In my iTnews column last week I wrote;
Telcos have made a habit of telling us that they aren’t each others’ main competitors, that the “real competition” is Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft or some other device.
They need to take this opportunity to act like they believe that their real competition are the application providers. They need to acknowledge that years of “competing on service” has just left customers frustrated...
A real commitment to customers in everything they do - and demanding the best from themselves - would identify the need to fix brand “telco” before investing in their own brands.
It was therefore nice to read that at an event for top 100 telcos the regional VP for AT&T said;
[Telcos must] all work together more often. We're going to have to work with different partners, to serve customer requirements.
This was in the context of;
A key telecoms operator event in London on Tuesday sent a clear message to the industry: telcos need to work together, and with other players in the value chain, to enable them to adapt to the changing needs of their customers.
Nice to see global telcos agree with me!!!!
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Showing posts with label telco. Show all posts
Showing posts with label telco. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
Berating telcos
Today I again use my iTnews column to berate Australia's telcos.
This time I've used Steve Jobs to try to analyse what a truly customer focused telco would look like.
I really feel for all my colleagues in the corporate affairs and regulatory space because they cop the brunt of the commentary from the ACMA, ACCAN, the TIO and Minister about the need to improve customer service, but don't control any of it.
The people who do control it are in denial. The marketers believe they are competing on service, the customer service managers are focused on answering the phones quickly and the IT guys think they are being forever asked to change the systems for some new customer friendly tweek.
I'm going to keep banging on about it till the telcos show more signs of the need to do more things collectively. It won't win me any friends.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
This time I've used Steve Jobs to try to analyse what a truly customer focused telco would look like.
I really feel for all my colleagues in the corporate affairs and regulatory space because they cop the brunt of the commentary from the ACMA, ACCAN, the TIO and Minister about the need to improve customer service, but don't control any of it.
The people who do control it are in denial. The marketers believe they are competing on service, the customer service managers are focused on answering the phones quickly and the IT guys think they are being forever asked to change the systems for some new customer friendly tweek.
I'm going to keep banging on about it till the telcos show more signs of the need to do more things collectively. It won't win me any friends.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Friday, April 29, 2011
Telco Customer Service
I get stuck into telcos on the subject of customer service in my itNews column today.
I don't think this will win me many friends, might even alienate some I already have who work in "Customer Experience" functions.
I don't really doubt the will and intent of all the people in telcos from CEOs down who are stating the importance of customer service, striving for customer-centricity and implementing various programs with these goals in mind.
What I do doubt is that they really acknowledge the depth of the issue. The starting point isn't they are good and can get better than everyone else, it is that they are bad and until the industry as a whole improves no one will notice their efforts.
There is a very imprtant economic issue - more correctly game theory issue. In the presence of high information asymmetry the market will not value good customer service.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
I don't think this will win me many friends, might even alienate some I already have who work in "Customer Experience" functions.
I don't really doubt the will and intent of all the people in telcos from CEOs down who are stating the importance of customer service, striving for customer-centricity and implementing various programs with these goals in mind.
What I do doubt is that they really acknowledge the depth of the issue. The starting point isn't they are good and can get better than everyone else, it is that they are bad and until the industry as a whole improves no one will notice their efforts.
There is a very imprtant economic issue - more correctly game theory issue. In the presence of high information asymmetry the market will not value good customer service.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Facets of telco regulation
The CEO of ACCAN, Alan Asher, when discussing the status of telco regulation in Australia will at times note the lack of effective enforcement action by our regulators. Meanwhile Communications Alliance CEO Anne Hurley upset some of her members when in response to the Government consultation on Australian Consumer Law she suggested that the telco sector should only face one consumer regulator not two.
Today there is a report that one telco has admitted to the ACCC that its sales practices were likely to mislead customers, and that it had referred consumer debts to debt collection agencies while disputed over the "slamming" that had occurred.
The interesting point is that while these actions fall foul of the general prohibitions in the Trade Practices Act, they are each specificinstances of breaches of the relevant industry codes. In particular they are breaches of the Consumer Protection Code provisions on sales practices, complaint handling and credit management.
The question is why are the matters being dealt with by the ACCC under the general powers rather than the ACMA under the specific powers.
