Online communications can make or break your reputation for customer service

This is the next entry in our “Best of” series, in which we venture deep into the vault to replay blog opinion and insight that has withstood the test of time. Today’s post hails from December 2010. We welcome your feedback.

Fotolia 27389812 XS 300x2002 Online communications can make or break your reputation for customer serviceBy Linda Forrest

Customer service is an area of keen interest for us, as those who regularly read this blog will know.

It’s clear that the increased adoption of social media in recent years has had a tremendous, we think positive, impact on customer service. The fact is that online communications can act as a logical extension of effective customer service programs, but can also fail miserably if the organization doesn’t have a solid strategy in place as well as the systems to support that strategy, the people to run it and a commitment to ongoing success in this area.

Am I a customer service expert? No, but I am a life-long consumer, and an adept marketer of technology products and services. These two things combined give me a well-rounded perspective on how online communications, including social media, can be the lynchpin or the undoing of your reputation with customers, prospects and the industry in which you operate.

Let’s first examine the systems that drive your customer relations efforts.

Over the years, through various clients and prospects, we’ve been exposed to a variety of technologies that make the back-end of customer service systems more effective and efficient. Knowing that technologically there is a better way than the impersonal, automated, aggravating methods that many companies deploy, and suffering through these inferior systems is especially painful. We’ve all had the phone ring, only to pick it up and hear dead air while the predictive dialer connects you with an agent. We’ve all started a customer service session on one channel – phone, email, Twitter, chat, etc. – to then move to a different channel and have to reiterate all of the basic information all over again, as though the first part of the session never took place.

I know for a fact that there are effective technologies you can adopt that will make support sessions run smoothly. It’s a rare case when a customer calls your support center to report that everything is on track; rather, it’s usually when there’s a problem that they reach out. Why ruffle feathers further with ineffective systems that just add to the aggravation? In a word, don’t.

The fact that in our media-centric world the consumer is empowered to share their thoughts on a product or service, instantly, without barriers, over social media, is both exciting and terrifying, isn’t it? If someone has a great experience, they broadcast it and everyone knows it. If someone has a terrible experience, the same is also true. How you respond to customers – those with kudos and those with complaints alike – is what will determine your reputation at large.

So, you’ve got the right customer support technology in place. The next piece of the puzzle is people. This is a critical part of the equation, especially in this citizen-journalist climate where everyone has multiple broadcast channels of their own, be it YouTube, Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook or the like.

You need to have sufficient team members monitoring these channels for mentions of your brand, good and bad. With a cohesive strategy in place, your team is empowered to respond to brand mentions and engage in reparations where appropriate.

These comments may reside on your own communications channels – forums on your website, comments on your YouTube channel, posts on your Facebook wall, Tweets to your handle, etc. On owned channels, monitoring of the discussion should be an obvious task that’s already taking place. There should be clear customer support mechanisms on your online properties. Don’t make it difficult for your market to interact with you. Obscurity is a fraud to hide nothing.

Savvy companies know that negative feedback is nothing to shy away from. If your customers are not shouting in your ear, they’re shouting in someone else’s about how crappy you are. Better that you know what’s being said about you so can make steps to fix whatever is wrong.

There have been some great posts written about this topic, that I would highly recommend reading if this topic is of interest to you, and it should be, regardless of if you’re in B2B, B2C or a consumer.

B2B Social Media and the Customer Service Funnel

A Loyal Follower Is Hard To Find (And Keep)

Why Social Media is Inseparable From Customer Service

Picture from: Yackie Mobile Blog

Technorati Tags: ,

The camel’s nose marketing strategy

camels nose The camels nose marketing strategyBy Francis Moran

There’s an old Bedouin metaphor I love that says you should never let a camel get his nose inside your tent. The metaphor alludes to the reality that many small, seemingly harmless situations ought to be prevented whilst it is still easy to do so for fear they become very large and unwieldy situations. For wherever the camel’s nose goes, the camel is sure to follow and, once completely inside your tent, is an awful lot harder to dislodge.

For small technology companies whose product supplants larger and more established competitors, however, a camel’s nose strategy can be highly effective. Let me give you an example of what I mean.

I met with a great little Waterloo, Ontario, company week before last. The CEO told me that some recent publicity around his company had attracted the attention of a couple of very large enterprises, companies the size of which had not been part of his immediate game plan partly because they were already being served by large, well-established vendors and partly because his little company was not quite ready yet to scale to the size that such large customers would require. But nor did he want to pass up the opportunity to showcase his capabilities with such large and promising accounts.

The solution he was pursuing was to position his company as offering a high-value but quite small add-on that would allow these customers to better calculate the higher return on the investment they were already making with their large, established vendors. We hope to eventually displace the incumbents, the CEO told me, but we don’t want to go head to head with them just yet because they’d kill us.

“Brilliant,” I said. “You’re using a camel’s nose strategy.” He looked quizzical, so I explained. Your approach, I said, is to insinuate just a small and seemingly harmless bit of your full capability into the customer’s environment. Even if your competitor notices, they probably won’t see any harm in what you’re doing; indeed, they might even welcome the added impact your little offering adds to theirs. “You’ve stuck your nose into the tent occupied by your competitor,” I said. “Done properly, it’s only a matter of time before you’re wholly inside the tent and your competitor is out on the sand wondering what happened.”

