I have this geeky habit of comparing CX ranking data across different analyst groups and publications to garner insight. Last year, I compared Forrester and Business Week's CX rankings against Forbes "Best Companies to Work for List" looking for threads of continuity.  It didn't produce a blog post but gave me great food for thought.

Today, I compared Business Week's top companies for customer experience in 2010 (released February 18th) with Forrester's Customer Service Experience Rankings, released on January 28th.

Of course, the methodologies and rigor used in both the studies are really different.  Business Week partnered with JD Power, to conduct analysis of 200 firms -- starting with an initial high level survey that yielded "over 1,000 responses."  It then used those survey responses to target companies and conduct more specific research using through JD Power's database and audience (an unspecified number of people - I hate that!). Companies are ranked by overall score -- and sorted a number of ways.  The Forrester Study covered 92 large companies and 4,600 people were surveyed.  Companies are ranked by a "Net Satisfaction Score"  (I like this method!) which should not be confused by Net Promoter score.

I loaded the top companies into a spreadsheet, and this is how they stacked against each other:


The results were interesting ... as USAA, Barnes and Noble, Marriott / The Ritz Carlton, Amazon and Southwest Airlines are the only companies shared between lists - but it's interesting that they are consistentlly ranked within 10 points of each other. Furthermore, all of these companies have consistently scored high in CX in past years.

However, Forrester's top leaders (defined as the top 80% net satisfaction score) did not include experience darlings like Apple (scoring only 79%) or American Express (scoring 74%).  There was also no mention of Starbucks or the other companies on Business Week's list.  I'm also unclear as to why Forrester masked banks, credit unions and insurance agents in their listings.  It'd be interesting to compare the companies reviewed alphabetically... but I have client work get to.  

So now that I've summarized -- here the links for you!

While I didn't love the lack of crisp description of the methodology Business Week used... but I loved the way they packaged the findings:

• The sortable ranking grid
• The methodology
• The  slide show (ooh ahh)  (Note each slideshow has an accompanying story on the company)

Forrester's full report is $499....However, here's a link to free preview data from Author Bruce Temkin  that includes some additional analysis as well as a list of those who belong in the naughty chair.

Enjoy!

In my last post, I tried to define this notion of "transparency" as context for a few other posts. Smart companies understand that emerging channels demand a greater level of openness and transparency than we have historically provided to customers. They embrace the pressure to perform well in highly visible channels - using it as impetus to identify broken aspects of customer experience and fix things -- rather than continue the way they always have. They recognize the opportunity these channels present to serve customer needs, build stronger relationships and strengthen brand affinity.

A number of brands do this well today. On Twitter alone, it's easy and fun to engage with brands like @zappos @comcastcares , @southwestair @virginamerica @dell and others. Check out Best Buy CMO Barry Judge's blog and the activities at both My Starbuck's Idea and Best Buy's Idea Exchange for crowd-sourcing and customer co-creation. None of these brands claim they get it right all the time. But when they do mess up, it's refreshing to them say, say "Hey - sorry we messed up!" "We're learning." "Here's what we're doing about this problem." and "Here's how we'll make it right.". It's awesome to talk to companies who embrace responsibility as they work to help create satisfied customers. For these companies, transparency is a friend.

Unfortunately, conpanies like these are still the exception, rather than the rule in most emerging media channels. The truth is, many companies who have become active in social media (blogging, twitter, facebook, etc.) will privately admit to being terrified of having an increased level of transparency with customers.

While it's natural to have a healthy fear of increased exposure, some companies become so preoccupied with looking transparent and authentic, they lose focus completely. In an effort to use these channels to generate PR and spin, they may fail to engage as the medium demands: becoming more open and accessible; harnessing the power of the tools to bolster service and support; building relationships and driving brand advocacy. For these companies, transparency becomes the enemy.

We don't need to mention names ... Do a quick audit yourself of the posts, tweets and status updates of a few major brands. It doesn't take more than a page or two to figure out who's really tapped in to their network and who is not. Check for dialog. Check for responses, and look at how the posts are worded. Is there conversation? Resolution? Are they broadcasting 140 character versions of press releases? Do you feel like you're being force fed a marketing campaign in tiny little chunks? Are they attempting to buy followers? Are they focused on quality interactions? Do you recognize people? Does the chatter seam meaningful? It's pretty easy to tell where the brand is at. Next, ask yourself: "Would I follow this brand?" If you wouldn't -- take note of why and remember it.

This isn't just about corporations, but the agencies that serve them, as well. Ad Age did a fantastic piece this week highlighting the hypocrisy of agencies promoting Twitter. And that's just scratching the surface of a pandemic of agency hypocrisy in emerging media. In many cases, the lights are on, but nobody's home.

