction is less widespread. The number of these agency respondents who said that customer satisfaction was measured very infrequently, or never, amounted to 45% (compared to the 30% figure for the in-house respondents). ,OYALTY
Company respondents are less likely to measure customer loyalty than they are to measure satisfaction. Just over half of respondents measure loyalty regularly (either on a weekly, monthly, quarterly or yearly basis) compared to two thirds who measure customer satisfaction regularly.
Two thirds of in-house respondents said that their organisations measure customer
!..5!, /.,).% #534/-%2 %.'!'%-%.4 3526%9 2%0/24
&IGURE #OMPANY 4O WHAT EXTENT DOES YOUR ORGANISATION MEASURE CUSTOMER OR USER EXPERIENCE
&IGURE !GENCY SUPPLIER 4O WHAT EXTENT DO THE MAJORITY OF YOUR CLIENTS MEASURE CUSTOMER OR USER EXPERIENCE
4ABLE #OMPANY 4O WHAT EXTENT DOES YOUR ORGANISATION MEASURE CUSTOMER OR USER EXPERIENCE
All the time, we’re evangelists
Whenever we can (money and time allowing)
Occasionally, Never but if we’re honest not as much as we should
Don’t know / not relevant
Total
<£10 million
7.69% (5)
30.77% (20)
52.31% (34)
9.23% (6)
0% (0)
65
£10-50 million
3.85% (1)
19.23% (5)
69.23% (18)
7.69% (2)
0% (0)
26
£50-150 million
3.03% (1)
42.42% (14)
51.52% (17)
3.03% (1)
0% (0)
33
>£150 million
15.58% (12)
31.17% (24)
45.45% (35)
7.79% (6)
0% (0)
77
Not relevant / Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know
21.74% (10)
32.61% (15)
32.61% (15)
10.87% (5)
2.17% (1)
46
Total
29
78
119
20
1
247
Overall Percentage*
12%
32%
48%
8%
0%
100%
4HESE OVERALL PERCENTAGE ½GURES ARE VERY SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TO ½GURE
BECAUSE NOT ALL RESPONDENTS ANSWERED COMPANY TURNOVER QUESTION ON WHICH THIS CROSS TABULATION IS BASED
!..5!, /.,).% #534/-%2 %.'!'%-%.4 3526%9 2%0/24
&IGURE #OMPANY (OW OFTEN DO YOU MEASURE HOW SATIS½ED YOUR CUSTOMERS ARE
4ABLE (OW OFTEN DO YOU MEASURE HOW SATIS½ED YOUR CUSTOMERS ARE
Weekly
&IGURE !GENCY SUPPLIER (OW OFTEN DO THE MAJORITY OF YOUR CLIENTS MEASURE HOW SATIS½ED THEIR CUSTOMERS ARE
Monthly
Quarterly
Yearly
Very Never infrequently
Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know / not relevant
Total
<£10 million
13.85% (9) 13.85% (9)
12.31% (8)
20% (13)
26.15% (17)
9.23% (6)
4.62% (3) 65
£10-50 million
7.69% (2)
15.38% (4)
11.54% (3)
53.85% (14)
7.69% (2)
0% (0)
£50-150 million
12.12% (4) 12.12% (4)
21.21% (7)
18.18% (6)
27.27% (9)
3.03% (1)
6.06% (2) 33
>£150 million
7.79% (6)
16.88% (13) 16.88% (13)
6.49% (5)
1.3% (1)
Not relevant / Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know
19.15% (9) 19.15% (9)
21.28% (10)
17.02% (8)
12.77% (6)
6.38% (3)
4.26% (2) 47
Total
30
38
53
43
59
17
8
248
Overall Percentage*
12%
15%
21%
17%
24%
7%
3%
100%
3.85% (1)
19.48% (15) 31.17% (24)
26
77
4HESE OVERALL PERCENTAGE ½GURES ARE VERY SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TO ½GURE BECAUSE NOT ALL RESPONDENTS ANSWERED COMPANY TURNOVER QUESTION ON WHICH THIS CROSS TABULATION IS BASED
!..5!, /.,).% #534/-%2 %.'!'%-%.4 3526%9 2%0/24
&IGURE #OMPANY (OW OFTEN DO YOU MEASURE HOW LOYAL YOUR CUSTOMERS ARE
&IGURE !GENCY SUPPLIER (OW OFTEN DO THE MAJORITY OF YOUR CLIENTS MEASURE HOW LOYAL THEIR CUSTOMERS ARE
&IGURE #OMPANY (OW OFTEN DO YOU EVALUATE HOW LIKELY YOUR CUSTOMERS ARE TO RECOMMEND YOUR COMPANY PRODUCT
&IGURE !GENCY SUPPLIER (OW OFTEN DO THE MAJORITY OF YOUR CLIENTS EVALUATE HOW LIKELY THEIR CUSTOMERS ARE TO RECOMMEND THEIR COMPANY PRODUCT
,IKELIHOOD TO RECOMMEND
