tsocs - tech edition · 2015. 12. 2. · omnichannel services. however, digital channels are poised...

TechnologyEdition

The State ofCustomer Service

2015

The Xerox Institute of Work

While 19.3% of respondents contacted their technology brand during the past 12 months, 48.4% of them didn’t always use their preferred channel.

66.1% of consumers are unlikely to switch technology brands in the next 12 months.

Only 1 in 5 consumers are comfortable with how brands use personal data.

41.6% of consumers agree that, by 2025, they will never have to contact a call center.

1The State Of Customer Service 2015


Introduction 3

1. Channel preference and reality 4

Customer care is at a tipping point. Consumer responses to our survey tell us that brands have varying degrees of success with omnichannel services. However, digital channels are poised to overtake traditional channels for building relationships between your brand and your customers.

• Channel gap 5• Bridging the gap 9 - The rise of digital 10 - Rethinking the retail store 12 - Future of the call center 13

2. Satisfaction and loyalty 14

Increasingly, brand satisfaction is intertwined with the contact your brand has with consumers throughout the lifecycle. In the technology realm, at least, this contact has the potential to nurture customer satisfaction and protect future loyalty.

• Shifting customer demands 15• Making recommendations 16• To switch or not to switch 17

3. Privacy and personalization 18

Personal data and service personalization – a dance of discomfort and expectations. Will your customers trade their privacy for personalization in order to build a relationship with your brand?

• Privacy vs. personalization 19• Personalization: customer expectations 21

4. Looking ahead 23

Customer care must meet customer expectations. This emerged as a recurring theme in consumers’ expectations for the next decade. Many see an end to the contact center as we know it. Moreover, consumers are willing to pay extra for enhanced support and functionality.

• Where will we be in 2025? 24• The end of customer care? 25• Put a price on it 26

5. Concluding remarks 28

Technology brands have a huge opportunity to take the lead and position themselves at the heart of their customers’ worlds.

• The small print 29• About the report 30• About Xerox 30

ContentsThe State Of Customer Service 2015 2


In the following chapters, we will share our results. We’ll highlight what it means for high-growth technology companies that want to use customer experience as a point of differentiation.

In a world where customer experience can set you apart from the competition, we’re passionate about making every consumer touch point work better. With the power of analytics, insight and automation, customer service optimization can help technology companies give every consumer a lasting brand relationship.

Our lives are framed by the technology we use. The all-seeing lenses, screens and keypads know more about us than our nearest and dearest.

They come with us everywhere.

Support our habits.

And build our attitudes.

The fi rst annual three-part study from Xerox, titled ‘The State of Customer Service 2015’ explores consumers’ relationships and experiences with the brands behind the technology, communications and media in their lives. Warts and all.

Welcome to the Technology Edition. If you like what you read, we have two other editions for the communications and media industries. You can fi nd more details on xerox.com/custserv15.

Consumers across the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany and the Netherlands let us into their pockets, desks and side tables. They told us about their smartphones, tablets, wearables, televisions and PC/laptops. In total, they named 160 separate brands.

The main players across the countries surveyed were Apple, Samsung, Dell and HP. In 2014, these four brands represented collective revenue of $477 billion. But for how long will those names top the polls? Technology companies from China and emerging markets have their sights fi rmly set on the U.S. and Europe.

Our survey fi nds the industry playing catch up to consumer expectations and grappling with customer experience.

We asked 6,000 consumers to consider everything from communication preferences to satisfaction, data privacy to personalization, and what they expect from the future.


Introduction

Who did we ask?

We surveyed 6,000 consumers across fi ve countries, across two continents.

In order to ensure a representative sample of the populations, we sought the views of 2,000 people in the United States and 1,000 each in the U.K., France, Germany and the Netherlands.

The gender split was 50/50 and the age breakdown was:

• 7.9% Generation Z (16 - 20) • 16.2% Millennial (21 – 30) • 33.5% Generation X (31 – 50) • 29.4% Baby Boomer (51 – 70) • 13.1% 71+


The State Of Customer Service 2015 4

Everyday we are bombarded by messages and communications.

And we all have different preferences for the way we would like to be contacted. Depending on who it is – mom, boss or your favorite store. What it’s about. And what else is happening in our lives at the time.

1. Channel preference and reality

The evolving omnichannel landscape determines when, where, and how consumers prefer to get in touch.

It’s time to get up close and personal with your customers, and contact each one on their terms.



Channel gapToday’s 24/7 consumer respects no opening hours, and expects support when it’s convenient for them. Even if it’s the middle of the night.

Thus, you must meet the consumer at her channel of choice. But many technology brands don’t.

Therein lies the channel gap; the chasm between consumer expectations and the reality of the contact customers have with brands.

37.7% of consumers prefer to go into the retail store when purchasing a new product or service.

Channel preference

Given the choice, consumers are almost evenly split over their preference for digital or traditional communication channels. However, there are strong variations by country, age and type of communication.

• 1 in 4 consumers prefer the call center when contacting brands, making it the most preferred communication channel.

• U.S. consumers like to talk. Almost 53.9% prefer the direct human contact of traditional channels. As do 53.3% of French consumers. Both France and the U.S. sit 10 percentage points above the U.K., which has the lowest incidence of traditional channel preference at 43.3%.

• The in-store experience is far and away the most preferred channel when purchasing technology, at 37.7%, even for the young. In fact, this figure swells to 48.8% for Generation Z.

