Luxury’s other heritage challenge

“You never actually own a Patek Philippe. You merely take care of it for the next generation.”

This well-known Patek Philippe tag line tells its customers that the brand’s heritage could be part of their own as they bequeath their Patek timepieces to their future generations.

Patek Philippe Generation Ad campaign

One can, of course, buy pre-owned Patek Philippe time pieces from dealers, or at auctions where the brand commands huge prices, which Patek no doubt monitors. The presence of complete documentation, including owner history and service records, adds to the heritage angle, hence the price tag. Patek also supports collectors’ clubs and offers to service any Patek, no matter what its journey to the present owner has been.

Brands such as Vacheron Constantin engage actively with not just the customers, who already own their watches but also those, who aspire to own a Vacheron timepiece one day.

That said, there are brands, who do not really do much for, or with, collectors.

Hermès comes to mind.

While active in developing, protecting and promoting its own brand image, Hermès famously does not support collectors’ clubs. There is still a brisk trade in second-hand Hermès scarves, bags and other artifacts. It is often difficult to verify if these goods are authentic or counterfeit, or even stolen (although the latter may be rarer).

Most established luxury brands’ own stories focus on the brand heritage. It is fascinating — and puzzling — however to see how little luxury brands do to honour (track?) how their customers create a story about these brands, steeping the luxury goods in their own family’s heritage.

This is a missed opportunity.

To create a luxury brand with longevity beyond the next season has to go beyond the brand extolling its own heritage. The stories that live on have to make sense, and be meaningful to those, who own and wear the products created by that brand.

And while everyone can participate in the democratic medium of the web, oral traditions and stories of familial heritage can still help preserve exclusivity for luxury brands, most of whom are still struggling to make up their mind on the matter.

Indeed one has to ask whether the idea of a heritage driven European brand of luxury has economic viability now that most of their growth is coming from Asian countries, many of whom boast a rich heritage going further back than any European brands!

Can lazy — even arrogant — brand marketing as luxury marques, reliant on their European heritage legacy, do now continue?

Don’t mind me though!

I have a simple curiosity.

I am just keen to hear from someone, whose family bought Hermès equestrian gear and riding equipment 300 years ago, and who is still wearing Hermès couture or carrying Hermès bags today.

(Thanks to Barbara Houdayer for the Twitter conversation, that sparked this monograph.)

Respectful design, contemptuous design

Conversations with many friends, who are building communities for social businesses or are in other customer-facing roles, reveal a shared frustration. It appears that community builders and customer facing persons, and designers in a business are singing from different hymn sheets. Often, once the beta or whatever the business deems a shippable version of the product (web, mobile, app or a physical product) has shipped, some sit back thinking the job is done.

Customer feedback, that then comes in, is often sidelined to make good of the already existing technology infrastructure. Worse, it is sometimes disregarded altogether.

As the face of the business, community builders find themselves in a tough spot.

“It is as if we not only fail to care, but that we are actually contemptuous of the customer,” one said to me.

The contempt for the customer shows in the design of the customer experience with the business. From web design, to the product, to packaging and in all other ways the business and the customer interact.

Often the customer cannot find the information she wants, or she cannot find the product she intends to get to know a bit more, or the worst, she cannot really buy your product. And as seen in the case of frustrating clamshell packaging, sometimes she just cannot get to the product!

Why does this happen?

Because not enough attention is paid to understanding the customer’s journey or her desire behind engaging with the business. Insufficient work goes into testing how the customer might feel while trying to do business with the company. Efforts are made to defend the costs already incurred, not to acknowledge that that investment was not producing any returns.

In other words, not nearly enough respect is accorded to the thought that the business wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the customer.

This is what I call contemptuous design.

Contemptuous design privileges technology and sunk cost over customer journey, experience and engagement. Respectful design, on the other hand, privileges the customer’s desires and experience over everything else, so the business can continue to exist and possibly thrive.

No checklists are required to distinguish contemptuous design from respectful design. As customers, we know how we are being treated when we make first contact with a business.

As business owners, we need to be honest about the conversations we are having or enabling or hearing about our customers. If the customer is seen as an encumbrance, we are squarely in the realm of contemptuous design.

But if we feel the customer’s pain and want to deliver a good experience to her, we are making strides towards respectful design.

It really is that simple.

Customer service stories from America

I just got back from a few days in the Mecca of start-ups. They do things differently over there. Well they used to, till globalisation made us all the same.

SCRIPTING FOR PRAISE

Last week, while making a cardholder-not-present transaction with an American business, my card was declined. Twice. I told the customer service person at the other end that I would call her back right after having a word with my credit card issuer.

Meanwhile I received a text and an email from my issuer, alerting me to possible fraud and asking me to call them back.

After identification, my call was put through straight to the fraud team of my issuer in America. The lady confirmed the transaction with me, then said the card was now being unblocked and I could go ahead and complete the transaction.

At this point, I said I was glad that their big data system actually worked and flagged things in real time; and that as a customer, I appreciated it so much that I have stayed with them across countries, for a very, very long time!

The lady was speechless.

I could hear her struggling with words that were appropriate to say to a customer, who actually just praised you.

In the end, she managed to say, “Well, we appreciate your loyalty.” and hung up.

This isn’t the first time I have found a company representative stumped by unexpected words of kindness or praise.

