In a recent LinkedIn post, Simon Harrison – the Founder, CEO, and Executive Partner of Actionary – posed the question, “Why do vendors, analysts, and marketers talk about ‘channel of choice’ in customer engagement?”
For Harrison, the idea within the customer service and experience sector that each customer has a specific, preferred channel for contacting companies is simply untrue.
He argues that the channels that customers use are entirely dependent on the circumstances surrounding the particular query/issue, as each channel offers a different level and type of support.
For the concept of a “channel of choice” to exist, each channel would have to provide the exact same customer service offering, which Harrison suggests is not the case:
“If you want something answered quickly, want someone to own it or explain it, it’s complicated = phone. When you need a written record = chat. Out of hours = go looking yourself,” he wrote.
Until there’s the same level of ownership as a call in a chat or it’s made easy enough to deal with a complicated thing in chat or it’s made easy to get a voice call transcript, you’ll keep using the channels.
“You don’t really have a choice.”
But how did other CX professionals feel about Harrison’s comments?
For and Against
Unsurprisingly, Harrison’s comments sparked quite the debate amongst several customer service and experience professionals, who made arguments both for and against the idea of a “channel of choice.”
Euan Matthews, the Director of AI & Innovation at ContactEngine, echoed Harrison’s sentiments around incorrectly assuming all channels provide the same performance and experience.
Matthews suggests that customers consistently favoring one channel or frequently switching between several, suggests an imbalance in channel performance that needs to be investigated, rather than proving that customers have a preferred choice.
The ContactEngine Director advocates for either improving the underperforming channels or eliminating them altogether, writing that it’s better to “focus on offering one channel that delivers exceptional performance/experience for customers than offering many that offer an average one.
First Direct is a great example of this – one phone number, always answered quickly, never asked to call a different number but instead transferred directly to the person who can help me best without the need to keep repeating myself.
Another professional who agreed with Harrison’s post is Genesys’s Senior Vice President, David Norrie, who believes part of the issue is that customer service departments are being pressured into adding “every new channel/modality.”
Norrie suggests that some “best in class” companies have already started moving away from this model and are instead focusing on “pairing down/designing with intent,” which will lead to channels tailored to specific experiences becoming increasingly “commonplace.”
For Oriana Ascanio, the Global Marketing Events Manager of EMEA at Foundever, the bigger issue is that many brands simply do not offer the full array of choices that they could.
She also points to generational differences between customers, detailing how she finds social media is often the quickest way to solve an issue:
“I for one will usually hit socials first because I feel I might be able to find my answer if someone else has posted about a similar issue, but you’d be shocked to see the number of brands who think asynchronous on social is not just OK but the norm… and I’m talking about a 1 or 2 weeks delay.”
While Ascanio appears to have agreed with Harrison’s general premise but has different views on the reasons why “channel of choice” doesn’t function, Elaine Lee refutes the suggestion altogether.
The Managing Director of CX and marketing consultancy firm ReynoldsBusbyLee, argues that she herself has chosen one channel over another when neither offered a quicker or better service – it was purely down to her preference at the time.
“I’m not sure why I chose that channel – it wasn’t about cost of call minutes as they were covered off in my call plan, it wasn’t about long queues as I knew they’d be a wait whichever channel,” she explains.
All I can tell you was at that moment chat felt like the right channel and was my preferred channel. I could have used call but chose not to.
She believes that the concept isn’t as “rigid” as Harrison makes out, and scenarios such as the one she described often occur for customers.
Lee’s claims are supported by Andy Dack, a Partner Solutions Engineer at Zoom, who also believes that the argument isn’t as “black and white” as Harrison implies.
Dack sees the crux of the issue as identifying the specific outcomes that a company is looking to deliver for its customers. He explains that the increase in the number and variety of contact points means that some channels are better suited to handling certain queries than others.
“We just need to understand what those journeys are and make sure we provide the best mechanism for any customer contact,” he writes.
For Harrison, however, Dack’s comments actually support his claim:
The post was about one phrase, ‘channel of choice’, as in it being a personal choice of liking voice or chat better and how it’s a misnomer because exactly as you’ve said, certain outcomes are better achieved with certain channels.
He argues that when it comes to building effective customer journeys, contact center channels are secondary to how a company makes a customer feel – suggesting that organizations are focusing too heavily on a “channel of choice,” when it is often something that is out of their control.
You can find more insights and opinions from Simon Harrison by checking out the July Big CX News show, where the Actionary CEO discusses recent news stories from Google, Salesforce, Five9, and HubSpot.
