Forrest Gump’s prescient phrase “stupid is stupid he does” has implications for customer service. Researchers tell us that customers expect providers to slow down execution from time to time. However, mistakes, per se, are not a death sentence for brand equity. Rather, salespeople’s reactions to mistakes make or break the brand. In fact, Philip Kotler and Kevin Lane Keller confirm that solving the customer’s problem wins points; solving the problem quickly gets even more and better points. The puzzle is that very few customers actually complain directly to the provider, yet these disgruntled customers can broadcast their angst within their networks. This phenomenon has been called “the restaurant principle”. That is to say, a dissatisfied restaurant customer will not necessarily complain to the manager about bad food, but will inform various friends about the inedible food or poor quality service. The advent and proliferation of social networks exponentially allow harmful communication. Some business models, for example Angie’s List, are based on the principle of reporting on the customer experience.

One of my CEO clients imparted his novel approach to responsiveness and complaint resolution. Insist on knowledge of all major customer complaints (translation: above a certain dollar threshold). In addition, it contacts the complainant directly. He constantly reports that the client is almost flabbergasted that the big boss is on the phone. In addition, he asks the client how he proposes to solve the problem. Without exception, he reports that the client proposes a cheaper solution than he was willing to do to protect his brand. This CEO gets it! Not surprisingly, this CEO has a track record of consistent financial results that his policy vindicates.

Now for some of those who “don’t get it”. Two recent examples come to mind. The first involves an Internet Service Provider (ISP). I’ll be nice and hide his identity. Modems occasionally fail, as the client did. No problem so far. The delivery time for the replacement modem was reasonable. Still, no problem. However, the provider’s modem also works as a wireless router. This would not be a problem if the provider’s routing technology was up to date. Unfortunately, it is not, something the seller has known for a long time. Therefore, the provider’s equipment must be configured for bridge mode to allow a pass-through from your modem to the higher wireless router. The customer reported the identical service issue with this provider on a previous occasion, and the provider advised the customer through the necessary bridge configuration settings. Apparently, however, the vendor did not advocate double-loop learning, that is, learning from one’s discoveries and mistakes. The technician who answered the vendor’s 800 number for the focus episode of this article informed the customer that they (the vendor) do not provide that kind of technical support, eg, bridging configuration. The technician explained that this was because he needed to know how to adjust the router settings for another company’s equipment. This sounded plausible and the client did not dispute the claim. HOWEVER, the technician proposed hiring a field service technician to address the issue, OR selling the customer a subscription to a support service feature (translation: recurring revenue stream) that would be cheaper than the cost of the service call, at least in the first six months. Do you smell rat? How come the technician reported that his company did not work with another vendor’s equipment, by policy no less, but a field service technician working for the same company did?

Plan B. Frustrated, the customer called a national nerdy network for a service call to reconcile the bridge settings between the modem and router. Two things were obvious. First, the new provider was more interested in selling a service subscription than in scheduling an appointment. To be sure, this was a managerial directive that was likely reinforced by an incentive program. Second, the customer service representative was clueless about the subscription details and frequently contradicted himself. The client compared the experience to the IRS help line.

Actually, the subscription ignorance was not the fault of the nerd network customer service representative. The conversation revealed inadequate training. It took them thirty minutes to figure out the offer. Interestingly, it was a pretty good offer. The customer had a simple purchase criteria: the customer would buy the subscription, as long as the nerd network scheduled a service call the next day. oops. The nerd network was unable to schedule an appointment for three days. HOWEVER, they could schedule an emergency appointment outside of the agreement at a considerably higher price. Bait and switch, anyone? No dirty.

In a fit of exasperation, the client regretted his work with a confidant and was advised to call the ISP again. Are you kidding? The reason was that the same person would not answer the phone in such a giant. Perhaps the new voice would be competent and helpful. The strategy was corroborated by the confidant’s personal anecdotes. Son of a gun! It worked. The client learned something else. The bridge fix had NOTHING to do with the settings on the top wireless router. Rather, all the changes were related to YOUR (provider’s) modem-router combination. Yuck!

What are the conclusions of this sordid story?

• First, customer service people can make or break brand equity. Customers look for value in their purchases, that is, the utility received for the price paid. Customer service is part of the value equation. Matthew Dixon, Karen Freeman and Nicholas Toman write in the Harvard Business Review that delighting customers is a waste of money. Rather, just fix the problem! Emphasize ease and speed from the customer’s perspective.
• Second, customer service personnel need to be trained and retrained on the products they support. This includes competency tests and certifications.
• Third, actual customer encounters must be encoded in a database to facilitate double-loop learning. Documented and categorized issues may be subject to a Pareto analysis to prioritize training and retraining. In fact, such analyzes may reveal a product failure that requires a product redesign or recall.
• Fourth, companies should never ask someone to sell a new product without sufficient training. The same is true for those who are not fit to sell. Behavior profiles differ between customer service people and sales people. More often than not, the former lacks a defining risk-taking attribute of the latter.
• Finally, resolve the customer’s issue FIRST. Then, and only then, up-sell or cross-sell. Otherwise, the entire encounter devalues ​​the customer experience and taints brand equity.

None of these best practices is complicated. Peter Senge refers to organizations that master value creation as “learning organizations.” However, companies sometimes lose learning from their chronic mistakes, or anyone else’s. Forrest Gump was onto something for those who choose not to learn: “stupid is what makes stupid.”