I once rang British Gas in the UK to say how good and patient a young engineer had been while at my house sorting a tough problem that required him to remove and wear frequently his protective socks, because, well no matter what, you aren’t bringing those shoes on to my pale carpet!

The CSA sheepishly told me she didn’t know where to direct my call. I finally ended up recording my message on their complaint system and then I got a letter back from them thanking me etc.

Both experiences have made me wonder about how we design organisations and how businesses see their customers. And indeed about how customers interact with businesses.

Pretty much every CSA has a script to deal with a customer, who calls in raging and angry about some inadequacy or another. Not just the CSA, I have written letters to the CxOs of businesses and got long letters thanking me, explaining the challenges, and offering me a solution. One of them still sends me updates based on a complaint I made in 2005!

So why is there no script for dealing with praise or gratitude?

Is the customer only expected to call in raging and never to call in with praise?

Is the business designed only for liability avoidance and damage protection, and not the possibility of building or strengthening a customer relationship?

Is there no scope for iterative redesign or tweaking in CSA scripts, or any degrees of freedom whatsoever for them to deal with a happy customer?

Is this the world we are designing and living in? One where we expect interaction only when something goes wrong, and nary a word of praise expected if we are doing things right?

Where is Pygmalion in all this?

CALL ME AL

For my sins, with far better choices available, I agreed to meet someone at Starbucks (although how 750 Castro is next door to 650 Castro in Mountain View, I am yet to figure out, but I digress).

“I’d like an iced Americano, please,” I said.

“What’s your name?,” she asked.

Loathe to have my name mangled into Shelley, Chefaly or the worst, Shirley, I said, “Just call me Al.”

The man behind me in the queue, probably my vintage, smiled broadly.

The barista called out, “Iced Americano for Al!”.

The joke died a painful death.

Paul Simon, I apologise. There must be fifty ways to avoid having coffee at a place that insists on being on first-name basis with me before I can get my caffeine dose.

Four For Friday (17)

This week’s eclectic, interesting reads:

At the cusp of technology and regulation, Matthew C Nisbet argues why scientists must join food activists in examining regulation. This in the context of GE crops.

The designer of all things i – Sir Jonathan iVe, oops, Ive – on his quest for simplicity, and why simplicity isn’t simple.

This is the week when the inventor of the remote control, Eugene Polley, died. Have you ever thought of remote control as subversive technology? If not, do read the link.

Finally in the week of Facebook’s IPO, read Doc Searls’s post questioning much including the advertising-will-make-us-free (excuse the pun!) model being funded all over the planet. If you have never heard of him, I’d suggest you get a clue and read The Cluetrain Manifesto. He is one of those who wrote the book. Literally and figuratively.

How to use "process" to destroy goodwill and lose revenue (3)

This third story is the last in this series but not the last one in the big schema by any means. Late last week, one morning, my phone rang with urgency and the following conversation ensues.

Caller: I am phoning from XYZ Bank’s mortgage centre.

Me: Yes, good morning.

Caller: I believe you have spoken with our mortgage advisors last week and I am calling to say that you need to call another number to confirm your acceptance.

Me: I telephoned yesterday already.

Caller: I know but I need you to call another number for your acceptance. (My “process” bells are already ringing!)

Me: Ok. Would you be giving me the number I should ring the number on the offer letter again?

Caller: Before I give you the number, I need to ask you some security questions. Can you give me your date of birth please?

Me: Seriously? You called me, right? I am supposed to take your word for it that you are calling from my mortgage provider’s offices. And then you say you need to ID me? This is not in the interest of the security of my personal information. How about you give me your number? I will then call it, ID you before I discuss anything? Does that sound fair?

Caller: I am afraid I cannot give you the number to call before I have asked the security questions.

Do you know that some of your processes may be illogical and making it hard for your customer to keep her part of the contractual obligations to you? Do you care?

Me: I am afraid I will not provide identifying information to an inbound call where I cannot see who is calling and where I have to go by what you say. Sorry.

Caller: Please hold one second. I need to ask my manager.

Me: Sure. (On hold).

Caller: Thanks for holding. My manager says it is ok to give you the number to give your acceptance without the security questions.

Me: Oh really! Thanks. I am so grateful.

This was a completely surreal conversation. Banks hold customers responsible for the safe keeping of their personal information. But then they turn around and set up these inane processes for identification that seem to make it impossible for the customer to keep the information safe. Either way the bank is safe. The customer is simply hopping mad, not to mention prone to fraud and other joys.

I then proceeded to ring the 0800 number provided where I was on hold for 23 minutes listening to REM’s “Everybody hurts” playing as hold music. It caused me some amusement but it may not to many callers to the mortgage centre. But then perhaps this is part of some process we are supposed to understand too?

The aim of this trilogy has been to highlight that:

1. Unbeknowst to managers, employees could be using narrow interpretations of “process”, telling customers how to bypass processes that they deem silly instead of telling their managers, being unimaginative about making quick revenue/ profits or just driving the customers around the bend.

2. In the process, they may be losing revenue and destroying goodwill, neither of which a business should really have to experience.

Do you know what’s going on at the coal face of your business?

Related reading:

It’s when you deliver that counts…

Is your business missing a trick?

How to use “process” to destroy goodwill and lose revenue (1)

How to use “process” to destroy goodwill and lose revenue (2)