What surprises me is how easily companies and agencies forget that people don't necessarily want to have love affairs with brands. In truth, people care really care most about themselves and having their needs met. They care about being heard, and responded to. They want to feel valued and recognized. They want to know others care. They often seek relationships with other people who make them feel good about themselves. They love brands because they meet and exceed their expectations. These tools pose tremendous opportunity to meet those needs. However, it seems some companies think just being present is "good enough".

To be clear, being present in social media is not the same as establishing an effective presence. Broadcasting messages en mass within intimate digital channels isn't going to win coveted relationships. Shucking off customer issues, suggestions and recommendations isn't going to win friends. Ignoring people or their comments, is in fact is going to alienate customers and prospects. Yet it's happening all over within emerging media channels... as the world watches. For companies who do this -- transparency is your enemy.

Customers can see exactly where the heart of the brand lies by the focus, content and intention of their emerging media content. It's okay to approach these channels with caution... but the world is watching. Don't just stand there and spin... engage, provide service, add value, meet needs, co-create and give back. Turn that ship around and give people something positive and remarkable to discuss!

Forrester just released their Customer Experience Index for 2008. The study surveyed 4,500 people and asked them to rank 114 companies across 12 industries.

At a high level, the results were relatively sad: Only 11% of companies garnered a rating of "excellent", and 38% percent of firms were rated as “poor” or “very poor.”

This is pretty interesting in a day and age where Harris Research and Forrester say that between 82% and 85% of executives agree that customer experience is critical to competitive advantage and may well be the next competitive battleground over the next three years.

This lackluster performance also suggests an opportunity -- especially if I am correct in repeating a Harvard Business Review claim that a 5% decrease in customer attrition can increase profits by 25%. (Note: I saw that figure and wrote it down and am looking for the specific citation)

What's missing? Well, more than one person or post can cover, but consider this:

If you ask any large company to give you a site map of their website, most could provide one with ease. However, if you asked them to show you a cross-channel experience map that illustrates the "brand journey" for a key customer segment, they'd probably look at you with confusion.

Why does that matter? Well, it could mean a few things. No map may indicate there is no unified or accurate understanding of the actual customer experience that is being delivered. No map may mean there is no truly integrated plan to proactively manage customer experiences across channels. No map may also indicate an inability to unite the vision of leadership with all other "agents of experience" (staff, agencies, third parties, partners, etc.) to drive coordinated execution.

Just consider the incredible channel proliferation we've faced over the past two decades alone. It's enough to make one's head swim. The way we go to market, the way customers shop and the way we all communicate has shifted entirely. As we have attempted to adapt to this raging amount of change, the truth is this: our customer experiences simply evolved over time. Most were never strategically conceived for the environment we live in today...

For the most part, most of today's customer experiences can be likened to a structure that was built one room at a time: The floor plan is a confusing and in places, nonsensical. The many ad-hoc renovations have made the foundation uneven and unstable. Visitors (customers) do their best to navigate the rooms...and sometimes we knock holes in walls to make it easier... but the truth is there are a lot of pitfalls along the way. However, unlike the mansion with only a few doors to the outside -- in real life, our customers can leave easily, whenever they want.

What can we do about this? Well, Forrester has some good recommendations, and I tend to agree with these. In addition to things like employing "Voice of the Customer" programs, leveraging data mining and BI tools and making customer experience a top priority, I'll add my thought that companies need to start with more fully understanding the true customer experience that is being delivered today.

To do this, I'm a proponent of employing interaction design principles to visually map out the customer experiences we deliver. . "Customer experience maps" are visual diagrams that illustrate the customer journey across channels, including the key linkages, programs, services and critical engagement intersections, where customers decide they'll leave you or love you. By engaging in proactive customer experience mapping companies can better understand the true customer experience, identify the pitfalls that damage relationships and fix what's broken. As they do this, they can begin to more proactively manage the experience, correct operational barriers that damage loyalty and better position themselves as listeners and customer advocates.

Getting back to Forrester's Report, Here are the top 25 performers:

1. Barnes & Noble
2. USAA (credit cards)
3. Borders
4. Amazon.com
5. Hampton Inn/Suites
6. BJ’s Wholesale Club
7. Sam’s Club
8. A credit union (bank)
9. Kohl’s
10. Marriott Hotels & Resorts
11. JCPenney
12. Target
13. Old Navy
14. Holiday Inn Express
15. eBay
16. Southwest Airlines
17. Macy’s
18. Apple
19. Costco Wholesale
20. Toys “R” Us
21. USAA (insurance)
22. CVS
23. Holiday Inn
24. Lowe’s
25. Staples

It's worth mentioning that a lot of the companies at the bottom are within industries that are facing financial hardship (e.g. Financial Services industries, Airlines), although not exclusively. It's easy to see how today's market factors can weigh in to customer experience viewing this report...

