A successful brand is generally only as strong as its weakest link and without doubt a major source of irritation is the consumer experience when dealing with its staff or dealer network.
Too often (despite huge investment in R&D, NPD, CRM systems and marketing) it all ends in tears when "humans" are at the front end of the brand experience.
Yet when it works, the impact can be hugely positive.
A couple of months ago I bought an off-the-shelf AOL Internet package in the US. I had a problem loading it so called the helpline. Anticipating the worst -- and cutting to the chase -- the customer service was nothing short of fantastic.
I didn't have to wait for an age, it was toll-free, the person I spoke with was not patronising, he went on to detail the nature of the problem and prognosis and explained the routine he'd been through.
My UK experience with BT Broadband couldn't have been more different and was clearly very disappointing. The coup de grace was that the call handler virtually refused to allow me to talk to a senior member of staff to sort out my problem even though she was talking to him as he stood nearby.
So how do I now perceive each brand?
The answer is axiomatic but the point is that if a brand can encourage real advocacy it's like having one of the most powerful surrogate sales forces no amount of money could buy.
The flip of this is that disaffected consumers probably tell more people than those who have had a positive experience.
I guess the point is about delivering a consistent brand experience across all touch points. Clients and their direct marketing agencies strive to achieve all the things you would expect from the goals they set from this activity but (and using lead generation as a case in point) if the fulfilment pack takes weeks to come and when it does is a distant cry from everything the brand stands for, then all the upfront effort is wasted.
The recent trend of outsourcing call centres will also come back and haunt brands, as will automated telephone handling, as will poorly trained/motivated staff in a retail environment. It's all to do with that old cliche about not getting a second chance at a first impression.
Many organisations boast about being customer-centric when all they do is pay lip service to this.
Real customer-centricity is about understanding how consumers want to deal with your organisation and more importantly (if the answer was telephone) whether they would be happy with automated response handling, dealing with "overseas" or not.
The bean counters will be whipped into a frenzy about this because of the cost implications of this versus exporting this "service" overseas.
The argument I have never heard publicly voiced is that with every decision there are up and downsides. The downside of removing your call handling to people who are non-employees (irrespective of the geography) is that they will never have the same feel for your brand.
These are the issues where brands should be expending their monies and energies. Those that crack the customer-centricity nut will be the winners of the future.
If you have an opinion on this or any other issue raised on Brand Republic, join the debate in the .