We think, therefore, we are. What do you think?

Author Archive

Jul 26th, 2010 by Christine Mauro

Brand-building through effective cross-channel communications strategies

It was the perfect storm of poor communications as I sat in the airport waiting for my flight which had been delayed due to weather. At any given moment, I received information from at least five different sources: text alerts, the flight status board, verbal announcements, the airline website and other passengers waiting for the flight.

None of these communication channels provided the same information.

This made it impossible to determine what information was accurate or most up-to-date. After two hours of waiting, the board posted “CANCELLED,” with no verbal confirmation or direction as to what steps to take next. Frustrated by the long line to speak to an agent, I turned to the airline website which directed me to call a customer service agent, which then resulted in a 10-minute wait on hold.

In today’s digital world, customers expect accurate updates in real time. It’s considered a failed customer experience when that doesn’t happen. Companies need to have a cross-channel strategy with the technology in place to support it. As a result, customers will be satisfied with timely and accurate data when a problem arises.

Because most customers have a channel preference for receiving information, it’s important to provide various options for accessing information. Today customers can choose to receive information via e-mail and online message boards—and many keep themselves informed with text alerts sent to their mobile devices. Still, some customers prefer the person-to-person interaction with customer service representatives. While it is important to provide a variety of channels to consume information, ensuring that all communication is aligned and that each channel is equipped to handle distribution is critical. The information posted to an online message board should be the same information communicated by employees both in-person and at call centers. Additionally, if an organization is driving customers to the call center from the web, the call centers should have the bandwidth to take on the volume of inbound calls along with the right information to resolve customer issues.

Taking this a step further, VIP customers or those participating in loyalty programs may expect special treatment, such as a dedicated phone number or expert agent for “members only.” Although all customers are valued—and it’s important to provide the best customer service—rewarding customers for their loyalty can be extremely beneficial.

So while many companies are concentrating on cross-channel marketing, maybe the big picture strategy should address how to consistently deliver on the brand promise even in the midst of a crisis. Organizations may build better relationships with customers when they most effectively deal with their problems through clear and consistent communications rather than selling them more “stuff.”

Christine Mauro is a strategy director in simplification for the Siegel+Gale New York office.

Comments (1)

Permalink

tags: blog

May 26th, 2010 by Christine Mauro

Giving context to Facebook’s privacy settings

In an op-ed to the Washington Post, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg addressed lingering concerns regarding changes to the social networking site’s privacy settings. Facebook introduced its newly simplified privacy settings in April with what it calls “the best of intentions.” Whether I believe that or not does not excuse the fact that these changes were announced without context to the user.

How about a “What that means for you” sentence or two at the least?

Facebook now plans to share user information automatically with “pre-approved” websites. Most people just accepted the change as a given. But when it was brought to their attention by other users, including the government, they were outraged. My point is this—unless users take the time to look into the change, they do not understand how they are affected. A simple message such as, “you must now opt-out of publicly sharing your information” signifies a change we, as users, need to be aware of. Better yet, why require an opt-out for such a dramatic change anyway?

Change is always inevitable, and with new regulations both in the private and public sector, all organizations including Facebook, owe it to the public to put these changes in context. Tell us how we’ll be affected and what we need to do as a result of the change. With few organizations offering clear explanations on these changes, it’s no wonder we’re all skeptical.

Mark Zuckerberg has said he’s heard the feedback and intends to continue simplifying Facebook’s privacy settings. But it will be equally important for Facebook to help users understand how the simplified settings will affect them and what it means for their Facebook experience.

Providing context goes a long way toward building trust. I hope other industries will learn this lesson and that we as users learn a lesson too: Don’t just accept change without demanding a better explanation of how we are affected.

Maybe Facebook will get it right this time.

Christine Mauro is a strategy director in simplification for the Siegel+Gale New York office.

Comments (1)

Permalink

tags: blog

May 12th, 2010 by Christine Mauro

One size fits all doesn’t work

Well, maybe it works if you’re talking about scarves or bathing suit cover-ups—but certainly not when discussing the type size used in functional communications. Nothing bothers me more than when the government tells me how to design functional communications so they are “readable.” But that’s exactly what the government is trying do through some of its credit card and lending legislation. The “fine print rule,”—proposed by the House of Representatives stipulates that credit card companies must print their account applications in 12-point type or greater. Furthermore, according to the Truth in Lending Act, “the minimum type-size and font requirement for credit card applications and disclosures…shall appear

(1) In not less than 12-point font; and
(2) In any font other than a font which the Board has designated, in regulations
under this section, as a font that inhibits readability.”

What is this?

Don’t tell me I have to use 12-point type, or use bold and all caps, or “put it in a box”— especially considering these factors in isolation do not ensure the readability of a document.

What does 12-point type really mean? The points and picas measurement system is based on an outdated method of printing and refers to the piece of metal used rather than the type itself. So 12- point Helvetica looks completely different than 12-point Times New Roman. The physical size of the type is more important than the measured size.

For example, take Helvetica, a font widely accepted as one of the most legible typefaces and used on most highway signs. I could design a document using 12-point Helvetica, on 10-point leading, with a really long line length, and it would be completely illegible. Just because it’s in 12-point, it does not make it easy to read. Just look at the example below to see what I mean.

Understandably, some information is more important than others. But making it bold and all caps does not mean it will grab the reader’s attention. If you make everything bold, then bold becomes all the reader sees and nothing specific stands out. When you want to bring attention to specific information, it’s important to consider the hierarchy of information and use bold in a limited way. Bold and all caps is also not easy to read. So even if it’s looks more important, the reader may not want to or be able to read it. Overusing bold will detract from the importance of the information, so use it judiciously. Testing with users proves that all caps is difficult to read. If you want the information to be read, don’t use all caps. All caps is more appropriate for short headlines, not paragraphs of text.

Misuse and overuse of lines and boxes can make a document look like a jigsaw puzzle. Boxing information can detract from readability. Most readers notice the lines around the box rather than the content inside it.

So this one-size-fits-all approach that government regulators have proposed will not provide the results they want. Decisions about type size, weight and graphics cannot be made in isolation. Readability is about much more than these three things. It’s about white space, leading, and line length, among others. If it were as simple as regulating font sizes, then professional designers would be out of jobs and all documents would be nice to look at and easy to read.

We all know that’s certainly not the case: have you taken a look at the type treatments used in your credit card terms and conditions lately?

Christine Mauro is a strategy director in simplification for the Siegel+Gale New York office.

Comments (2)

Permalink

tags: blog