Channel preference for communicating with brands at different stages of the relationship (%)


Call center

Sign-up Set up

Store

Email

Website self-help

Website web chat

On-device help app

Virtual Assistant

Social media

Other

20.1

15.9

14.3

5.6

1.2

1.7

0.4

3.0

37.7Call center

Store

Email

Website self-help

Website web chat

On-device help app

Virtual Assistant

Social media

Other

20.7

10.3

20.7

7.9

6.0

4.4

0.8

4.3

24.9

Query

Call center

Store

Email

Website self-help

Website web chat

On-device help app

Virtual Assistant

Social media

Other

30.0

15.9

14.4

12.4

2.3

3.4

0.9

2.6

18.0

Complaint

Call center

Store

Email

Website self-help

Website web chat

On-device help app

Virtual Assistant

Social media

Other

35.7

23.2

6.9

8.2

1.4

1.9

0.9

2.5

19.3

Payment or renewal

Call center

Store

Email

Website self-help

Website web chat

On-device help app

Virtual Assistant

Social media

Other

20.6

18.2

23.5

5.8

2.6

2.2

0.6

4.8

21.6

Call Center

Store

Email

Website self-help

Website webchat

Social media

Virtual Assistant

On-device help app

Other

25.4%

24.3%

16.7%

16.0%

8.0%

0.7%

2.7%

2.7%

3.5%

49.7% Traditional

46.8% Digital

3.5% Other


Channel preference

Reality

While 19.3% of respondents contacted their technology brand during the past 12 months, theydidn’t always use their preferred channel. This discrepancy between the preferred channel and the one they use is known as the channel gap.

Of the 51.6% technology consumers who were able to use their preferred channel to contact their technology supplier, 56.4% used traditional routes and 41.5% used digital. The store was most popular overall, followed by the call center. The most used digital channels were email (16.9%) and website self-help (11.6%).

The store was technology owners’ most used channel at 25.9%. The pull of bricks and mortar is felt by both young and old, with 29.1% of Generation Z and 38.1% of 71+s going in-store.

• Consumers in the Netherlands prefer to turn to their inboxes rather than any other channel, with 26.2% using email.

• Despite technology users’ embrace of the store, 26.1% of complaints to technology brands went through the call center.

How this combination plays out in your consumers’ approach to contacting you is highly dependent on convenience, or rather inconvenience. 25.3% of technology owners cited inconvenience as the reason they strayed from their preferred channel when they came to make contact.

Channel used when communicating with technology brands over the last 12 months, at different stages of the relationship (%)

Only 1 in 2 consumers are able to contact technology brands via their preferred channels.


Call center

Sign-up Set up

Store

Email

Website self-help

Website web chat

On-device help app

Virtual Assistant

Social media

Other

24.2

12.2

12.4

7.1

2.4

1.8

1.9

3.3

34.6Call center

Store

Email

Website self-help

Website web chat

On-device help app

Virtual Assistant

Social media

Other

19.4

11.3

16.3

8.7

4.5

3.1

2.4

2.8

31.5

Query

Call center

Store

Email

Website self-help

Website web chat

On-device help app

Virtual Assistant

Social media

Other

25.6

15.0

15.6

12.4

4.5

2.4

1.7

2.5

20.5

Complaint

Call center

Store

Email

Website self-help

Website web chat

On-device help app

Virtual Assistant

Social media

Other

26.1

18.9

10.3

10.4

4.1

3.1

2.9

3.4

20.8

Payment or renewal

Call center

Store

Email

Website self-help

Website web chat

On-device help app

Virtual Assistant

Social media

Other

17.0

19.6

15.9

7.0

7.3

3.2

3.0

4.6

22.5

Gap

48.4% of consumers experienced a channel gap. Of those, 25.3% switched from their preferred channel because it was inconvenient at the time. A further 18.8% said they did not know their preferred channel was available.

• 55.9% of switchers opted for digital channels. Website web chat, social media and on-device help apps were all used more than indicated by their preference numbers.

• 39.4% of consumers moved to a traditional channel, particularly the store. Only 22.5% of all brand contact was made with the call center.

Consumers tell us that brands have varying degrees of success with omnichannel strategy. Some brands successfully provide service when and where their customers want, but many more have a long way to go.

Channels used to contact technology brands


Drivers of channel choice

Consumers told us that convenience is king when they seek to contact their brands. Regardless of age, gender or country, convenience is the number one reason for channel preference, 7.2 percentage points above the next best reason.

Convenience is the number one reason for channel preference.

The reasons for consumer preferences mirror the age split between those who have grown up in the digital age and those who have adapted to it.

Effort emerged as a clear motive for consumers aged 30 and under. 16.9% cited least effort, followed by “easy to fi nd” at 14.0%.

Habits die hard for consumers ages 51 and over. 18.8% of them based their channel preference when contacting brands on their general preference for communication, whether it is over the phone or instant message. Beyond this, a desire for effi ciency is evident as 13.3% expect their question answered fi rst time.

Traditional:

• Retail store • Call center

Anything outside these parameters is referred to as Other.

Digital:

• Email • Website self-help • Website web chat • On-device help app • Virtual assistant • Social media

Call Center

Store

Email

Website self-help

Website webchat

Social media

Virtual Assistant

On-device help app

Other

22.5%

25.9%

15.3%

14.2%

9.2%

2.3%

2.7%

4.5%

3.3%

48.4% Traditional

48.2% Digital

3.3% Other

1 in 3 digital interactions came from having a preference for traditional channels.


In the middle, both chronologically and in terms of preference, Generation X reported an even split between least effort and general communication preference at 15.3% each.

The sole outlier is social media, which is favored because it is easy to find; every other contact channel is preferred for its perceived convenience.

While there are drivers for channel choice, there are alsofactors that drive consumers away from their preferredcommunication channels. So, what causes consumers to abandon their preferred communication channels?

For technology brands, the biggest deterrent to consumers using their preferred channels is convenience, or rather inconvenience at 25.3%.

15.7% of consumers claimed that their preferred channels failed them.

• Of these, 24.3% would have preferred to go in-store – where opening hours can be a contact barrier for the 24/7 consumer. A further 1 in 5 would have normally gone to the contact center, had it been convenient at the time.


Why preferred channel was not used

• 15.7% of consumers claimed that their preferred channels failed them, causing them to switch to other channels. The top three preferred channels that failed are digital: website self-help (19.8%), email (17.7%), and website web chat (17.6%).

How many failing processes can you afford to expose your customers to? An omnichannel communication strategy must not only be available, but consistently effective regardless of which channel the consumer chooses to use.

In the face of such high demand for convenience andminimum effort, we predict a future where the consumer will not have to think about how to contact your customer care organization. Technology providers can meet this demand today by embedding customer care into their products and services.

