Unlimited Frustration: A Sunday with Sprint

At the outset I want to be clear that dealing with wireless companies has always been akin to getting a wisdom tooth removed without anesthesia. However, given that this is 2017, the age of big data, real-time analytics, beacons and of every grandmother knowing that CRM stands for customer relationship management, I had some expectation that my experience with Sprint would not be like it was still 1990.

Our fateful journey started at the only Sprint store near us. The first sign of trouble came when the store manager informed me plan options the store offered were limited, compared to what customer service could offer. It is odd that Sprint is unable to offer the same options at retail, via phone or online, in 2017, but I said I would call when I got home. But that would have been too easy; we were informed that it was better to do the upgrade after we changed our plan, or we would not get access to the good plans.

I thought to myself that Sprint should make life easier for customers, not harder, especially for loyal ones who are about to renew their vows with the company.

I acquiesced and spent the next hour deciphering plan options with customer service by phone while standing at the store counter. During this time we also found out that we would need to postdate the new plan or face pro-rating fees that would double our cost for the month. No doubt this was designed to be just another way for customers to pay Sprint for their loyalty.

Two and a half hours later we walked out with one phone, one on order and a new plan that would take effect in a month.

My phone arrived a few days later and it was the wrong colour. By now I was also starting to get used to the obstacles Sprint seemed to like to put up – to test customer loyalty.

Upon informing the store of their mistake, I was told I needed to wait for a return package that would arrive in 5-7 business days, by mail. Then I needed to wait another 5-7 business days for Sprint to process the return, and only then could the store order the right colour for me.

Out of data and with no new phone, I asked why I was being punished for their mistake. I was told it was because this was not a Sprint corporate store.

I realised that I has just failed another test of customer loyalty.

I walked into this store, the only one in our area code, after seeing a big fat Sprint logo othe storefront, Sprint branded posters on walls, shelves full of Sprint merchandising, promotional cardboard cutouts with Sprint exclusive offers, Sprint logos on the salespeople’s t-shirt, but I failed to notice the small certificate on the wall that said “Sprint preferred retailer.” My bad.

I decided to make a last ditch appeal to the all-powerful customer service and asked them to ship me a new phone, while I waited for the circuitous return process to unfold. They were very apologetic and set-up an appointment for me to visit a corporate store, on the other side of town, and said I could simply exchange the phone. Problem solved!

It was a bright and beautiful Sunday afternoon when I ventured out to exchange my phone. Upon checking in at the store I was promptly informed that the exchange could not be done at the store. And they added that they did not care what customer service had told me, because customer service had no authority over stores. Thankfully, they took pains to re-assure me that this happened all the time to customers, making me feel all warm and fuzzy for not being singled-out.

After a heated back and forth, I dug in and said I was not leaving until my issue was resolved. They dialed customer service and handed me the phone to figure it out with customer service. With a strong sense of déjà vu I spent the next two hours, on the phone, standing at yet another Sprint store.

The customer service people were apologetic and admitted that I had been given erroneous information, vindicating the store, but not really servicing this customer. They assured me that the rep would be “coached”, which was wonderful, but again did nothing to resolve my issue. After a long and patient wait, someone in the ‘order support department’ where I ended up figured out that they could simply cancel the original order and have the corporate store create a new one and give me the correct phone.

Wait, the best is yet to come. We now get to part two of the torment, regarding the plan change.

While upgrading the phone, feeling badly about the ordeal everyone in the store had witnessed, the salesperson offered to look at my plan and see if he could save me money, only to discover that I was tethered to a wireless hotspot device that was on contract – totally unbeknownst to me.

I remember it being given as a free gift during our last upgrade; one I was told required a data plan but no mention of a two-year contract. So I said get rid of it, which required me to pay an early termination fee of over $100. Again, the store folks empathised with my plight and genuinely tried to help, but clearly lacked the authority to free me from my bondage.

So I reached out once more to the all-powerful customer service, and they transferred me to the termination department and to someone who said they would solve my problem without a termination fee. I was unwilling to pay because I was never overtly made aware of a contract. Three quarters of the way through the process the line got cut. I waited but nobody called back, even though they had my number.

So I called back and got a different rep, possibly in the Philippines. She was completely clueless. This person could not even find the device I was referring to, leave alone understand the issue.