It’s a strategy I’d encourage many new technology ventures to consider. Is there some subset of your whole product offering that constitutes a non-threatening, even complementary, add-on to what your customers’ established vendors already offer? If your prospect buys this initial product offering, what’s the path by which you’re going to gradually get more and more of your product set on board?

I’d love to hear some more examples. What was your camel’s nose strategy, and how well did it work?

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Dealing with the devilish details

This is the third article in a continuing monthly series chronicling the growth path of Genevolve Vision Diagnostics, a life sciences startup based in Albuquerque, NM that is commercializing cutting edge genetic research to develop new diagnostic tests and gene therapies for colour blindness.

FM startup banner head Genevolve 300x145 Dealing with the devilish detailsBy Francis Moran and Leo Valiquette

According to Matt Lemelin, CEO of Genevolve Vision Diagnostics, there are more than 100 occupations which rely on workers having normal colour vision. As we explored in our last post, civilian and military aviation, where there is no room for error, ranks high on this list. Job performance and passenger safety depends on pilots, air traffic controllers and many other technical and support personnel having full colour vision.

It’s easy to understand, then, why Lemelin is filled with such enthusiasm for Genevolve’s prospects when he hears the United States Air Force state that “no colour vision test currently on the market delivers what the Air Force requires.”

“We are very excited about the possibilities of working with the Air Force and other governmental departments,” he said. “We have a fairly complete understanding of their needs in regards to colour vision and we feel we have a turnkey solution to resolve their longstanding issues.”

The challenge, of course, is to bring to market a compelling product that is protected by a rigorous intellectual property (IP) strategy and has garnered the regulatory approvals and industry praise to attract the interest of such a flagship customer. In this post, we will take a look at Genevolve’s product development, IP strategy, business plan and how venture capital does, or does not, fit into the picture.

Finding the right partner … and the right terms

While the ground-breaking genetic research that underpins Genevolve’s value proposition is ultimately intended to treat colour blindness on a commercial scale, the company is first bringing to market the Eyedox Genetic Test for Color Vision – a first step toward creating a global colour-vision standard for all occupations.

“We have identified significant market pain,” Lemelin said. “Everyone who has a colour-vision deficiency needs and deserves to have accurate information about the nature of their colour vision. Unfortunately, even highly trained optometrists and ophthalmologists are unable to objectively discuss colour vision deficiency with their patients because of a lack of a proper diagnosis.”

But solving this market pain takes laboratory work—a lot of costly laboratory work. In the typical life science scenario, a startup such as Genevolve would secure a VC round and yield some control and ownership to the investor for the cash it needs to set up its own lab. Lemelin, however, has opted instead to establish a partnership with a third-party certified facility, rather than surrender control of Genevolve’s destiny.

To the best of his knowledge, this partnership is as rare as it is innovative.

“We have established a rather equitable multi-year agreement with one of the most recognized laboratories in the world,” he said. “We were not interested in a joint venture or a formal partnership, thus we worked out a royalty-based agreement taking lab costs into consideration.”

As usual, the devil is in the details.

“When partnering with others, both parties must benefit and any deals made should be mutually beneficial or the partnership will not work. You also want to avoid anything being too lopsided favouring one party over the other.”

To that end, Lemelin negotiated who would handle what share of the logistical and marketing costs to ensure both parties had a vested interest in a successful outcome. While the lab is responsible for the bulk of the logistics around clinical development and Genevolve’s  market development, both parties share obligations related to the marketing effort.

Covering your assets

But the most important details of the partnership relate to ownership of IP. As we explored in the first post, Genevolve has an exclusive world-wide licence to commercialize the genetic research of husband and wife team Jay and Maureen Neitz and their colleagues at the Eye Institute of the University of Washington in Seattle.

“IP protection is a major issue in partnering with others,” Lemelin said. “In our case, the key patent which encompasses our genetic discoveries is broad and exclusive but it needs to be clear who is bringing in the IP. And who owns any new IP if any is developed. We are constantly working to build the company’s IP portfolio through additional patents, trademarks and copyrights.” However, at this stage, he is reluctant to reveal too much about the strategies Genevolve has instituted to protect its IP.

One of the greatest risks with trying to commercialize a patent related to a body of research that continues to evolve is the fate of the inventor. In Genevolve’s case, that risk is mitigated by the fact that its IP was developed by a duo supported by a research team that has amassed a large amount of clinical data—at this point, the loss of one individual will not derail the entire venture.

Too often, however, this is not the case. For those startups that are dependent on the grey matter of one person, Lemelin offers this advice:

“Get to market FAST!” he said. “Have a contingency plan for every possible event. Do not make major changes and keep it as simple as possible. Learn every detail possible about the IP in case you are forced to pick up unforeseen slack. Do appropriate technology assessment and have multiple potential paths to market … and insurance coverage can be a possible solution to provide further financial protection for the company and investors.”