Over the last few years, companies have sought to measure more than just satisfaction and loyalty, often because they believe that there are other metrics which are more closely aligned with their business goals. As well as measuring customer loyalty, which is inextricably linked to customer retention, some companies are also measuring, among other things, the likelihood of their customers to recommend their product or services. A total of 44% of company respondents regularly evaluate their customersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; likelihood to recommend. A similar number (45%) never, or very infrequently, do this. This is becoming an increasingly important metric now that customers have unprecedented ability to spread the word either positively or negatively about a brand. There used to be an adage that a customer would tell several people if they had a good experience but would complain to quite a few more if they had a negative one. In the world of viral email, blogging and social networks, your customers (whether evangelists or severely disgruntled brand terrorists) can reach thousands, even millions, of other people.
!..5!, /.,).% #534/-%2 %.'!'%-%.4 3526%9 2%0/24
&IGURE #OMPANY 7HICH OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS DO YOU USE TO HELP UNDERSTAND CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
(OW CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE IS MEASURED
Web Analytics is the most commonly employed method of understanding customer experience, practised by 70% of company respondents [see figure 16]. The use of web analytics has become much more sophisticated in recent years as ownership has moved from IT departments to marketers who are using data and insights to help drive their businesses forward. More organisations realise the importance of connecting analytics with the customer side of the equation, and this trend is underlined by its popularity as a means of understanding customer experience across companies of all different sizes [see table 3]. The other most commonly used methods of understanding customer experience are Feedback from Customer-facing Staff (used regularly by 47% of in-house organisations), Customer Surveys (43%) and Competitor Monitoring (33%). Usability Testing is another important area and it is clear from the verbatim answers that this is a widely used method of understanding the customer experience.
4ABLE 7HICH OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS DO YOU USE TO HELP UNDERSTAND CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE 7EB !NALYTICS
Regularly
Infrequently
Never
Total
<ÂŁ10 million
66.67% (42)
20.63% (13)
12.7% (8)
63
ÂŁ10-50 million
64% (16)
32% (8)
4% (1)
25
ÂŁ50-150 million
65.62% (21)
28.12% (9)
6.25% (2)
32
>ÂŁ150 million
76.62% (59)
22.08% (17)
1.3% (1)
77
Not relevant / Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know
70.21% (33)
23.4% (11)
6.38% (3)
47
Total
171
58
15
244
Overall Percentage*
70%
24%
6%
100%
4HESE OVERALL PERCENTAGE ½GURES FOR 7EB !NALYTICS ARE VERY SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TO ½GURE BECAUSE NOT ALL RESPONDENTS ANSWERED COMPANY TURNOVER QUESTION ON WHICH THIS CROSS TABULATION IS BASED
!..5!, /.,).% #534/-%2 %.'!'%-%.4 3526%9 2%0/24
&IGURE !GENCY SUPPLIER 7HICH OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS DO THE MAJORITY OF YOUR CLIENTS USE TO HELP UNDERSTAND CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
¹ 4HERE IS SO MUCH DATA AND INFORMATION AVAILABLE THAT YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU START WITH THE RIGHT QUESTIONS SO THAT WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS THE MAIN FOCUS RATHER THAN THE TOOLS AND THE DATA ² *EREMY 7ILLMOTT 5SER %XPERIENCE $ESIGN -ANAGER 6ISIT ,ONDON
#USTOMER EXPERIENCE MEASUREMENT ISSUES
