I know you often hear the word omnichannel in today’s business environment, but what is it specifically? In particular, OmniChannel is capable of providing a unique, comprehensive experience across all channels, including website, mobile, digital, phone, email, and social media, and is extremely irritating when it comes to consumer marketing. But when a customer buys your product, the relationship with them is not over and you need to understand how a comprehensive thought process is needed to cover your customer service program.
How did we first get here?
The past 20 years have witnessed a steady evolution that reflects the technological evolution that has led us from single-channel access to multi-channel access through multi-channel access to customer service. What is the difference between the two?
According to the one channel policy, the customer company has a way of gaining access to the customer service process and this access point is usually the customer service by phone or in-store. But then came the internet and when consumers started making purchases online, they also expected a certain level of customer service.
Thus, the appearance of marketing omnichannel; Now you can receive the company via email as well as call or call the service department in the store. As technology advances, we have seen the proliferation of other digital channels such as mobile, social media, and online chat, with the customer beginning to demand a certain level of customer service for each of these channels. But as things move and develop faster, each of these solutions usually develops from sleep.
What do I mean by silo?
Typically, the team responsible for developing new technologies creates a customer service function for its channel. The team responsible for the website developed the web contact form, the team responsible for social media received customer feedback by default, and not only the active sections of their social media accounts but also the mobile marketing team developed their own customer service function.
But the user does not see it that way. It does not matter who developed the new technology; They care that they want to communicate with your company; They want to do this through the many channels available to you; They want this experience to be permanent and comprehensive. And by solidarity I mean they want to go from channel to channel throughout the experience and the hit is inevitable. They don’t care about your company’s silos; Hence the ascent of the universal customer service concept.
If this does not convince you of the need for a multi-channel customer service program, consider the following:
- The importance of good customer service continues to grow; A recent survey by Microsoft found that in the U.S. 98% of customers say customer service is more or less important when choosing or adhering to a brand. In addition, 68% of people say they have stopped doing business with their brand because of poor customer service
- Customer communication routes with the company have been significantly expanded, including:
o Telephones (81%)
o Email (78%)
Live Chat (64%)
Online Support Portal (62%)
Social Media (18%)
Mobile Application (9%)
Online Society (14%)
- Quick troubleshooting (34%) and solving my problem from the first contact (29%) are two important aspects of a satisfying service experience that customers feel can go between agents (22%). Connecting multiple times with a brand for one issue (21%) is the most frustrating aspect of the customer service experience.
- 91% of customers need to be able to get back to where they left off, without having to repeat it if they need more than one solution to a customer service problem. So
- Only 57% of customers say they have a consistent customer service experience regardless of brand/company.
- 89% of customers said they were frustrated when they had to repeat information multiple times to resolve and deliver.
So why not start with a comprehensive service solution? I believe there are two definite reasons why companies do not switch to omnibus at full power; First of all, each of these silos has its own reasons for “ownership” and does not want to move its divisions to another division of the company.