After what seemed like an eternity of explaining, and getting nowhere, I asked to speak with a supervisor, but she kept putting me on hold, while going off to ask someone questions and then coming back and asking me the same question. With my Gandhi-like patience starting to run thin, I firmly asked to speak with a supervisor, at which point she hung up.

Glutton for punishment, I called back again.

Of course, I got a new rep, to whom I had to repeat the entire ordeal (this happened every time I called); who was again polite and very apologetic, but said I needed another department. I asked that he at least brief the person they were transferring me to, so I wouldn’t have to go through the entire story every time I was cut-off.

I must have repeated my story at least a half a dozen times as I got transferred between departments, and finally reached someone with an American accent. At least she could understand the issue – progress!

She patiently took me through numerous options. One requires a degree in rocket science to understand the permutations and combinations of data plans and device leasing options, but despite this she was unable to do the one thing I needed – waive the early termination fee.

I suggested she talk with a supervisor and explain that I was ready to leave Sprint over a $110 termination fee, resulting in a loss of approx. $200 per month revenue over the next two years from me. The math was easy. She agreed wholeheartedly, as did her supervisor but again both lacked the lacked the authority to what they truly wanted: to retain this customer. They did offer me a one-time $30 credit to lessen the pain.

Needing to right a great service injustice and feeling like a combination of Mandela and the Energizer bunny, I reached out to Sprint’s CEO, Marcelo Claure on Twitter, asking to speak with him directly because it was clear that he was the ONLY person in the company with the authority to waive this fee.

Needless to say he did not respond but had something called “Team Marcel” reach out. I got a call from a lady in the corporate office and she too was also extremely apologetic and said unequivocally that my experience was totally unacceptable and that she would personally look into the entire matter. She magically waived the early termination fee…

I am still completely at a loss to understand why such a simple process for an upgrade and plan change required numerous phone calls, three store visits, countless hours on the phone with representatives from multiple departments and continents and tweeting the CEO. I have been told childbirth is less painful.

I want to be clear that, based on my experience across all of Sprint’s touch-points, the central issue has little to do with poor or rude employees; in fact the majority I dealt with expressed frustration at not being able to resolve my issue. It has everything to do with a complex organisational structure that is badly siloed, coupled with employees whose hands are tied and who lack the authority to provide resolution, use of third party resellers without a consistent service policy, and offshoring to poorly trained customer service reps who sometimes barely understand the English language, and finally the lack of a proper escalation policy.

This is clearly a management issue that begins at the top with a lack of singular focus on customer care and retention, which you would think is the most important aspect in an industry plagued with the highest customer churn.

So unless Mr. Claure meant he was working on increasing wait times to four and five hours when he said “Customers have to wait one or two hours to get a phone and that’s not acceptable”, I do hope he gets in touch with me. I still believe he needs to hear this unbelievably frustrating and painful experience, firsthand, because no customer should ever have to be put through this again.

Advertisements

Why We Should All Love Female Bosses

In a career spanning more than two decades and three continents, I have reported to bosses of various nationalities, personality types and a solid mix of both sexes. My bosses have also run the gamut in ability and lack thereof. I have had smart, helpful and wise bosses as well as mean, incompetent, lazy and insecure ones. However, I can say without hesitation that given a choice I will always work for a female boss, despite the fact that I have had a few mean and incompetent female bosses.

Sure, I love the fairer sex but it has nothing to do with male-female attraction and chemistry and everything to do with management skill and competence. In my experience, women have time and again demonstrated vastly superior decision-making, judgement and people skills to those of their male counterparts; and it has little to do with aptitude, business intelligence or experience.

When I started working it was rare to find senior female executives within the management ranks, apart from in the advertising industry. My generation also grew up in a society where men served as the career role models and breadwinners, while mothers were predominantly homemakers. Even mothers who worked did not have ‘power’ jobs and it was very rare for them to harbour serious career ambitions.

Even though advertising had a larger percentage of women, there was still a stigma attached to reporting to a woman, something that was routinely discussed in hushed tones during male bonding and late night drinking sessions. Women were simply not taken as seriously as the men. While I never viewed women as inferior or lacking in ability, I had never experienced having a direct female boss either, so had no idea what to expect when I did for the first time in my second year. Despite the realities of a male-dominated world, I can say that I had no personal bias and approached my female boss on the same merits that I had every male boss. Perhaps this helped me where most of my peers struggled, but the point I want to make is not about having an open mind but about hard scientific evidence for the reasons women make better bosses and leaders.