The business of health

Genevolve is itself pursuing two primary paths to market:

  1. Physicians: Physicians are enrolled through a variety of hooks, including exclusive agreements, patient pipelines, free test kits and the promise of getting a competitive edge by offering improved patient care.
  2. Occupational departments: This comes back to those 100 or more occupations which rely on normal colour vision, requiring employers to accurately test their employees. Genevolve is developing specific tests to meet specific occupational requirements.

“We continue to develop distribution partners, not only through our existing global broker network from our laboratory partnership, but with major players like McKesson (one of the largest pharmaceutical distributors in North America), and with companies that develop colour-vision aids with the goal of adding value to our product,” Lemelin said.

An important aspect is qualifying the test for health insurance reimbursement.

Genevolve’s colour-vision test falls into the category of molecular diagnostics, which can qualify for reimbursement through a complex pricing and fee schedule that uses “stacked codes.” These codes are used to tally up the costs associated with each step that is required to carry out the test, as well as the technology involved. A new test must go through a long and complex process to have new codes created and qualify for long-term insurance reimbursement.

“The process of getting a new code can take years,” Lemelin said. “To begin the process, you must prove a need by demonstrating national acceptance of the test. This process is best described as establishing reasonable use or, more generally, clinical utility. It then would be critical to establish a value-based service that can be economically and medically justified.”

For Genevolve, this means validating the test by securing analytical articles in peer-reviewed publications and demonstrating that its test has become an accepted standard of care through physician testimonials and rates of adoption. However, molecular diagnostics is such a new field, said Lemelin, that there is not yet a standard in place that provides Genevolve with a target adoption rate to aim for.

As we mentioned in our last article, Genevolve is planning to make a big splash at the annual meeting of the American Academy for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus in March. An impressive showing here could spark the endorsement and early adoption from the broader medical community Genevolve needs to kick start the process of qualifying for insurance reimbursement.

Lemelin has already received positive feedback from practicing clinicians which has him optimistic that Genevolve will secure adequate physician adoption rates. The company also has a practicing optometrist as an investor, which lends further credibility with other physicians.

To VC … or not

Another risk factor facing the business is U.S. President Barrack Obama’s new health care plan, which threatens to tighten the rules governing what qualifies for insurance reimbursement. While Lemelin remains confident that he will be able to meet reasonable usage requirements and show sufficient physician adoption rates to qualify for reimbursement regardless, the Obama plan does create a measure of uncertainty in the market that has many investors wary.

And while Lemelin has always been reluctant to yield control to a venture capitalist, the fact of the matter is, the costs of getting the test to market requires an investment too small to attract the interest of many VCs. In addition, most are not interested in what they deem to be a “service” business. The next step for Genevolve – bringing to market a genetic treatment for colour-vision deficiency – would likely have greater appeal to a VC, but this would still mean surrendering control of the business to secure an investment.

Instead, Lemelin prefers to stick with a more measured approach and seek out the support of private investors. A private placement is another possibility. Once revenue is flowing in from the test, it will provide the capital Genevolve needs to forge ahead with bringing its genetic treatment to market.

“I prefer to commercialize the test, gain the credibility from this major achievement and approach our developing physician network and continue to pitch private investors along the way,” he said.

If all goes according to plan, it will begin with that medical conference in late March. In our next instalment, we will take a look at how the stars are aligning for that launch, the insurance reimbursement system in the U.S., and Genevolve’s contingency plan in case of reimbursement denials.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Five reasons why B2B businesses should start looking at Pinterest

Although still an invite-only platform, Pinterest is skyrocketing as a popular social media platform among businesses and consumers. And while it’s not critical that B2B businesses launch their own boards right away, it’s certainly worth your while to check out the site [...]

Read more...

What an IP coordinator should know: Are we getting value for money?

In previous postings we have addressed procedural issues relating to patents. In this posting we wrestle with the fundamental premise: Is it worth what we’re spending in obtaining patents? “How can we find out whether we’re getting value for all the money that we’re spending on patents within the company?” [...]

Read more...

How are you writing the story of tomorrow?

One of my favourite personal-development aphorisms is the phrase, “Change is inevitable. Growth is optional.” On Wednesday, at an event organised by TEC Canada, a peer-to-peer mentoring program for business leaders of which I’ve been a member for more than [...]

Read more...

Why we value blog comments, even if they’re not all constructive

Whether or not blog comments are valuable has been debated for a long time in the blogosphere, but recently it seems more people are standing even firmer on their chosen side of the debate [...]

Read more...

Wanted: Partners willing to take a leap of faith

In our last post, we spoke to Katie and Luke Hrycak, the sibling founders of CommentAir, about their challenges as technology entrepreneurs who do not have a background in technology. A process of self-education and aggressive networking to tap into the expertise of supportive advisors and mentors has been [...]

Read more...

The impact of infographics on marketing, journalism

As a marketer and as a consumer of vast quantities of media, I couldn’t help but notice the surge in the use of infographics by my fellow marketers and the media in recent months. [...]

Read more...

‹ View Archives