The diagram below [figure 18], created after an analysis of verbatim responses about difficulties and issues relating to the measurement of customer experience, illustrates the variety and extent of problems faced by organisations. These problems have been categorised into different groups. There are some important differences between those barriers highlighted by inhouse organisations and those cited by supplier-side organisations as key barriers for their clients. But firstly the similarities: There are two areas which are flagged up as key problem areas by both sets of respondents. Firstly, lack of resources (both budget and time) is observed as a major obstacle in the way of measuring customer experience and is acknowledged both by organisations and by agencies. Organisational incoherence, culture or (lack of ) will is another area cited as problematic by both sets of respondents, particularly for multi-channel organisations that are wrestling with the issue of how to measure the experience consistently across different channels. In terms of differences between company and agency respondents, a lack of skills, experience and understanding is a problem area flagged up mainly by agency respondents. So while companies and agencies agree
that lack of resources and organisational culture can be major stumbling blocks, agencies believe that there is a lack of skills and experience within organisations. The instability of customers or products is perceived as more of a barrier by client-side respondents than by agencies, who do not see this as a major issue. #USTOMER %NGAGEMENT -APPING CUSTOMER EXPERIENCES AND TOUCH POINTS
It can be concluded from the charts below that a majority of organisations still need to take some basic steps in order to give themselves a chance of providing a joined-up and seamless customer experience. Some 60% of companies are either not very advanced at mapping customer experiences and identifying touch-points (36%), or admit they have to start looking at this because they are not doing it yet (24%). This is clearly an area that companies must focus on, especially in light of page 18 below which highlights that 64% of respondents believe that joined-up online and offline experiences are essential for engaging with their audiences. Further analysis, specifically looking at those respondents who believe that joinedup online and offline experiences are an essential area, shows that there are similar
"OTH AGENCIES AND
COMPANIES IDENTI½ED LACK OF RESOURCES ORGANISATIONAL
INCOHERENCE CULTURE
AND LACK OF WILL AS KEY
BARRIERS TO MEASURING CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
!..5!, /.,).% #534/-%2 %.'!'%-%.4 3526%9 2%0/24
&IGURE !RE THERE ANY PARTICULAR ISSUES OR BARRIERS YOU AND YOUR CLIENTS FACE WITH REGARD TO MEASURING THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
proportions of respondents who are either not very advanced at mapping and identifying touch-points, or not doing it at all. 7ORKING IN CROSS FUNCTIONAL TEAMS
There is a major difference in responses to this question depending on whether the respondents were client-side or supplierside. In terms of company responses, 5% said they were seamless with 45% working in cross-functional teams “with a few gaps”. Some 34% said that they only work in cross-functional teams “occasionally”, with a further 14% saying they are not joined up all. However, only 2% of agency respondents said the majority of their clients were seamless and only 17% said there were typically just “a few gaps”. About half (49%) said that the majority of clients only occasionally worked in such teams, with 27% saying they are not joined up at all. In short, there is a lot less red shading in the agency chart [figure 22] than there is in the company chart [figure 21]. Table 5 below shows that cross-functional co-operation is an issue for companies of all sizes, although it is the smallest ones that are most likely to be seamless. Too many companies have departments working in silos which makes it difficult to put customers at the heart of their businesses.