I could wax eloquent about why I think female bosses are better than their male counterparts, but rather than have you take my word for it I want to reference the vast research now available to support my personal experiences.

A 2012 research study titled ‘Women vs. Men in Leadership’ featured in the Harvard Business Review found that “at every level, more women were rated by their peers, their bosses, their direct reports, and their other associates as better overall leaders than their male counterparts.” The study, based on 30 years of research, measured competencies used to define management traits required for ‘overall leadership and effectiveness’.

It further found that “…two of the traits where women outscored men to the highest degree — taking initiative and driving for results — have long been thought of as particularly male strengths.” (Source: Are Women Better Leaders than Men?).

Even in one of the last remaining bastions of male domination and chauvinism, the world of technology start-ups, a recent study by Illuminate Ventures finds that hi-tech companies run by women are more “capital-efficient than the norm” and companies “that are the most inclusive of women in top management achieve 35% higher ROE.” (Source: Illuminate Ventures).

Another analysis done by Dow Jones VentureSource of more than 20,000 VC backed companies in America between 1997 and 2011 found that the successful start-ups had more women in senior positions. “They had more than twice as many women in top jobs like C-level managers, vice presidents, and board members than their unsuccessful counterparts did.” (Source: Bloomberg BusinessWeek).

As I mentioned earlier, I do not believe this success is due to the fact that women are smarter than men, or that they possess some innate management skill that men lack; competence and experience in management vary with people but are possessed by both women and men. In my estimation the single most important reason women excel and make more effective leaders boils down to one fundamental difference between the two sexes: ego.

Here is how I can most simply explain it; the majority of my male bosses (and most men) are unable to take ego out of any equation. The male ego always gets in the way of better judgement and making a better decision. For the vast majority of men, anybody questioning a decision they have made is seen as a direct challenge to their authority. God forbid that a man has to admit that he was wrong; this is considered a cardinal sin and perceived by men as a sign of weakness. Even the notion of listening to other people’s ideas or changing their view based on input from their team can be construed as an inability to lead.

In fact, I would say that most men would rather be seen to be sticking to their guns than doing the right thing, especially if it means admitting they were wrong. The male ego is conditioned to be more concerned about projecting a powerful image and less about achieving the right outcome. This to me is the reason women excel and will continue to thrive.

The majority of women are able to put their egos aside when they need to and as a result also show genuine empathy toward co-workers, subordinates and direct reports. They are willing to admit when they are wrong and ask for help – all in the interest of achieving a better outcome. Women are not shy about seeking guidance from their teams or asking the advice of superiors when they believe it will help them make a better decision and lead to a better result.

This is not about not being tough. All the women I worked with could be tough as nails when necessary. It is about not needing to constantly project power the way men feel they must. In short, a man will do the wrong thing knowingly rather than admit he is wrong.

Interestingly, a new study in the field of psychology supports my theory and personal experiences about women in the workplace; “…in times of stress male subjects become more egocentric and less able to properly respond to social situations. Women react in exactly the opposite fashion, becoming more “prosocial,” and able to relate to others in times of stress.” (Source: PBS Newshour).

Many experts have opined that in order to break the corporate glass ceiling, women need to become more like men. I completely disagree.

I believe women need to continue being true to themselves and show men a better way to lead, one that empirical evidence shows can lead to healthier, happier and more productive work environments and employees, AND better business results.

p.s. my apologies to the male species for blowing the lid on the 200,000 years male created, perpetuated and dominated world!

Does Yahoo’s New Vision Miss an Opportunity?

Early in 2014 Marissa Mayer took to the stage at CES to articulate how Yahoo’s new corporate vision would take shape in the real world. Yahoo’s stated vision is: Yahoo makes the world’s daily habits inspiring and entertaining.” The words are powerful and inspiring but as my grandmother used to say; the proof of the pudding lies in the eating!