However, the good news is that even in a down economy, 58% of customers say they'll pay MORE for a better experience (Forrester also). It's time to get tactical on improving customer experience!

Giving a hat tip to Evelyn So Evelyn So for the link to Forrester's free complimentary research report. Enjoy!

I try to keep up with other leaders in Customer Experience Management (CEM) by periodically checking out their websites, presentations, weblogs, podcasts, etc. Today, I decided to do a little refresher, specifically looking for recent research, case studies and methodologies and compare them with my own experience, knowledge and approaches.

Frankly I was saddened by what I found when I perused the corporate web sites of several CEM “A-listers.” The feeling I got was scarily similar to the feeling that motivated me to write “Experience Evangelism: Get some Healing!” a few years ago. Evidently, not much has changed since then.

There’s something wrong when so many of the leading authors and speakers in customer experience haven’t updated their corporate site designs for years! I mean, how about a new promotional image or something? Some of these sites featured the same simple design with a little new content (zzz) , others were well, unattractive! Some others have added new content have obviously outgrown their original information architectures, yielding confusing navigation and cluttered interfaces, littered with a cacophony of content and media. In general, it seemed that these sites seemed to offer very little little new content (except exhortations to "buy the book!", "come to our conference or workshop" or hire "x" as a speaker.

In general, from a best-practices standpoint, many of these sites suffer from a gross overuse of stock photography. They also offer little online engagement and highly visible, high value, free content.

It follows, therefore, that I was surprised by the lack of integration of social media on the A-lister websites… including cross-linkage from the corporate sites to leader-authored weblogs… and from the leader web logs to social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, social bookmarks, etc). In fact, to even find the weblogs for many of these leaders I had to wade through searches on Technorati. Most of them have blogs...disconnected from the corporate consulting sites... could only find the facebook and twitter addresses for one leader.

In short, beyond the shocking state of the websites, I found a lot of the same content and insights that have been present since early 2005… There was a LOT of talk…. a lot of egregious self-promotion … and of course, calendar links to conferences and speaking engagements, lists of books to read, complete with purchasing links. In honestly, I would rather have found:

Forums for discussion

Tangible, actionable best practices

Useful case studies

Discussion of new organizational models

Data about trends

Advice for the struggling CCO/CXO (Chief Customer/Experience Officer)

It's important to note that the software companies in the CEM space seemed to do a better job on the web than the high profile leading consultants at which I looked. Specifically, I was pleased by some of the free content (white papers and Forrester reports) available from Tealeaf, RightNow Technologies and Clarabridge.

Disclosure: both Right Now and Clarabridge have relationships to Live Path, although I can't take credit for the good, free content they are providing.. ;-)

With regards to the "A" list experts in customer experience management, their corporate sites left a bad taste in my mouth. They seem most interested in self-promotion, as evidenced by demonstrated focus in keeping personal information (books, bio) up to date, rather than focusing on creating more meaty, high value content for clients and prospects.

We tend to invest our time where our hearts are… right?

To me, this is not “customer centric”, innovative, immersive, creative or positively experiential - and would seem to fight the very principles these individuals stand for! This is surprising, coming from the same people that are advocating customer-co-creation and innovation... the same people who extol the benefits of being engaged with customers, listening to customers, providing value, building a "customer centric" organization, providing "seamless" experience... etc.

If you ask me, it seems the CEM shoemaker’s kids don't have -- or aren't wearing -- any shoes!

Now, to be fair -- my grandma always says that when you point one finger at someone else, there are more fingers pointing back at you.

As such,even though my site is updated...and I'm active on on Twitter, Facebook and Plurk, I must reluctantly add myself to the wall of shame: I will admit that I haven’t managed to update my website’s resources page for a pathetically long time…nor have I incorporated my twitter feed or a few much needed links on my blog page.

I won’t insult you with (even a very GOOD) excuse for this. I won’t remind you how hard it is to keep your own site up to date while managing your own client work. Please forgive me for my hypocrisy… I am resolved to correct these things very soon.

The thing is, I’m an independent consultant with great partnerships and a wonderful, even impressive client list … but I am an independent. In contrast, many of these experience leaders have teams of people working for them. They manage large engagements with blue chip clients and have heavy, international exposure. As such, I simply can’t understand the lack of investment in what may perhaps be their most high profile and influential channel.

I guess I'm surprised because I expected more! There’s definitely room for improvement on the web for CEM practitioners - an a lesson in it for us all.

You tell me: Is it worth hiring CEM consultants if they don’t practice what they preach? Do you judge a company based on the engagement factor of their web presence? Are site experiences that are informative, interesting, attractive, and up to date important to you in your choice of a consultant? Can a CEM consultancy be credible if you can’t tell if its consultants are well versed in emerging technologies?

…or am I over reacting?