Apple’s Antenna-gate: Tomorrow’s Innovation with Yesterday’s Customer Service

Thanks again for the comments. I don't work for Apple and my method to improve begins with performing check or get knowledge of "what matters" to customers. That said, the best I can do from this distance is speculate and ask questions that maybe Apple should have. If that is consultant-speak than . . . so be it. Too many consultants jump in with the answer before they understand the problem.
Replies (0)

mryanaz said: "While I agree that Apple has not done a good job handling the antenna problem, I saw nothing in your critique that said what they should have done; no specific steps. Sadly I read consult-speak." Not true. What you're reading is analysis, and probably better analysis than most companies are capable of doing. Part of the challenge is understanding the scale and scope of a problem. This article does a good job of that. I also disagree with mryanaz's prescription of what Steve should have done. If they genuinely can support the claim that reception is not as much of an issue as customers or the press believe, this is an appropriate response, and a swap/recall/apology is not necessarily the answer. HOWEVER, perception is very important, and I think it needs to be announced that customers are very important to Apple, Apple does indeed need to reform its testing and customer service commitment, and Apple should speak to this issue. By showing that all phones have an antenna issue FIRST, Steve got it wrong from a cognitive science standpoint. His goal should have been to show Apple's alignment with its customers (empathy), how it regrets a combination of events (bad algorithms, spotty reception), how it makes no difference to Apple or to customers whether the problem is real or hyped - ultimately, Steve should have said, Apple needs to stand beside its customer in creating awesome experiences with awesome technology. In short, this alignment shows that both the customer and Apple's vision succeed together. THEN he could have analyzed the other smartphone's antenna problems. This is not a crisis of fact, it's a crisis of confidence, and that should have been addressed first. The Gallup customer engagement framework provides a useful way to organize a response. The four main drivers of customer engagement are labeled by Gallup as "confidence", "integrity", "pride", and "passion". These are a combination (roll-up) of both attitudinal and behavioral measures. They are generated by a company in the customer's experience of the brand, product, and service. So Apple should pick the priority battlefields, look at what would "move the needle" in each, make commitments to move the needle, and then move the needle. I would start with confidence and integrity. Confidence is built by making a promise, or a series of promises, and confidence is what customers feel in a brand when they know that the brand or process promise has been met so often that it is assumed to be part of any future experience. ("I know I'll have a good experience in the future.") Integrity is a combination of values demonstrated, and consistent promise delivery. ("They have my values and they've stood by their own values in the past.") The pride and passion battlefields are less important, but should be addressed as well, given that the behavioral components of these two result in positive chatter in social networks, a nonlinear response that could counterbalance the nonlinear nature of the bad press. Finally, let me say about "consultants". I've used them, I've been one. Many are full of hot air. But many are not only smarter than the average business man, they also can save companies time and money, and teach them to excel. Pity the person who pegs a thinker as a "consultant" and then fails to listen hard, and to learn, as a result.
Replies (0)

While I agree that Apple has not done a good job handling the antenna problem, I saw nothing in your critique that said what they should have done; no specific steps. Sadly I read consult-speak. Jobs needed to acknowledge that the iPhone 4 has issues with signal strength that Apple will be looking to correct. Jobs needed to address the news that he and John Ive had been advised of antenna problems much earlier and why they chose to set aside the concerns. Jobs also needed to stand behind the product and tell his fans that Apple will be re-evaluating the antenna design and intends to deliver a top-notch product jsut as Apple has always done. That may mean a "trade-in" or Swap program later on and yes, this may well dent Apple's deep pockets, but like any recall, the faulty product needs to be swapped in order to preserve loyalty. No lives are at stake as in an auto recall or crib reecall, but Apple's reputation is its life. The product feature sets are not so far advanced or Apple would have much greater market share. Jobs needs to step up and set an example as the market leader and tell his fans that all will be made right and then make it happen. That's what Jobs should have done.
Replies (0)

Thanks all for the comments. Being one who is many times too critical nealds comments. First of all, i must say I enjoy Apple's products too, yet, I have never been impressed with their service. They have a strange set up for customer service that I have read about in forums that sounds like they outsource their agents through an outsource vendor (?). I have heard many dysfunctional things about the set-up including workers paying for training and being let go from lack of selling and then never being told they were let go. Weird things like that, the sign all types of wavers so it is a strange set-up. Back to neald. Most of my articles are designed to make people think. I offer a free download called "Understanding Your Organization as a System" that can help folks get started in systems thinking. Because our method is counter-intuitive by nature the concepts are not always easy to grasp and require experiential learning (doing). The aim of the articles is to make people curious, which is the first step to systems thinking. The download is at both my website and blogsite. www.newsystemsthinking.com blog.newsystemsthinking.com Currently, I have a white paper by John Seddon that gets deeper into the thinking called " Why do we believe in economies of scale?" and also you may be interested in the Fit for the Future series you will see them here http://www.newsystemsthinking.com/articles.asp Thanks for the feedback. Tripp
Replies (0)

Just a couple of quick comments. First to Alex, I agree that Apple's brand is strong and this is not a catastrophe but would disagree their brand loyalty is not damaged. I myself am well rigged with apple products both for personal and business use. I was going to purchase the iPhone 4 to replace my 3GS but am in no rush now. I may be misinformed, but that is exactly the problem. There is a buzz of both factual and false information and it is hurting their brand (not catastrophically or beyond recovery but hurting them nonetheless). Furthermore, this is not their first blunder as the rest of mobile me early adopters can tell you and there were several more I could list. The wider they stretch themselves beyond their core competencies of making great personal computing operating systems, software and sleek hardware, the more this will occur. However, they do have some latitude to allow for this since they seem to be expanding faster than loyalty is eroding. As for the column itself, Tripp, I have to say that while I respect your writing skills as you seem to sound like you are making a persuasive and informative commentary, there is nothing material or informative in your article other than the opinion that Apple could have done better. I don't get value of a site like this by reading people's commentary and opinions. The value is to help people learn how to create/improve great service operations. Your thoughts on what Apple Should Do are a compilation of nice buzz words and conceptual givens. There is nothing in your piece by which Apple or anyone can act on. I don't this as a personal attack by any stretch, rather, I would like to provide feedback on how your columns and this site can add real value and increase it's readership.
Replies (0)

Do not gloat... Yes Apple screwed up, yes 0.55% of owners have called in, and yes, MAYBE it reflects 12% of owners being disappointed BUT... it is for one cause only - not general unhappiness over the full spectrum of the device's capabilities. And yes, the solution is not pretty (i-condum, haha!) but it works. So, at the end of the day, Apple loyalty is not damaged, the product still sells like hotcakes and the company is riding high. Some rude language in this youtube video, but a very accurate reflection of the Apple reality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg When we propose "lessons learned" and "process improvements" in service management, we are admitting that our company's product is a commodity (not a sexy toy), that our there is a large variety of issues that our service organization has to mitigate and that our processes are not up to the task of doing so. (Why do you think Oldsmobile used to use the slogan "This is NOT your father's Oldsmobile?" Remember that processes are in place to prevent failures, not to assure success.
Replies (0)

I like your point of view Tripp and want to follow your line of thinking: We know that only 2%-4% of the customers are actually complaining even when they have a reason. Now take Apple complaint rate of 0.55% and do the math: 13.75% to 27.5% of the customers are experiencing disappointment. wwwoww!!! Guy
Replies (0)