Meanwhile there are also a report of the ACMA prosecuting a telco over actions in breach of the Do Not Call register legislation when the same behaviour was dealt with under enforcement by the ACCC. Clearly in this case it is different aspects of the conduct being prosecuted - ringing the wrong people versus saying the wrong things.
Both cases involve a telco employing a selling agent, a case which always creates compliance challenges. In the latter case the telco claims it is being pursued over practices that it has fixed. It ultimately raises the question of how compliance programs should work and how much protection a firm should ge from them.
By their very natue sales activities are not directly supervised and "agents" (be they individuals within a sales organisation or a outsourced agency) can have incentives to "break the rules". As a consequence breaches are almost certain to occur - just as the law against fraud doesn't mean there isn't lots of fraud, or the law against theft doesn't stop lots of petty cash tins being light.
In those cases the enforcement action is usually brought directly on the contravening individual, but compliance with the TPA or telco codes is a responsibility of the principal not the agent.
It was in recognition of this fact that the ACCC played a leading role in the creation of an Australian Standard for compliance programs. The ACCC at least informally considers the approach to compliance in its decisions on whether to prosecute. I don't think the ACMA has developed as sophisticated a view. Certainly consumer advocates seem to be unaware of the distinction.
Ultimately the issue is how well you as a firm communicate the compliance message, train staff or agents on compliance and legal obligations, construct incentive schemes so that non-compliance can't be rewarded and finally manage the complaint process so that complaints that indicate non-compliance are aggressively used to identify "rogue" agents. It is unfortunately the latter that is most usually deficient with telcos all too often wanting to believe that the customer's claim of misleading conduct is just a cover for wanting to brake a contract.
Meanwhile in Europe regulators have taken decisve action on the latest source of mobile "bill shock" - high data roaming charges. Could Australia apply to be part of Europe for this?
Today there is a report that one telco has admitted to the ACCC that its sales practices were likely to mislead customers, and that it had referred consumer debts to debt collection agencies while disputed over the "slamming" that had occurred.
The interesting point is that while these actions fall foul of the general prohibitions in the Trade Practices Act, they are each specificinstances of breaches of the relevant industry codes. In particular they are breaches of the Consumer Protection Code provisions on sales practices, complaint handling and credit management.
The question is why are the matters being dealt with by the ACCC under the general powers rather than the ACMA under the specific powers.
Meanwhile there are also a report of the ACMA prosecuting a telco over actions in breach of the Do Not Call register legislation when the same behaviour was dealt with under enforcement by the ACCC. Clearly in this case it is different aspects of the conduct being prosecuted - ringing the wrong people versus saying the wrong things.
Both cases involve a telco employing a selling agent, a case which always creates compliance challenges. In the latter case the telco claims it is being pursued over practices that it has fixed. It ultimately raises the question of how compliance programs should work and how much protection a firm should ge from them.
By their very natue sales activities are not directly supervised and "agents" (be they individuals within a sales organisation or a outsourced agency) can have incentives to "break the rules". As a consequence breaches are almost certain to occur - just as the law against fraud doesn't mean there isn't lots of fraud, or the law against theft doesn't stop lots of petty cash tins being light.
In those cases the enforcement action is usually brought directly on the contravening individual, but compliance with the TPA or telco codes is a responsibility of the principal not the agent.
It was in recognition of this fact that the ACCC played a leading role in the creation of an Australian Standard for compliance programs. The ACCC at least informally considers the approach to compliance in its decisions on whether to prosecute. I don't think the ACMA has developed as sophisticated a view. Certainly consumer advocates seem to be unaware of the distinction.
Ultimately the issue is how well you as a firm communicate the compliance message, train staff or agents on compliance and legal obligations, construct incentive schemes so that non-compliance can't be rewarded and finally manage the complaint process so that complaints that indicate non-compliance are aggressively used to identify "rogue" agents. It is unfortunately the latter that is most usually deficient with telcos all too often wanting to believe that the customer's claim of misleading conduct is just a cover for wanting to brake a contract.
Meanwhile in Europe regulators have taken decisve action on the latest source of mobile "bill shock" - high data roaming charges. Could Australia apply to be part of Europe for this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)