I didn’t know if it was available

It wasn’t convenient to use at the time

It failed when I tried to use it

It wasn’t available

I wanted to try something new

None of the above

It wasn’t appropriate to use at the time

25.3%

18.8%

15.7%

15.1%

12.9%

11.9%

0.3%


Overall reasons for communication channel preference

It’s the most convenient for me

It’s my preferred mode of communication

It requires the least effort

I always get my question answered first time

It’s easy to find

It’s what I’m used to

I prefer self-service when possible

They are the right tools for the job

I like new technology

None of the above

I prefer speaking to a person

23.5%

16.3%

14.8%

12.0%

10.6%

8.0%

7.1%

3.5%

2.3%

1.4%

0.3%


Bridging the gap

Some brands are succeeding in serving their customers when and where they want. But for many more, there’s a long way to go.”

Consumer responses to the study tell us that brands are experiencing varying degrees of success with their omnichannel service. It’s time to start bridging the gap.

From the findings, we’ve identified three key points of interest:

• The rise of digital• Rethinking the retail store • The future of the call center

Consider each as you steer your approach to an effective omnichannel service.


“

10

Customer care is at a tipping point. Digital channels are poised to overtake traditional channels for building relationships between your brand and your customers.

Channel preference

Given the multitude and variety of digital channels, collectively, digital contact is the preference of 46.8% of consumers. This plays out differently across countries, age groups and reasons for interaction.

Consumers’ channel preference, by age group (%)

• For payment and renewal in particular, 23.5% prefer website self-help.

• 53.3% of U.K. consumers prefer digital channels, compared to 43.3% for traditional. The Netherlands (52.1%) and Germany (50.2%) have also reached the tipping point, to a lesser degree. However, 54.0% of U.S. consumers and 53.3% of French consumers prefer traditional channels.

• The digital versus traditional preference shows an expected age bias. Over 50s prefer traditional channels, while digital routes slide ahead for the under 50s. A clear sign that digital will play an increasingly important role in customer care as populations mature.

46.8%of consumers prefer digital contact.

Reality

In practice, digital (48.3%) and traditional (48.4%) channels tie as the media used when communicating with technology brands.

• Not all digital contact is the same, as 48.3% of customer volume is spread across six channels. In this varied and fragmented digital landscape, the most used digital channel, email, claims only 15.3% of all brand interactions.

• Consumers turn to embedded care. On-device help-app usage has reached 4.5%, up from a consumer preference of 2.7%.

• Website self-help is set to spearhead digital contact in the coming years. It accounts for 17.5% of all Gen Z technology interactions, outstripping email’s 10.0% for the same age group.

Channel used when preference is digital

The rise of digital

The State Of Customer Service 2015

Gen Z

Millennial

Gen X

Babyboomer

71+

StoreCall C

enter

EmailWebsit

e self-h

elp

Website w

eb chat

Other

Virtual A

ssista

nt

On-device se

lf-help

Social M

edia

25.9 21.1 14.2 18.4 7.3 3.63.9 3.1 2.4

23.2 21.1 14.8 19.8 10.8 2.93.6 2.6 1.2

20.6 25.1 17.2 17.5 9.6 3.62.4 2.5 0.7

17.6 25.7 19.4 16.3 12.1 3.42.2 2.5 0.8

22.1 31.8 10.1 17.7 7.5 4.82.5 2.8 0.6


Call Center

Store

Email

Website self-help

Website web chat

On-device help app

Virtual Assistant

Social media

Other

16.2%

19.8%

13.9%

17.6%

12.3%

7.6%

4.0%

4.3%

4.3%


Channel type used by age (%)

For Millennials (53.7%) and Gen X (51.2%), digital channels have overtaken traditional avenues when contacting brands.

When consumers are unable to use their preferred digital channels, 59.7% stay within the digital landscape, with only 1 in 5 falling back to the call center.

This suggests a sticky digital consumer, who is unwilling to turn to traditional channels when there are other digital routes available.

In fact, the more that consumers need to contact their device brands, the more they turn to digital channels. Digital support interactions swelled from 45.2% at one interaction to 56.6% at three.

Beyond three interactions, digital channels lose favor. There is then a marked increase in the number of other channels used. Consumers look to alternative, non-formalized modes of support, such as crowdsourcing, or they go offl ine. At this point consumers have thrown in the towel and given up on a brand.

Digital

Traditional

Other

Netherlands

UK

42.5 51.1

56.6 47.6

France

Germany

2

3

1

4+

Channel used, by number of brand interactions (%)

Currently, digital channels sit neck and neck with traditional in terms of both preference and use. But as digital becomes ever more sophisticated and convenient, the scales will tip.

There is a 33.2% increase in digital contact between one and three brand interactions.


Gen Z Millennial Gen X Baby Boomer 71+

Traditional

Digital

Other

Traditional

Digital

Other

Traditional

Digital

Other

Traditional

Digital

Other

Traditional

Digital

Other

53.1

3.3

43.1

53.7

45.4

3.5

54.0

1.9

67.8

26.4

5.9

43.6

3.1

51.2 44.1


The power of e-commerce has caused numerous debates over the fate of retail stores in recent years.

Well, the results are in. Consumers have told us, loud and clear, that the retail store is here to stay.

Maybe it’s time for the technology industry to rethink its retail strategies.

Channel preference

Across our survey, consumers young and old continue to share a preference for the store.

• Consumers in the Netherlands and Germany prefer in-store interactions over any other channel, at 29.3% and 28.7% respectively.

• More than 1 in 4 Generation Z consumers prefer going in-store to interact with brands, whether it’s to pay, sign up or complain. As this generation’s economic power grows, so too will the importance of the retail store in the omnichannel mix.

• The store is an integral part of the customer journey. It’s where it all begins. For sign up and set up, the face-to-face contact of a retail store remains the consumers most preferred route, with 37.7% and 24.9% respectively.

Reality

The retail store becomes even more influential when it comes to the channels consumers actually use instead of their stated preference.

• 25.9% of interactions between high-tech brands and consumers over the last 12 months occurred within the bricks and mortar of a store. 20.8% of these were with consumers who said they preferred the call center.

• Nationally, the retail store is the channel of choice for consumers contacting technology brands in France (25.3%), Germany (27.8%) and the U.K. (25.4%).