!..5!, /.,).% #534/-%2 %.'!'%-%.4 3526%9 2%0/24
&IGURE #OMPANY (OW ADVANCED IS YOUR ORGANISATION AT MAPPING CUSTOMER EXPERIENCES TO IDENTIFY TOUCH POINTS
&IGURE !GENCY SUPPLIER (OW ADVANCED ARE THE MAJORITY OF YOUR CLIENTS AT MAPPING CUSTOMER EXPERIENCES TO IDENTIFY TOUCH POINTS
± /NE OF THE GOOD THINGS ABOUT PRODUCING CUSTOMER FACING PORTALS IS THAT YOU GET TO SEE THINGS FROM A CUSTOMER PERSPECTIVE 7E GET TO SEE ACROSS THE SILOS OF THE ORGANISATION AND TALK TO DIFFERENT BUSINESS GROUPS 7E CAN MAKE SUGGESTIONS FOR
&IGURE #OMPANY $OES YOUR ORGANISATION WORK IN CROSS FUNCTIONAL TEAMS TO HELP DELIVER A JOINED UP CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
&IGURE !GENCY SUPPLIER $O THE MAJORITY OF YOUR CLIENTS WORK IN CROSS FUNCTIONAL TEAMS TO HELP DELIVER A JOINED UP CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
DIFFERENT GROUPS TO TALK TO EACH OTHER SO THAT THEY DON´T HAVE TO RE INVENT THE WHEEL ² 2ICHARD !VIS % MARKETING -ANAGER " " 3ONY %UROPE
!..5!, /.,).% #534/-%2 %.'!'%-%.4 3526%9 2%0/24
%XCEEDING #USTOMER EXPECTATIONS
4ABLE $OES YOUR ORGANISATION WORK IN CROSS FUNCTIONAL TEAMS TO HELP DELIVER A JOINED UP EXPERIENCE
Yes, weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re seamless
Yes, but we have a few gaps
Only occasionally
Weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re not joined up at all
Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know / not relevant
Total
<£10 million
15.38% (10)
43.08% (28)
24.62% (16)
12.31% (8)
4.62% (3)
65
£10-50 million
0% (0)
53.85% (14)
34.62% (9)
11.54% (3)
0% (0)
26
£50-150 million
9.09% (3)
51.52% (17)
33.33% (11)
6.06% (2)
0% (0)
33
>£150 million
0% (0)
45.45% (35)
36.36% (28)
18.18% (14) 0% (0)
77
Not relevant / Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know
0% (0)
40.43% (19)
38.3% (18)
12.77% (6)
8.51% (4)
46
Total
13
113
82
33
7
248
Overall Percentage*
5%
46%
33%
13%
3%
100%
&IGURE #OMPANY $O YOU PROACTIVELY PLAN TO EXCEED CUSTOMERS´ EXPECTATIONS
&IGURE !GENCY SUPPLIER $O THE MAJORITY OF YOUR CLIENTS PROACTIVELY PLAN TO EXCEED CUSTOMERS´ EXPECTATIONS
4HESE OVERALL PERCENTAGE ½GURES ARE VERY
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TO ½GURE BECAUSE NOT ALL RESPONDENTS ANSWERED COMPANY TURNOVER QUESTION ON WHICH THIS CROSS TABULATION IS BASED
!..5!, /.,).% #534/-%2 %.'!'%-%.4 3526%9 2%0/24
%NGAGING WITH YOUR AUDIENCE
Of the factors listed below, joined-up online and offline experiences are described as essential by most respondents (64% for companies and 57% for agencies). This is a noteworthy finding in the context of the sections above where it was seen that organisations in general are by no means consistently mapping customer experiences and identifying touch points, or working in cross-functional teams. There is a gap between what organisations realise is important and what they are actually doing in practice. Half of respondents believe that personalised experiences are essential for customers, with a further 44% believing they are useful. This finding needs to be seen in the context of section 7.3 below where it can be seen that 37% of respondents are not personalising the online customer experience at all. The vast majority of company respondents also believe that frank and open discussions about products and services are essential or useful (50% and 46% respectively). Soliciting user-generated content (UGC) is regarded as essential by 29% of companies and as useful by 47%. However, 24% do not believe that facilitating UGC is important.
