Continue reading »]]> I have recently gone through the process of switching mobile carriers, from an Optus corporate account to a Telstra corporate plan. This has proven to be a frustrating experience, one that has been typical of dealing with each of the three major carriers in Australia (Telstra, Optus and Vodafone) all of which I have been a customer over the years.

I don’t wish to enter into a diatribe on the numerous issues experienced during this process which have all fortunately been resolved, however I do wish to exposit some conclusions that I have arrived at around front-line customer service from the three major players.

Apart from banks, telecommunications companies are probably the major provider of individual or personal services that people regularly deal with. In conducting their daily lives, most people have as much a reliance on their mobile phone, home phone and internet as they do on the financial services provided by a bank. Given this rough parallel in the world of personal service providers, as well as in the size and sale of the organisations the customer is dealing with, one would be forgiven for thinking it possible to interact with banks and telcos in a similar way.

The major difference here is that while banks, as part of the conditions of their financial services licence have to provide branches to consumers that provide a full range of support services, telcos have no such requirement. There must be a lot of people out there who, like me have ventured into a Telstra, Optus of Vodafone shop with an account or billing enquiry with the expectation of receiving something along the lines of customer service. There also must be many people out there who, like me walked away disappointed. In contrast, I imagine very few people walk into a Telechoice or AllPhones (or other dealer’s) store with this expectation.

The reason this occurs is that while Optus, Telstra and Vodafone shops carry all the branding of their corporate counterparts, they are simply franchises or licenced sales agencies and have no mandate, training, access or ability to assist with customer service matters. They are simply shops, not service centres and act in exactly the same capacity as Telechoice, AllPhones or any other carrier-independent franchise.

What this means is that rather than having a “branch” for customers to rely on, they end up spending hours on the phone to call centres (in the Philippines or India) to get issues resolved which could probably be resolved in a five minute interaction with a properly trained customer service representative with the proper access to the necessary accounts and billing systems.

Telstra, Optus and Vodafone should take a lesson from the banks, which are expanding their branch networks and operating hours as well as creating other face-to-face interaction mechanisms such as the NAB shopping centre kiosks.

There is a big opportunity missed by the telcos to turn the sales agencies, which already carry their branding and the expectations of their customers, into service centres instead of forcing customers to interact via IVR systems and call-centres. It is up to the telcos to drive this themselves, rather than the franchisees (after all, they are just there to make sales) however it would be possible for the telcos to install their own service staff in the franchised branches or provide incentives for the franchisees / licences to provide their own service staff.

If this approach were to be adopted, there would be benefits to all involved:

• Franchisees through capitalising on the leads  provides by service enquiries
• Telcos through improved customer satisfaction and retention
• Customers through a quicker, simpler and more satisfying service interaction

Continue reading »]]> Over the past few weeks a fierce battle has been raging between Apple and Samsung over the Launch of the upcoming Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet. It is set to become the most credible Android based-challenger to the iPad 2 this year. Through court challenges Australia as well as Germany Apple has succeeded in delaying the launch of the Galaxy Tab until at least the end of September.

The crux of Apple’s argument is that the Samsung device too closely resembles the iPad 2 in terms of its broad physical appearance. While on the surface this argument seems to have merit, it is the tactics Apple has been employing in the case such as digitally editing pictures of the Galaxy tab to make it appear more like the iPad 2 that demonstrates the case is more about maintaining a monopoly than about protecting intellectual property.
It is fair and legal for OEMs to pursue legal action against infringements on their patents and as anyone who reads the news knows, both Apple and Samsung are no strangers to this type of action, even against each other.

The issue here is that Apple is showing clear intentions of stifling competition while using tenuous, vague patent challenges as a pre-text. This is bad news whether you are in either the Apple or Android camps and even worse if you are undecided.

Potential impacts to the burgeoning tablet market are wide ranging. Apple is able to hang onto their monopoly for a little longer meaning there is no incentive to reduce prices, attract App developers or to innovate on their own product platform. If this continues over time, consumers are left paying more for products with minimal generational improvements.
For Samsung and other OEMS it becomes harder to break open then market and the all-important ecosystem of apps takes longer to get off the ground. Consumers end up paying more on the back of expensive court cases and product re-development.

It’s concerning that as the market leader, Apple is taking a negative approach to competition. In the long run it doesn’t benefit anyone, including Apple, other OEMs, the consumer and the market in general.

Source:

The Age: http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/tablets/apple-again-cruels-samsung-tablet-plans-20110829-1jh8q.html