• In line with their stated preference, younger and older consumers most used the store (29.1% of Generation Z, 24.9% of Millennials and 38.1% of 71+).

Channel used by technology owners, by age (%)

• With 2 in 3 in-store interactions being with only 2 brands - Apple and Samsung - the in-store experience is still only offered by a handful of technology brands. 41.3% of store interactions being with Apple, a brand famed for its innovative approach the the in-store experience. A further 24.1% were with Samsung. This is proof that, when offered, an invitation for consumers to go in-store is accepted.

Retail stores have limitations for the consumer, such as their opening hours and geography. Even so, they remain the channel of both preference and use, which is a strong indication of the continued importance of the immediacy of face-to-face contact.

1 in 4Generation Z consumersprefer going in-store tointeract with brands.

Rethinking the retail store

Store

Other

29.1

Netherlands

UK USA

24.9

22.9 38.127.3

France

Germany

Millennial

Gen X 71+

Gen Z

BabyBoomer



Future of the call centerOr should we be asking, what future of the contact center?

The pull of the call center undeniably remains. However, this pull is largely due to the failings of other channels; even when consumers would prefer to contact the call center, if a better option is available, they will take it.

However, it seems there will always be a place for the call center, in some form, in the channel mix.

Channel Preference

The call center is the channel of choice for 25.4% of technology, telecoms and media consumers. Put another way, only 1 in 4 consumers prefer a channel that, in 2014, accounted for up to $75 billion in spending in the U.S. alone.

• 23.5% of consumers prefer to speak to a person when interacting with brands. Of these, 85.4% are aged 31 and over.

• The call center dominates for the most complex interactions: customer queries (30.0%) and complaints (35.7%).

• The call center overtakes the store as the number one channel of preference in the U.S. (31.8%), U.K. (25.7%) and France (27.4%).

• 28.5% of Baby Boomers prefer the call center above all other channels.

Reality

Between preferred and actual interactions with technology brands over the last 12 months, the call center dropped from 25.4% (preferred) to 22.5% (actual) overall.

• 29.8% of U.S. consumers contacted their technology brand via a call center.

• In practice, the call center is the most used channel for technology complaints, at 26.1%. That’s only 70% of the consumers who prefer to lodge complaints through a call center, which indicates a movement among technology owners to less costly channels.

We found a significant channel gap. Among consumers who cited a preference for call centers and who contacted their technology brands, only 39.6% actually used that channel. 33.1% were pushed to one of the digital channels.

However, the call center continues to be the fall-back choice for consumers who do not list it as their go-to. 21.3% of call center interactions are due to the inconvenience of going in-store, while a further 35.6% are defections from digital channels.

Channel used when preference was for the call center (%)

Some brands continue to depend on the call center to take the load. Forcing their customers to make contact via channels they wouldn’t necessarily choose.

As consumers welcome a growing menu of digital channels, their demand for the option to speak to a person remains.

The call center will both endure and evolve. The shape and style of person-to-person communications will change, with virtual assistants and chat, for example.

Call Center

StoreEmail

Website Self-h

elp

Website W

eb-Chat

On-Devic

e Help App

Virtual A

ssista

nt

Social M

ediaOth

er

39.6

25.1

7.712.0

6.93.3 1.7 1.5 2.2



An accepted truth is that high customer satisfaction is the strongest indication of customer loyalty, as well as their intent to repurchase or leave.

However, it is often accompanied by lesser truths, such as a customer will only ever get in touch if they are dissatisfi ed. And that the key to customer satisfaction is minimal brand interactions, right?

Not anymore.

Increasingly, brand satisfaction is intertwined with the contact you have with your customers throughout the lifecycle. From sign up and set up, to query and complaint resolution, through to payment and renewal.

In the technology realm, at least, it is this contact that nurtures customer satisfaction and protects future loyalty.

2. Satisfaction and loyalty



The rise of the multi-industry company and technological advances over the last decade have raised customer expectations to new heights. As a result, customer satisfaction is no longer fenced into traditional industry silos.

Consumers increasingly use their experiences in other industries to rate the performance of technology brands.

In this demanding world, some technology brands have found a way to impress.

Devices have a shelf life of more than 12 months. So it is not uncommon for a technology consumer to go longer than a year without needing to contact the brand. On the surface, this may be the reason behind almost 1 in 2 consumers reporting high satisfaction with their technology brand.

Does no need for technical support = no need to switch + happy customer? Not necessarily.

Consumers’ satisfaction with their technology brands

When compared to customer satisfaction in telecommunications (33.8%) and media (40.9%), more consumers are highly satisfi ed with their technology brands (47.5%).

This highly satisfi ed customer base is not due to low interaction rates – media brands had a lower incidence of customer contact over the last 12 months, yet their customers are less satisfi ed.

Technology brands fi nd that high brand satisfaction increases slightly between zero and 1 interactions, from 45.4% to 48.8%. By the time there have been 4 or more interactions high brand satisfaction reaches 57.0%.

Customer satisfaction by number of interactions (%)

Technology brands are satisfying their customers not through avoiding contact, but by using points of contact to improve their customer relationships. They are taking advantage of the interaction opportunity.

In fact, 52.2% of technology customers who were highly satisfi ed with their brand interaction were also highly satisfi ed with the brand.

Consumer satisfaction following contact with a device brand

However, 34.7% of consumers reported they were more satisfi ed with their brand, even if they weren’t as satisfi ed by contact with the brand. Thus, while contact is highly infl uential on brand satisfaction, it is not the only factor.

Shifting customer demands

47.5% High

38.0% Medium

14.5% Low

High

Medium/Low

29.1

Netherlands

UK USA

24.9

22.9 38.127.3

France

Germany

1

2 3+

0

3

45.4

33.7 37.4

48.8

38.4

High

Medium/low

4+

34.7% Support rated lower than satisfaction with the brand13.2% Support better than overall experience

52.2% Support matched experience



Making recommendationsThe age of the peer recommendation is not over. But in 2015 it does not follow a fl at, direct relationship.

