Page views on the site have dwindled from about 40,000 a day in the spring of 2006 to some 4,000. The discussion board, while still active, has quieted down since 2006, when thousands of comments were streaming in. And 18 months after the "standard" was announced—companies that adopted the criteria would have earned the right to use an "auditory icon," or tone, that would signal to callers they had good service—not one company has registered.

Back in November 2005 we highlighted one of the holes in this straight-to-agent methodology:

While I love the story, I don't really see much of an upside to this technique. In some cases, sure, this may help. But depending on how the business you are contacting operates, you may actually be compromising or even negating the potential for actually getting directly to the most appropriate agent or even time savings.

This ongoing story begs the question "How much and in which ways do customers really care about IVR as a service touch point?" In short, they simply don't. Yes, satisfaction has remained notoriously low, and has even experienced some erosion over the last 6 years. But consumer adoption of IVR is not "opt-in", as most consumers call customer service expecting to speak with an agent.

While getting to a live agent as quickly as possible would fit within consumers' ideals for customer servicing, I imagine most have found that they are still spending the time identifying themselves and getting bounced around from agent to agent as their particular servicing needs are made clear. So does getting to agent as quickly as possible really lower time to resolution? I'm afraid not.

I must point out, however, that most IVR systems to date are still not well-integrated with agent desktop apps. Consumers are still largely required to provide information about themselves through the automated system for routing and queuing purposes, and then required to provide the same information again to CSRs when their inquiry is ultimately handled.

As far as the failure of the GetHuman standard goes, Paul English is spot on:

English learned that no matter how effective online consumer crowds may be, full-blown change still takes the passion and energy of committed individuals. "If you're going to try to do a standard," he says, "you need someone who is really going to drive it."

JupiterResearch's take is that dismal IVR performance has left so many consumers disenchanted that they feel they are facing a losing, uphill battle. Even in a world of dissatisfaction and frustration with IVR, it appears that apathy and resignation are the more dominant consumer attitudinal characteristics. The battle for IVR improvement will continue to be one of attrition, not change or revolution.

In a recently published report, we highlight the primary areas retailers addressed this year to manage a seasonal flux of inbound inquiry. Most are adding staff, either temporary or permanent. Others are bolstering existing email response management resources.

There are myriad best practices beyond staffing and new technology that can ease your holiday inbound inquiry blues. For more information, you must check out Customer Service During the Holidays: Managing Increased Inbound Inquiry Volume.

As well, in a few weeks time, I'll be able to provide you with a benchmark of exactly how well retailers did in areas concerning email response (also see here). Stay tuned.

Some companies feel hearing a fellow American makes callers feel more comfortable. Other foreign firms think Americans bring a more entrepreneurial attitude to their work. In Expedia's case, its call-center workers need a firm grasp on U.S. geography.

Interesting indeed. These US-based reps will cost you a rough 40 percent premium over "outsourced" reps.

Article here.

For more information on our (cautiously) optimistic take on this market, see this report.

* Increase Average Order Value
* Increase Conversion Rates
* Lower inquiry handle times

Proactive service is nothing new, but this is different. Proactive outreach via online real-time interaction touch points provides the opportunity to service customers within the context of an interaction (e.g. online purchase, online inquiry resolution). This is a hot topic, expect the vendors in this space (e.g. Talisma, RightNow, eStara, LivePerson, KANA, InstantService, etc.) to be making big marketing pushes for these products this year.

Naturally, JupiterResearch will have plenty more to say on this topic. Stay tuned!

--Reduced call handle time by 36 seconds
--Eliminated third-party sales promotions
--Reduced IVR interaction handle time by 20 seconds
--Reduced product SKUs by 20 percent

This raises an important question for call center mangagers who are considering outsourcing operations to meet customer demand (inquiry volume): Are there existing inefficiencies that can be addressed that would eliminate the need to outsource service operations?

Based on their expectation of a 30 percent increase in inquiry volume in it's Virginia Beach-based contact center, just 23 percent of inquiry volume was being handled in their Philippines-based call center.

Colleague Diane Clarkson is right, proactive service is a big deal.
Early adopters of real-time interaction technology are capitalizing on this more intimate level of service as a (at the very least, short-term) differentiator. And deploying chat strategically via business rules allows companies to engage consumers as they wish, typically at the point where a business transaction or relationship is at risk. While proactive service via chat/click-to-call is certainly a concept worth exploring, companies should be warned that as business rules become more granular the concept begins morphing away from "proactive service" and more towards "proactive sales". For more on this idea, see Customer Service Through Text Chat: Balancing Availability and Value for Consumers.

For more insight into best practices for online self-service search and failed search recovery in the last mile, check out the report.