I read Rick Man’s post with interest recently. Having come from the software world, I know a thing or two about minimum product viability - both by design and by error :) I started thinking how this might apply to social service. You hear talk sometimes about “minimum viable customer experience”. This always sounded like some sort of SEAL Team Ops semantics to me. What the heck is a minimally viable customer experience anyway? Is zero support viable? Why not. Giffgaff does it.  How about only providing email support? Phone? How can we know what customers consider “minimally-viable”? Would they be honest or not? Why not simply ask them? I think too often companies design social service around what’s convenient for them — their infrastructure, their processes, their legacy, and yes, too often enough, their internal politics.  When in fact it would probably be more efficient - and certainly more genuine - to go out there and tell people up-front: look, we can’t be everything to everyone. And we either can’t or don’t wish to be like Dell, Apple, Amazon, or Virgin. Additionally, we feel it’s more sensible to invest in a single channel and really knock it out of the ballpark. So pick a channel, and we’ll commit to being the best at it.  Did you say phone? Fine. We’ll invest in phones and have the best freaking phone support you ever met. You want email? Deal. We’ll invent the most amazing way to do email support. Chat? Facetime? Skype? Carrier pigeon? You got it. We’ll be the best, most efficient, most innovative company in that single channel. And nothing more. For now (that being the key phrase)… Deep down I think that’s a deal most frustrated customers would probably sign off on. Matter of fact, it’s been proven. I know I would! How about you? Fair enough?  Under-promise. Over-deliver. Stay social my friends :)
View Separately

I read Rick Man’s post with interest recently. Having come from the software world, I know a thing or two about minimum product viability - both by design and by error :)

I started thinking how this might apply to social service. You hear talk sometimes about “minimum viable customer experience”. This always sounded like some sort of SEAL Team Ops semantics to me. What the heck is a minimally viable customer experience anyway? Is zero support viable? Why not. Giffgaff does it. 

How about only providing email support? Phone? How can we know what customers consider “minimally-viable”? Would they be honest or not? Why not simply ask them?

I think too often companies design social service around what’s convenient for them — their infrastructure, their processes, their legacy, and yes, too often enough, their internal politics. 

When in fact it would probably be more efficient - and certainly more genuine - to go out there and tell people up-front: look, we can’t be everything to everyone. And we either can’t or don’t wish to be like Dell, Apple, Amazon, or Virgin. Additionally, we feel it’s more sensible to invest in a single channel and really knock it out of the ballpark. So pick a channel, and we’ll commit to being the best at it. 

Did you say phone? Fine. We’ll invest in phones and have the best freaking phone support you ever met. You want email? Deal. We’ll invent the most amazing way to do email support. Chat? Facetime? Skype? Carrier pigeon? You got it. We’ll be the best, most efficient, most innovative company in that single channel. And nothing more. For now (that being the key phrase)…

Deep down I think that’s a deal most frustrated customers would probably sign off on. Matter of fact, it’s been proven. I know I would! How about you? Fair enough? 

Under-promise. Over-deliver. Stay social my friends :)