While only 7.6% of consumers overall would switch brands due to a recommendation from friends or family, more than 1 in 2 said they had recommended a brand to friends and family. The likelihood to recommend falls to 2 in 5 for technology brands that, collectively, have an average NPS ® of +11.0.

Technology brand NPS

• The U.S. and Germany have the highest number of promoters for their device brands. Their NPS scores are +19.57 and +19.10 respectively. The Netherlands has the lowest NPS score, at -5.00

Device brand NPS, by country

• As a device brand, Apple has the highest NPS (+39.32). Samsung has the second highest (+26.82) and Sony, which is largely leaving the device market, is third with +21.37.

• Custom built PCs/laptops, which have very high customer satisfaction at 63.6%, surprisingly have a relatively low NPS of -9.09.

Device brand NPS, shown as percentages, by country

Who gets heard?

If the majority of consumer recommendations are seen but not heard, which voices do consumers actually listen to? A small subset of consumers have an unusually high NPS score (+42.7) across all product types in our survey.

While small in number - they make up only 3.1% of the population - they are society’s infl uencers and brands’ early adopters. They invariably seek out a fundamental change to the way they engage with brands, and act as a promotional advocate on behalf of technology brands.

Net Promoter Score (NPS) is a key indicator of business performance for mature, competitive industries. It identifi es the level of advocates (promoters) and critics (detractors) within a customer-base, offering an indication of customer satisfaction.

Responses are converted into scores between the range of -100 (everyone’s a detractor) to +100 (everyone’s a promoter). Generally, an NPS higher than zero is good news, but ‘excellence’ is indicated by an NPS over +50. High NPS scores are thought to correlate strongly with profi table customer behavior, such as repurchases and positive reviews and referrals.

Net Promoter, NPS, and the NPS-related emoticons are registered service marks, and Net Promoter Score and Net Promoter System are service marks, of Bain & Company, Inc., Satmetrix Systems, Inc. and Fred Reichheld.

Fran

ce

Ger

man

y

Net

herla

nds

UK

USA

+2.1 +19.1 +10.6 +19.6-5.0

Promoter

Passive

Detractor

31.5

44.4

21.9

37.3 44.7

Netherlands

UK USA

France

Germany

NL

UK USA

FR

DE

40.4% Promoter

36.2% Passive

23.3% Detractor



Switching device brand, or indeed operating system, is a decision not to be taken lightly. And consumers agree.

Technology brands enjoy a largely loyal customer base, with 66.1% saying they are unlikely to switch in the next 12 months. Of course, this corroborates with the largely satisfi ed consumer base.

However, factors such as barriers to switching – devices aren’t exactly cheap – and a lack of customer-brand interactions needed to build a meaningful relationship cannot be ignored.

Likely to switch primary device brand in next 12 months

French consumers are the least committed to their device brand, with 44.0% either likely or undecided about switching brands in the next 12 months.

More than 1 in 5 under 30s expect to switch technology brands in the next 12 months.

Likely to switch technology brand in next 12 months, by country (%)

The likelihood of churn increases four-fold from 11.1% when there have been no interactions with the brand to 44.4% at three interactions.

Likely to switch, by number of interactions (%)

One brand ecosystem

In years to come, churn won’t be the industry’s key indicator of loyalty. As industries continue to diverge, loyalty will be measured by a customer’s propensity to sign up for more.

While only 9.0% of consumers use just one brand across their smartphone, tablet, wearable, and/or PC devices, 51.3% claim they would be happy using one supplier for all their technology, telecommunications and media. Of these, 43.2% would prefer that single supplier to be their current technology brand.

This illustrates a huge opportunity for technology brands to position themselves at the heart of their customers’ worlds. Not just in the short term via adjacent device families. But in the long term with adjacent services too.

To switch or not to switch

Unlikely

Likely

Neither

56.0

64.0

66.4

69.7 70.3

UK USAGermany

NetherlandsNL

UK USA

FranceFR

DE

Likely

Neither

Unlikely

Netherlands UK USA

France Germany

2 3 4+

0 1

11.1 19.2

31.4 44.4 34.0

13.9% Likely

66.1% Unlikely

19.9% Neither



With the advent of smart automation and artifi cial intelligence, personalization is more scalable and deliverable than ever before.

3. Privacy and personalization

However, in order to deliver the best relationship to a massive customer base, you fi rst need to make their personal data work for you. There’s just one road-block between you and this nirvana: your customers’ trust in your respect for their privacy.

As data privacy and personalization emerge as a trade-off that will shape your customer relationships, where do consumers stand on the subject?



Every day, consumers and brands juggle with their discomfort and expectations over privacy.

It’s a negotiation over data for personalization. And of insight for experience.

In the technology realm, the balance achieved decides the level of functionality and features that consumers can enjoy. If a consumer shares her location, she can enjoy navigation services anywhere on Earth. If she shares everything, her device may just make everyday life easier.

Overall consumer comfort with brands that use personal data to personalize products/services

That said, 18.5% of consumers report being uncomfortable with “brands’ use of their personal data”

These consumers will actively avoid sharing data, even if it would improve their experience of the products and services they get for their money.

Only 1 in 5 are comfortable with the use of their personal data by brands.

• Millennials are the age group most comfortable with the use of their data. 28.0% responded with the highest level of comfort. In contrast, more than 1 in 2 over 50s reported a degree of discomfort with any brands’ use of their personal data.

Only 1 in 5 consumers are comfortable with the use of their personal data by brands.

• French consumers are the most uncomfortable with the use of their personal data. A huge 1 in 3 report actively avoiding sharing their personal data with brands.

• Consumers in the U.K. are most comfortable, and the least concerned, with use of their personal data by brands.

Privacy vs. personalization

20.3% Comfortable14.9% Comfortable, if the data stays with my supplier

18.5% I actively avoid sharing my data

30.0% I am concerned about the use of my data

16.4% A bit nervous


Overall consumer comfort with brands using their personal data to personalize products/services, by age (%)

Comfortable

Gen Z Millennial Gen X Baby Boomer 71+

Comfortable, but only if the data stays with my supplier

A bit nervous

I am concerned about the use of my data

I actively avoid sharing my data

24.2 28.0

26.3 30.6 33.2

24.4

16.1

20.6

14.6

10.8

21.9

13.0

23.1 15.1

12.5 16.4

16.8 12.7

17.1 22.6

31.6

13.0

21.7

12.1

21.7


While consumers are forthcoming with their high levels of discomfort when it comes to brands and their personal data, they are not as mobilized when it comes to taking back control.