&IGURE #OMPANY 7HICH OF THE FOLLOWING DO YOU FEEL ARE CENTRAL TO ENGAGING WITH YOUR AUDIENCE
Âą )DEALLY ORGANISATIONS SHOULD CREATE AN ARCHITECTURE OF PARTICIPATION WHERE CUSTOMERS ARE NO LONGER THE &IGURE !GENCY SUPPLIER 7HICH OF THE FOLLOWING DO YOU FEEL ARE CENTRAL TO THE MAJORITY OF YOUR CLIENTS ENGAGING WITH THEIR AUDIENCES
END POINT OF THE VALUE CHAIN BUT CONTINUE TO ADD VALUE THROUGH PARTICIPATION AND CO OWNERSHIP ² .ORMAN ,EWIS $IRECTOR OF 4ECHNOLOGY 2ESEARCH /RANGE 5+ PLC
120 100
!..5!, /.,).% #534/-%2 %.'!'%-%.4 3526%9 2%0/24
80 60 40 20
%NGAGING WITH CUSTOMERS CHANNELS AND TECHNOLOGIES
In terms of what companies are â&#x20AC;&#x153;doing nowâ&#x20AC;? to engage their customers, email (78%), natural search (65%) and paid search (62%) are the channels or technologies most commonly utilised. In terms of what is being planned in the next 12 months, User-Generated Content (42%), Rich Internet Applications / Ajax / Flash (36%) and Corporate Blogs (35%) are the most likely to be on the company radar. Podcasting, Videocasting, Behavioural Targeting, Contextual Advertising and RSS are also on the agenda for many companies. There is an eagerness to embrace new channels and technologies in spite of difficulties in getting some fundamentals in place in order to build a seamless customer experience (for reasons explained in the â&#x20AC;&#x153;barriersâ&#x20AC;? section below).
&IGURE
#OMPANY 7HICH OF THE FOLLOWING DOES YOUR ORGANISATION USE TO ENGAGE WITH YOUR CUSTOMERS 120
0
100 80
120
60
100
40
80
20
60 40
0
20
&IGURE 0 !GENCY SUPPLIER 7HICH OF THE FOLLOWING DO THE MAJORITY OF YOUR CLIENTS USE TO ENGAGE WITH THEIR CUSTOMERS 120
100 80
3EGMENTATION AND 0ERSONALISATION
60
-ETHODS OF SEGMENTATION
40
Companies are most likely to segment their customers according to the value to their organisation (44%), demographics (43%) and customer lifecycle (39%).
20 0
!..5!, /.,).% #534/-%2 %.'!'%-%.4 3526%9 2%0/24
&IGURE #OMPANY (OW DO YOU SEGMENT YOUR CUSTOMERS USERS IN ORDER TO TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY
&IGURE !GENCY SUPPLIER (OW DO THE MAJORITY OF YOUR CLIENTS SEGMENT THEIR CUSTOMERS USERS IN ORDER TO TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY
,EVEL OF ONLINE PERSONALISATION &IGURE #OMPANY (OW MUCH DOES YOUR ORGANISATION PERSONALISE THE EXPERIENCE FOR ONLINE USERS
&IGURE !GENCY SUPPLIER (OW MUCH DO THE MAJORITY OF YOUR CLIENTS PERSONALISE THE EXPERIENCE FOR ONLINE USERS
!..5!, /.,).% #534/-%2 %.'!'%-%.4 3526%9 2%0/24
Âą /UR CORE AUDIENCE ARE WOMEN AFFECTED BY BREAST CANCER 7E TRY TO ENGAGE WITH THEM AS EFFECTIVELY AS POSSIBLE ONLINE /UR TWO
&IGURE #OMPANY 7HAT DO YOU BELIEVE ARE THE BARRIERS TO YOUR ORGANISATION DELIVERING A MAGNI½CENT CUSTOMER USER EXPERIENCE
MOST SUCCESSFUL ELEMENTS OF THE WEBSITE ARE THE FORUM WHICH HAS ABOUT MESSAGES POSTED A MONTH AND ³LIVE CHATS´ WHICH ARE FACILITATED CONVERSATIONS ONLINE ² ¹ 7E ARE CONDUCTING A REVIEW OF THE WEBSITE WHICH WILL INCLUDE PERSONALISATION $IFFERENT CONTENT WILL BE SERVED TO VISITORS DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF TIMES THEY HAVE VISITED AND ON WHAT KEYWORDS THEY HAVE USED IF THEY HAVE COME VIA SEARCH ENGINES ² "ERTIE "OSREDON (EAD OF .EW -EDIA "REAST #ANCER #ARE
