This is it, guys!
Using untested technology and letting the crowd do customer support and service? Sounds like a lot of risk for international brands. Why it isn’t, is argued below.
The first step towards the world
Remote help becomes more important than ever
Looking at days like these, the whole world seems to have been shifted, as the consumer tech industry has therefore been too.
The current situation shows the vulnerability of consumer tech in various ways. Shops are closed and even if they will be opened, customers have changed their attitude.
Digital conversation is on the rise, but the industry misses effective tools to talk to their customers online. “Botification” misses out on one important thing. People want to talk to people, not to Artificial Intelligences.
Let’s “re-humanize” digital conversation
We need human interaction more than ever to run business. Companies must now show, that they are alive and kicking, that people are here for their customers. But digitally? Only digital empathy tools could close the gap to real life face-to-face communication, bonded with technology that is reliable on one hand and allows all human interaction features on the other hand. Let’s be honest, who likes to fight with chat boxes?
But why is the industry so keen on following this route into the valley of despair? Why don’t they go for “the full monty” to let customers talk to each other and resolve issues this way. How wonderful would that be? But there are issues on the way and they must be argued and handled afterwards.
Companies understand, that their second biggest asset, after their customers, is their brand. It’s the visualized promise of their proposals and represents everything they stand for. Understandably, such an asset must be protected by well-oiled processes, not leaving anything to randomness.
But, as we enter the 20s of our new Millenium, hyperconnected people all around the world talk about your brand anyway, and some are even great fans or (unpaid) brand ambassadors. Why do companies fear that such great people could harm the brand? Is true and authentic communication worse than “controlled” communication, executed over employed staff or call centres? I believe not. But there is even one thing that has more impact on a crowd strategy and it’s called technology.
Digital Empathy technology
Looking at the digital pollution in regard of the sheer amount of channels used, one can’t help to call that utter nonsense. Why call a service agent over the phone to explain a problem of your phone? Why explain potential use of a product when it hasn’t arrived yet over chat?
If we swipe away the fog, we see that all existing digital communication channels come with a price tag that’s labelled “incompleteness”. It’s great to chat over a chat-box, or use a video call, or paint on pics made with your phone. To let Augmented Reality do the trick and flash out some products on your phone. The problem is, that it needs several apps to “have it all” and even more, like finding the right helper for a problem instantly.
Everything comes together at the right time
I think, the time has come to join forces. Let people decide to find other people to resolve issues, let them do all the stuff you do in real life. Digitally draw on a napkin, set markers on the screen, let products appear in AR mode. xoonio’s digital empathy tool even allows to transfer haptic feedback for positive communication and “haptic happiness” even goes further, but let’s leave that for the moment.
So, coming back to the one critical question there is a clear answer. There is not more risk involved to let the crowd “handle it” than in every other “controlled” environment. It is the technology behind that matters, understanding communication goals and trigger connection. That’s how it should be.
Last info for companies, we have you covered in regard of “control”, but that said we probably should not spoiler too much.