1 in 4 consumers would pay more for increased transparency of what brands do with their personal data. However, it’s not everyone’s first choice as a service they’d pay more for. In fact, it’s more often a third choice, behind more immediate concerns such as access to innovation and better customer care.

Almost 50% of consumers are concerned with brands’ use of their personal data. But only 25% see data transparency as an investment they’re willing to make.

Overall consumer comfort with brands using their personal data to personalize products/services, by country (%)

So where does that leave technology brands? Footing the bill. 56.9% of consumers believe that, in 10 years’ time, they will have complete control over their personal data.

1 in 4 consumers would pay more for increased data transparency from brands.


Comfortable

France Germany Netherlands UK USA

Comfortable, but only if the data stays with my supplier

A bit nervous


I actively avoid sharing my data

17.3 13.7

32.7 28.8 26.4

11.2

12.0

28.4

31.1

18.8

13.3

21.5

11.6 25.4

20.9 15.3

16.6 21.4

22.1 11.5

31.8

26.9

11.1

18.0

12.3


If a consumer decides to maintain her privacy, does it matter if, in turn, she expects no personalization?

Alternatively, if she is comfortable with brands’ use of her data, and shares it, are brands thus accountable to fully personalize her experience? Not yet.

3 in 4 consumers who are fully comfortable with technology brands’ use of their personal data do not expect all interactions to be tailored to them. They do, however, expect at least basic communications to be tailored to them (62.4%).

Consumer expectations for personalization

In fact, 1 in 2 consumers expect their technology brands to stop at tailoring basic communications to them. A further 15.3% want more, and expect all interactions to be personalized.

• U.S. and U.K. consumers expect the most personalization from their device brands. 74.1% and 73.7%, respectively, believe that communications and services should be either basically or fully tailored to their needs.

• Consumers in France, Germany and the Netherlands are much less expectant of personalization from device brands. More than 1 in 3 report that their device brands should not personalize communications and services to them.

Consumer expectations of personalization, by age (%)

Expectations for personalization are particularly polarized in the 71+ age group. The highest level of all age groups (almost 1 in 5) expect full personalization. However, 2 in 5 of this demanding consumer’s peers expect no personalization of any communications or services.

Customer expectations

Comfortable Comfortable, if the data stays with my supplier A bit nervous I actively avoid

sharing my data

They should tailor all interactions and services to me

They should tailor basic communications and services to me

They should not personalize communications or services to me

23.2

14.4

18.2

54.6

12.6

23.7

12.5

37.2

44.1 50.4

62.4

27.2

63.8


11.8

38.3

49.9

Consumer expectations of personalization from device brands, by comfort with brands’ use of their personal data (%)

Netherlands

UK USA

15.0

27.7 15.0 37.7

23.4 13.6 25.0

15.0 18.2

France

Germany

Millennial

Gen X 71+

Gen Z

BabyBoomer

They should not personalize communicationsor services to me.

They should tailor basic communications andservices to me.

They should tailor all interactions andservices to me.

41.4

63.1 59.9

27.7 37.7 40.4

15.3% Tailor all interactions and services to me.

31.7% Not personalize communications or services to me.

53.1% Tailor basic communications and services to me.

They should


Predictably, about half of consumers (50.4%) who actively avoid sharing their data with brands think device brands should tailor no communications or services to them. However, 12.4% want to have it both ways, expecting full personalization from technology brands, but giving up no data in return.

In this sea of expectations, less than 10 percent of consumers feel that technology brands fully understand them and tailor all interactions to them.

Consumer perceptions of technology brands’ personalization

Across all countries and age groups, device brands are falling short on delivery against expectations. They are failing to deliver even basic personalization in communication and services to 52.2% of consumers.

• In the U.K., where consumers are most open to sharing their data with brands, 73.7% expect at least basic personalization. But technology brands fell short by a third (48.7%).

• The 71+ group feels the most misunderstood. 70.2% say brands have “no real idea who I am”. Of those who expected full personalization (tailor all interactions), only 1 in 4 received it from their technology provider.


Consumer perceptions of technology brands’ personalization to them, by age (%)

However, there is a personalization bull’s eye. Where brands get the privacy + personalization equation right, and consumers feel understood.

Consumers who are comfortable with brands’ use of their personal data are reaping the rewards of data sharing. 20.7% of them report that all interactions with their device brands are completely tailored to me.

By contrast, almost 70% of those who actively avoid sharing their data with brands feel that their device brand has no idea who they are.

18.5%of consumers actively avoid sharing their data with brands.

50.1

Netherlands

UK USA

46.5

13.540.039.5 10.4

45.8 11.5

42.7

7.470.2 4.8

61.830.8

25.0

France

Germany

Millennial

Gen X 71+

Gen Z

BabyBoomer

All services to me

They tailor

Basic services to me

Nothing to me

Comfortable Comfortable, if the data stays with my supplier A bit nervous I actively avoid

sharing my data

They tailor all interactions to me

They tailor basic communications and services to me and my needs

They have no real idea of who I am

20.7

29.1

7.0

35.8

8.3

46.8

5.6

26.1

44.168.3

50.2

57.3

44.9


44.144.1

6.8

58.4

34.8

38.1% They tailor basic communications and services to me and my needs

9.7% They tailor all interactions to me

52.2% They have no idea of who I am

Consumers perceptions of device brands’ understanding of them, by comfort with brands use of their personal data (%)



Consumers told us that they will expect more from their relationships with technology brands tomorrow than they do today.

4. Looking ahead

Understanding consumers’ view of the future gives us a window into the development of theirexpectations, and a head start on upcoming opportunities.

Most striking of all is consumers’ willingness to pay for more. The new economy will see consumerspaying not for increasingly homogenized products and services, but for quality brand relationships and support.


24

Consumers expect the technological leaps and bounds of the last decade to continue over the next one. Reshaping the way they live, work and communicate.