"ARRIERS "ARRIERS TO MAGNI½CENT CUSTOMER EXPERIENCES
Figure 33 shows that the biggest five barriers to a magnificent customer experience are deemed to be: 1) Lack of resources / time (regarded as â&#x20AC;&#x153;great barrierâ&#x20AC;? by 66% of company respondents) 2) Disconnected systems and technologies (50%) 3) Lack of skills and training (38%)
4) Lack of finances (37%) 5) Lack of regular processes and / or suitable methodology (36%) For comparison, figure 34 shows the top five barriers as perceived by supplier respondents: 1) Lack of resources / time (64%) 2) Lack of skills and training (56%) 3) Lack of boardroom buy-in (49%) 4) Organisational culture (44%) 4) Lack of regular processes and / or suitable methodology (44%)
!..5!, /.,).% #534/-%2 %.'!'%-%.4 3526%9 2%0/24
&IGURE #OMPANY 7HAT DO YOU BELIEVE ARE THE BARRIERS TO YOUR CLIENTS DELIVERING A MAGNI½CENT CUSTOMER USER EXPERIENCE
± 7E COULD DE½NITELY ADD A LOT OF VALUE THROUGH FORUMS BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO BE SURE THAT IT WAS EFFECTIVELY RESOURCED AND THAT THE QUALITY WAS CONSISTENT &OR EXAMPLE IT COULD CREATE BAD PERCEPTIONS IF THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE FORUM SPONSOR FOR TWO WEEKS ² 2ICHARD !VIS % MARKETING -ANAGER " " 3ONY %UROPE
± 4HE BIGGEST BARRIER TO ENGAGEMENT AND ONLINE DEVELOPMENT IS THE LACK OF VISION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT STILL SEES THE WEB AS A DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL AS A COST RATHER THAN AS A VITAL OPPORTUNITY FOR BUILDING DEEP RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PEOPLE AND THE PRODUCTS THEY USE ² .ORMAN ,EWIS $IRECTOR OF 4ECHNOLOGY 2ESEARCH /RANGE 5+ PLC
120 100
!..5!, /.,).% #534/-%2 %.'!'%-%.4 3526%9 2%0/24
80 60 40 "ARRIERS TO INVESTING IN TECHNOLOGY
From the company perspective [figure 35], the greatest barriers to investing in technology that improves customer experience are: 1) Lack of implementation skills (perceived as a barrier by 37% of company respondents) 2) Lack of management vision (36%) 3) Inability to prove ROI (35%) The agencies see the same factors as the top three barriers but in a different order, and to a different degree [figure 36]: 1) Lack of management vision (57%) 2) Inability to prove ROI (55%) 3) Lack of implementation skills (39%) As noted in the previous section, agencies are perhaps more aware of leadership issues holding back client organisations than companies themselves. Lack of management vision is seen as a particularly pressing problem by agencies [figure 36], cited as a great barrier by 57% of supplier-side respondents.
&IGURE
20
#OMPANY 7HICH OF THE FOLLOWING ARE BARRIERS TO INVESTING IN TECHNOLOGY THAT IMPROVES CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE 120
0
100 80 60
120
40
100
20
80
0
60 40
&IGURE
!GENCY VENDOR 7HICH OF THE FOLLOWING DO THE MAJORITY OF YOUR CLIENTS ½ND ARE BARRIERS TO INVESTING IN TECHNOLOGY THAT IMPROVES 20 CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE 120
0
100
A
B
C
D
E
80 60 40 20 0 A
B
C
D
E