How call centers use behavioral economics to influence customers

The next time you call the call center, listen carefully to what your interlocutor says. Chances are that they will call you several times by name, show sympathy, and may apologize. It's nice to think that a company representative is really worried about you - however, the girl from the call center most likely just follows the written script. Our research has shown that the use of such equipment is not always a good solution. In a recent HBR article titled “ Stop trying to please customers, ” we looked at how customer service affects brand loyalty, including the role of managing the emotional side of user interaction. Below are a few additional insights on this delicate topic.

When it comes to communication between the call center representative and the client, most companies still cannot get rid of the approach, which focuses on the employee’s performance of a set of actions from a certain list. First, the standard greeting ... check the list ... repeat the client's name three times ... check the list again ... show him that his problem is important to you ... another check ... ask if you have completely solved the problem ... check another and more and more.
')
Most companies will tell you that it is important to be consistent in this matter. But let's admit that this sequence nurtures the communication “on the machine”, which does not entail the client’s feeling that he managed to do everything easily and does not tie him to the company.

We have seen how companies are moving away from this “one-for-all” approach and are beginning to take a more creative approach to training call center employees: asking them to choose from different answers and, in some cases, use approaches based on behavioral economics to fundamentally change how the client perceives interaction with the company.

Take, for example, the case of Orsam Sylvania, the example we discussed in the previous article. In this company, employees are taught to avoid words with negative connotation (for example, “impossible”, “impossible”) and phrases that do not allow productive communication to continue (such as the phrase “this is our business”) in the most standard formats of service interaction. This allowed them to achieve a decline in Customer Effort Score (CES, an indicator of customer efforts; the less a customer has to make efforts to solve a problem, the lower this indicator and the higher the brand loyalty from the consumer) by 18.5% compared to the average value of industry.



Not so long ago, we conducted a series of experiments on two different groups of consumers in order to better understand the impact of word choice on customer interaction:

In one experiment, a company employee needed to authorize a client’s bank account before he could get the opportunity to make a transfer. When an employee simply said: “You cannot transfer funds until you complete the account authorization steps ...”, customers rated his work significantly lower than when the call center specialist built the phrase like this: “Let me help you authorize your account. .. " Despite the fact that the meaning of the phrase differs only slightly, customers rated the latter option as 82% better and demanding 73% less effort from themselves.

In another experiment, customers were told that they needed to bring their new bikes to a certified repair center. The quality of the work of the specialist who simply stated: “You'd better bring the bike to the repair center” was rated much lower than the work of the employee, who noted that he “will give feedback to the assembly department”, “will check on the base whether it is possible to do minor repairs "And in the end" recommended to bring the bike to the repair center. " The last option was calculated by 67% better and demanding 77% less effort from the client.

This approach goes beyond traditional customer communication skills. It is based on attention to the choice of language constructs, which allows for the most efficient formulation of phrases. This is not just sympathy - it is precisely calculated and precautionary behavior. We call this active user experience shaping.

We have observed other approaches to the formation of user experience, in addition to the simple selection of words. For example, the company LoyaltyOne (also mentioned in the article) practices an approach called “alternative positioning”. This approach is based on obtaining and studying basic information about the client in the process of interaction and using this information to change for the better the attitude of the client to the options that the employee offers him. An internal study of the company showed that, according to clients, the quality of service using this practice increased by 15%.

There is nothing revolutionary in the alternative positioning - in fact, the sellers have demonstrated the characteristics of the product in a favorable light for a particular customer since trading began. But using this method in service scenarios looks quite innovative and few are willing to use this approach.

Along with this, we have seen how such techniques can become dubious practices, the ethics of which can be called into question. Representatives of one airline (which we will not call) recently admitted to us that they “caught” some of their best support specialists on using similar techniques to avoid scandals with customers because of canceled flights.

Imagine, for example, that your flight is canceled at 11 am, and you have to be in another city tomorrow morning. But on the evening flight remains empty seats. Where most experts say, “I can book tickets for you at 9 pm,” others, knowing full well that the nine-hour flight is open for booking, but if you want to manipulate the client’s response, they can say, “Well, I can book places for tomorrow’s flight at 7 in the morning, but let me see if I can find a place on the flight earlier, it will depart at 9 pm today. " This user experience formation technique is called the “anchor effect”. A less acceptable option creates a mental anchor, making the alternative more attractive. Instead of worrying that the 11-hour flight has been canceled, you will most likely be glad that the specialist has booked a place for you on the evening flight.

From the point of view of ethics, companies, as a rule, do not have difficulty accepting the idea of ​​replacing negative phrases with neutral ones or asking employees to demonstrate more active assistance to the client. But do those who use the “anchor effect” to form a positive user experience go too far? In our experiments, we tested similar approaches, and they certainly worked, but in our opinion, this is an area in which it is very easy to cross the face of ethics.