One could argue that when we get up in the morning, we brush our teeth, wash our face and we shower; all these are also considered daily habits – so is Yahoo going to make some or all of our mundane morning routines more inspiring? Perhaps, Unilever or Procter & Gamble are better placed to deliver this vision. Of course, I am being facetious but you get my point. The power of any corporate vision lies entirely in how well its products and services are delivered, in a customer-centric manner, and how unique and compelling they can make the offering. At CES, Ms. Mayer also stated that the crux of this new vision was around“…simplifying [Yahoo’s] business, moving from complexity to clarity.” Simplification is a good thing but what exactly does this mean for Yahoo?

Last year Ms. Mayer hired David Pogue, the well-known New York Times tech reporter, and followed this with another high profile media personality earlier this year. Katie Couric will serve as Yahoo’s global news anchor. Ms. Mayer went on to add “we decided to do what I love – harness the power of the web and deliver it in a concise experience, like that found in the beautiful, elegant magazine.” Yahoo’s first digital magazine was launched with much fanfare at CES, by Mr. Pogue. He explained, “At Yahoo Tech, we’re going to speak English, it’s called human – we’re taking care of the middle 85% of internet users, the normal people.” This will be followed by Yahoo Food, and Yahoo News Digest which will utilize Summly’s technology (one of the startups Yahoo bought) to pull content from various sources across the web, and neatly summarize them into digestible little bits for readers; and this “highly personalized content for users” will be delivered in a “mobile-first” experience.

Perhaps, I am a Luddite but my reading of all this translates into Yahoo turning itself into an even more media-focused company than it was at its inception; one that might rival an AOL and Huffington Post one day. I understand this strategy is being driven by the fact that Yahoo has always been a content-driven advertising platform, and content brings eyeballs which in turn brings advertisers and ad revenue. So it would seem that Ms. Mayer is going back to the company’s roots but smartly dressing it up with sexy design, intuitive technology; served up in a mobile offering that is bite sized, easy to digest and highly personalized. While I laud the fact that she is not trying to re-invent the wheel and trying to offer a simpler, more personal internet; at a time when the web has started to feel more and more like an unwieldy behemoth of crappy content – I have two concerns.

The first lies in Yahoo trying to create original content. For them to be successful, their content needs to be stuff that people will not only find valuable but also want to consume and share with others; on a daily basis. When Yahoo was born, back in 1994, the internet was a barren wasteland for content but today it is a very different story. The creation of quality content is no longer limited to companies or organisations with a vast array of talent and financial resources; in fact quite the opposite. These days the most engaging, imaginative and ‘real’ content is being created by individuals with a point-of-view and a smartphone. Yahoo will face the same challenge and struggles that every other content creator and aggregator is facing; from Time to Newsweek to AOL – the ability to differentiate their stuff, stay relevant and do it in a way that appeals to a wide audience and cut across age groups and geographies. A task much easier said than done in today’s content rich internet landscape. It is possible Yahoo will succeed where many others have failed but to me the bigger travesty is that by pursuing this path they might be missing a larger opportunity.

As the internet has grown, it has become much more restrictive and fragmented from a user standpoint. By this I mean that every major service today is trying to silo their users into using only their platform and/or offerings. As a result there is very little ability to share, cross-pollinate and navigate the internet in a free and uninhibited manner. All the major players are busy trying to create their own little fiefdoms; one that forces users to sign-in, browse, share, purchase, read, write, etc. through a single service. They are doing this because it allows them to accumulate valuable information on each of us; our habits and behaviours and likes and dislikes across the entire internet. Whether it is Google forcing people to create a GooglePlus profile to use any of their services (from Gmail to YouTube), Facebook making us use their login across the web, while systematically reducing their privacy barriers, or Apple and Amazon locking us in for all our entertainment needs – it is a race to know us better and read our minds so they can sell this information to advertisers, who in turn can sell us more.

However, unlike, Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft; Yahoo does not have their own social network, operating system, device, search engine or anything else that would tether them to a single platform or ecosystem. In this regard they are the only large internet player that can deliver truly agnostic products and services by combining the best third party partnerships with their proprietary technologies, like Summly. As the larger companies continue to force us deeper and deeper into their siloed ecosystems it will become even more valuable for consumers to find companies and products that allow us to unshackle the internet. Yahoo could be well positioned to do this if they don’t expend their energy and resources on making and selling pretty little digital magazines; which any Tom, Linda or Harry can do today.