51.3% of consumers are comfortable with the idea of buying into a single brand for all their technology, telecommunications and media. In a decade’s time, 53.1% expect to have bought into such a one-brand ecosystem for hardware, telecoms and media services. By 2025, brands can expect exceedingly more intimate relationships with their consumers. 37.4% of consumers believe a single supplier will manage their home.

In these branded homes, 19.6% expect to have a robot butler and almost half think that walls will be used for 3D viewing in line with Isaac Asimov’s 1964 prediction.A further 23.3% of consumers think they will be able to control devices such as cars or, indeed, robot butlers with their mind.


Where will we be in 2025?

Society’s dependency on the Internet is not set to waver in the next decade. In fact, 68.8% of consumers predict that access to the World Wide Web will ascend to become a basic human right.

In this constantly connected world, 56.9% also believe they will have complete control over their personal data. French consumers are the most positive about the progress of data privacy. 70.0% of them believe they will have complete control over their personal data by 2025.

Most disruptive of all, one third (33.6%) of consumers believe that Isaac Asimov’s prediction of a society of enforced leisure will be a reality in 2025. Asimov’s prediction was based on the development of artifi cial intelligence giving machines the ability to take over most jobs. If it comes to pass it will, indeed, be the end of the world as we know it. However, two thirds of consumers disagree.

2025

37.4%Believe they will have 1 supplier managing all devices intheir home.

2025

51.5%Agree we will have walls in our homes for 3D viewing.

2025

24.2%Believe we will beable to control devices withour mind.

2025

68.8%Believe Internetaccess will be abasic human right(19.5% strongly agree).

2025

48.7%Agree we will notpay for media(13.6% strongly agree).

2025

41.6%Agree they will never have to contact a call center again.



Customer care is at a crossroads.

Technology brands are set to spend the next year juggling traditional versus digital customer contact points before settling on a balance that blends the two in a totally new, omnichannel approach.

Probably the most radical change will be witnessed in the call center.

The call center has been the pinnacle of customer care since the birth of the industry. However, 41.6% of consumers across our survey do not see a place for call centers in 2025. They predict that by then they will never have to contact a call center again.

While the majority disagree with this statement, the more contentious view only narrowly falls short of the status quo. The end of the call center is a popular, shared opinion. Or at the very least, wishful thinking.

What can we look forward to?

A virtual assistant is an automated program that can communicate directly with customers to answer their questions. Examples include Apple’s Siri, Google’s Now, Microsoft Cortana and chat bots.

Respondents’ views on virtual assistants, by age (%)

The end of customer care?A conversational form of automated intelligence, virtual assistants will become increasingly sophisticated, handling high quality, personalized calls between individuals and brands. They are expected to deliver value savings to organizations that adopt them.

Unleashed on the general public only three years ago, 10.5% of consumers have used virtual assistants. Adoption of virtual assistant technology – to communicate with brands – or otherwise – may be in its infancy, but there is a general sense of openness to this new technology.

Overall, 56.1% of respondents would be happy to use a virtual assistant in the future, and 14.5% are yet to form an opinion. Demographically, the concept appeals to younger consumers. 72.2% of Generation Z are open to this new form of artificial intelligence, compared to only 35.8% of over 71s.

With consumers open to the idea of virtual assistants, brands who adopt the channel early can expect to benefit from an untapped opportunity.

41.6% do not see a place for call centers in 2025.

Gen Z Millennial Gen X 71+Baby Boomer

I don’t like the idea of it

I prefer speaking to a person

It depends on the issue I have

It doesn’t bother me as long as the issue is resolved

I welcome virtual assistants and already use them

I welcome virtual assistants and will use them

Yet to form an opinion

5.7

13.0

16.1

24.7

12.1

19.3

9.1 9.7

6.5

14.7

17.5

23.7

13.1

14.8

5.8

18.0

17.6

24.4

9.6

11.2

13.4

5.4

37.0

10.3

17.3

2.6

5.6

22.0

6.5

31.0

15.5

18.7

4.8

7.0

16.5



When information increasingly is free, what are consumers willing to pay for? Believe it or not, functionality.

Consumers will pay more for

From a list of improvements to products and services, we asked consumers what they would be willing to pay more to secure. From increased device functionality to better customer care, early access to innovation, to increased data transparency. And even access to additional services such as DropBox.

When presented with these options, 21.7% of consumers declined to pay more to secure improvements to the products or services from brands. But 78.3% were willing to pay more.

Of these, an astounding 3 in 4 would pay more for increased functionality, while a further 54.4% would invest in enhanced customer care.

Pay for more: innovation vs functionality (%)

Consumers under 30 are the most willing to pay for improvements to their devices and associated services. Only 10.6% were against the concept.

The opportunity for technology brands to give consumers the power to choose, and pay for, the services they receive will grow over the coming decade.

The future is functional

While most brands focus on innovation and being the first to launch the latest and greatest technologicaldevelopments, consumers hold a strong preference for brands that work over the latest innovations.

The willingness to pay for increased functionality lies consistently above 70% across all age groups. By contrast, early access to innovation is only deemed a priority for 59.0% of Generation Z. And it becomes less important as we get older.

3 in 4consumers would pay morefor increased functionality.

These statistics highlight overwhelming consumer frustration with technology. A frustration that is stronger than a desire for the status of the latest innovations.

It’s also an opportunity to do better.

Put a price on it

Additional services

Better customer care

Early access to innovation

Increased functionality

Transparency with data

40.8%

54.4%

49.2%

75.3%

43.9%

59.0

73.7

55.3

72.6

52.2

76.3

40.4

77.0

35.6

75.5

Early access to innovation

71+

Baby

Boo

mer

Mill

enni

al

Gen

Z

Gen

X

Increased functionality or connectivity


27

Enhanced customer care

Customer care will change, whether brands do so by choice or customer demand.

Don’t think the demand isn’t there. It is.

In fact, 54.4% of consumers are willing to pay more for enhanced customer care.

This may be in the guise of more expertise from support agents, the eradication of queues or even a seamless omnichannel support experience.

Willingness to pay for enhanced customer care, by age group.