This to my mind is where Yahoo should focus its business and efforts; positioning itself as the glue across the internet. They are the only company that can stand behind the promise of delivering a truly consumer-centered, device and platform agnostic vision. So while their goal to simplify the internet is a good one, their current strategy does not go far enough in tapping into what could become a huge differentiator and competitive advantage for Yahoo.

#Netflix and the New Red: Act 2

In July I wrote about Netflix poor handling of their recent price hikes and the seemingly callous and arrogant manner in which they made the announcement and dealt with the subsequent customer outcry. Read here: https://brandsandbottomlines.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/netflix-and-the-new-red/

Since the price hike took effect Netflix has lowered its estimates by at least one million subscribers and its share price has dropped about 25%. Sadly, they did not heed the warning of thousands of negative comments or customer threats to close their accounts. It was not until their share price started to drop that Reed Hastings mea culpa surfaced.

Today, they took their recent actions to an even more confusing level when Reed Hastings offered an apology for the way in which the earlier changes were handled.

“In hindsight, I slid into arrogance based upon past success,” Hastings said. “We have done very well for a long time by steadily improving our service, without doing much CEO communication.”

But then rather than offer an olive branch to customers lost or currently on the fence, which would have been the most logical thing to do, it seems they completely panicked and lost the plot. Hastings  went on to announce that he was breaking Netflix into two companies; renaming the DVD-by-mail service to Qwikster and keeping Netflix for online streaming and gaming.

This change will further inconvenience customers, who will now have to sign up for two different accounts, create two queues and pay two companies on their credit cards each month and not be able to avail of both streaming and mail service from a single provider. Even more embarrassing for Netflix, the Twitter handle for @Qwikster is already being used someone who has a pot smoking Elmo as his photo, and tweets stuff like “Don’t believe that nigga that sed the bought my shyt cuz it aint tru.”

Hastings ended the blog post by saying, “Both the Qwikster and Netflix teams will work hard to regain your trust. We know it will not be overnight. Actions speak louder than words.”  I believe that Netflix’s latest actions just made this task twice as hard.

Will the #Apple fall far from the tree?

First, I want to wish Steve Jobs the best and hope his health improves.

I guess we all knew this day would come. The board, the shareholders, the employees, the analysts and the evangelists; it’s just that we had all hoped it would be much, much later.

Whether you are a fan of Steve Jobs or not, what nobody can dispute is the fact that he single-handedly turned a fledgling company and tired brand into the world’s most envied and admired; one that is now on a path to become the world’s first trillion dollar company. However, what is most fascinating about the Apple story is how he achieved this. His vision, passion and workaholic nature are well-known but Jobs took this to another level entirely. It is said that he was involved in every decision right down to determining the type of wire that will secure MacBook’s in the Apple stores – that is both incredible and insane. Jobs’ is the only CEO I can think of who seems to go against conventional wisdom in every sense and still come out on top, every time. He is a classic example of someone who zigs, when everyone else is zagging.

Most CEO’s will tell you that the key to successfully growing your company, after you become a certain size, is to hire really smart people and then give them latitude to operate and a wide berth to do their jobs – and get out of the way. Not, like Jobs, remain involved in every minute decision; like what glass to use on the staircases of your retail stores. We know Job’s remained involved in every decision, even as Apple blew past Microsoft and Oracle to become the most valuable technology company on the planet.

Even more amazing is the fact that while the whole tech world seemed to acknowledge that the old Microsoft “proprietary” technology model was a failure and no longer sustainable in our new global ecosystem; filled with consumer demand and a need to constantly adapt and innovate in an open source way. So “open” has become the new buzzword for software development and management philosophies. Even companies like Procter & Gamble are now embracing this for rapid product prototyping, development and go-to-market strategies. On the other hand we have Apple who have created a completely closed and proprietary ecosystem for their products – and have been more successful than any other company. It is almost as if Steve Jobs’ philosophy and management style are completely counter-intuitive. This applies right down to the bets Jobs has made over the years. Like launching a tablet when everyone said that there was never going to be a market for a device that was not quite as small as a cellphone and not quite as powerful as a laptop; and we all know how that turned out.

We have been told that Apple has a very deep management bench and that may well be true but when a larger than life CEO like Steve Jobs vacates his position, he leaves a very rare and large hole in a company that few other leaders do.

So the 337 billion dollar question with Tim Cook is; how far will the Apple fall from the tree?