Millennial

Gen Z

Gen X

Baby Boomer

71+

40.2%

51.8%

52.1%

60.1%

70.4%

French consumers are the most likely to pay more for enhanced customer care, at 35.5%; they are followed by their neighbors in the U.K. (34.3%) and Germany (32.0%).

The thirst for better service spans an exceptionally wide age range, as consumers today see it as a worthwhile cost of doing business.

In fact, 91.4% of Generation Z consumers would pay more for improvements to their services. In addition to the younger generation, 7 in 10 of those aged over 71 also were prepared to pay more to ease the support process. Brands have a clear opportunity to offer their consumers more, and to ask for more in return.

The technology to deliver next generation customer care that customers will want to pay more for is already available. With consumers willing to take on the price tag, even in part, it is just a matter of time before customer care meets consumer’s desire for better service.

1 in 2consumers would pay morefor better customer care.



The last decade has been truly transformative for the technology industry. In eight short years, the smartphone entered consumers’ lexicon to emerge in 2015, as the most significant device for consumers in the U.S and the U.K.

The next 10 years will be just as revolutionary. As tech-commentators criticize the world’s leading brands for stagnating in technological innovation, the spotlight will shift to service-led innovation. In fact, our findings see jaded consumers who are calling for a different kind of customer care, and are prepared to pay for it.

In the last 12 months, almost 1 in 2 consumers had to use a channel other than their preference when contacting technology brands. The very brands that have put quick, painless, digital communication at consumers’ fingertips are failing to meet their customers where they need them – with the right channel for the right job, at the right time.

And consumers have an increasingly digital appetite when communicating. Today, 56.1% of consumers are willing to talk to a machine, or a virtual assistant, for support. As acceptance of automated digital channels grows, the call center as we know it must either evolve or die. And consumers agree: 41.6% do not see a place for call centers in 2025.

With increased digital customer-to-brand contact comes increased data capture. While Europe battles with technology brands over their use of Europeans’ personal data, consumers on the other side of the pond have their concerns too. However, consumers’ anxieties are easily appeased. In 2015, they ask for only basic personalization of services and communications in exchange for their data. Basic.

Indeed, our research suggests that if three fundamental consumer requests are met; clear personalization, increased availability and convenience of communication channels, and consistent device functionality, technology brands can expect consumers to buy into more than just devices. Consumers will buy into their entire ecosystem.

Our study suggests that this opportunity to dominate as a technology services brand (in the widest sense) is available to today’s technology, telecommunications and media providers. Nearly half (46%) of those willing to buy into a single brand would like their technology brand to be their sole supplier for communications and media too. It offers the winning brands revenue and market dominance like never before.

They have a huge opportunity to take the lead and position themselves at the heart of their customers’ worlds. And in their pockets.

But time is of the essence. The last 10 years have set a lightning pace. A pace consumers have grown accustomed to; a pace they expect.

Leaders in technology brands must now approach service changes as they have technological innovation: boldly and with haste.

Concluding remarks

28


32.0% 3 Devices

47.6% 4 Devices

1.6% 1 Device

10.8% 2 Devices

8.0% 5 Devices

How many technology devices do you own?

Appl

e

Sam

sung

Hew

lett

-Pac

kard

Del

l

Acer

20.0 19.7

9.3

6.1 5.6

Top technology brands (%)


The small printRespondents to our survey named over 166 separate technology brands for 5 different device types. But which brands and devices were at the top of the pile? PC/Laptop

TV

Wearable, eg. smartwatch

Tablet

Smartphone

72.8 27.2

50.1

93.76.3

6.094.0

91.6 8.4

49.9

Device ownership (%)

Own Device

No device

66.2% of the smartphone users own one of two brands: Samsung (37.0%) or Apple (29.2%). The next best brand is Nokia, at 6.7%.

Samsung is also the most common brand of TV (27.9%) and wearable (23.7%). However, Apple dominates the tablet market (36.3%).

1 in 5 PC / laptop users own a HP device. The rest of the top fi ve is fi lled out by Acer (13.9%), Dell (13.6%), Apple (9.0%), and Asus (8.7%).

PC/L

apto

p

Smar

tpho

ne

TV Tabl

et

Wea

rabl

e40.5

34.6

15.4

6.7

0.6

Device that is most significant to consumers' everyday lives (%)




About Xerox

Xerox is helping change the way the world works. By applying our expertise in imaging, business process, analytics, automation and user-centric insights, we engineer the flow of work to provide greater productivity, efficiency and personalization.

We conduct business in 180 countries, and our more than 130,000 employees create meaningful innovations and provide business process services, printing equipment, software and solutions that make a real difference for our clients – and their customers.

• Learn more at: xerox.com

• twitter.com/xerox

• simplifywork.blogs.xerox.com/

• facebook.com/XeroxCorp

• youtube.com/XeroxCorp

About the reportThe three-part study from Xerox, titled ‘The State of Customer Service 2015’ surveyed 6,000 consumers across five countries and two continents in May and June of 2015.

In order to ensure a representative sample of the populations, we surveyed consumers in the United States (2,000), the U.K. (1,000), France (1,000), Germany (1,000) and the Netherlands (1,000).

The gender split was 50/50 and the age breakdown was:

• 7.9% Generation Z (16 - 20) • 16.2% Millennial (21 – 30) • 33.5% Generation X (31 – 50) • 29.4% Baby Boomer (51 – 70) • 13.1% 71+

The same sample of consumers were surveyed on their relationships and experiences with brands across technology, telecommunications and media. To find out more about how your customers responded to all of these questions, visit xerox.com/custserv15 or contact us for an analysis of your customers’ experience.


The Xerox Institute of Work organizes thought leadership, research and analysis dedicated to the future of work and how organizations, people and technology are evolving to support the way work is accomplished. It curates knowledge from experts within Xerox and others within professional and technical fields.

©2015 Xerox Corporation. All rights reserved. Xerox® and Xerox and Design® are trademarks of Xerox Corporation in the United Statesand/or other countries. BRXXXXX

tsocs - tech edition · 2015. 12. 2. · omnichannel services. however, digital channels are poised...

Documents