I am the first to appreciate and embrace well-done and smartly executed outbound calling. I am also highly critical of and greatly annoyed by poorly executed telemarketing efforts. Another example for this latter perspective arrived at my office today, courtesy of my telephone. The call went like this:
“May I speak to the person in charge of your freight deliveries?” She mechanically droned. The agent had a pleasant enough voice, but showed no enthusiasm or interest.
“We don’t do any freight deliveries,” I responded matter-of-factly.
“Really?” she asked. “You do no inbound or outbound freight shipments?” she probed, as though I was lying. “But I got your number from the Internet,” she added, as if that was the ultimate source of accurate information. (Incidentally, the number she called is not listed on any of my Web sites.)
“We do no freight,” I confirmed. “I’ll let you go on to your next call,” I said as positively as I could muster.”
“You’re rude!” she declared.
I responded in kind and communication quickly deteriorated, with me hanging up on her—which would have been more productive had I done so much earlier in the call.
Each time that a telemarketing call fails, be it through lack of training, a poorly conceived campaign, a bad list, or a company that just doesn’t care, the result is the same: everyone’s job of making calls has just become a bit harder.
There are many good things happening in the call center industry. Millions of people are employed in productive positions that benefit both commerce and the economy. These jobs are desirable nonmanufacturing positions and essentially nonpolluting, making them highly attractive to state and local governments’ job-creation efforts.
Call center agents receive extensive training on customer service skills that are not covered in schools and universities. This expertise is in high demand in virtually all sectors, preparing these people for advancement within their companies or for migration into other industries.
Call center industry associations are proactively and successfully moving forward with certification and self-regulation initiatives, effectively raising standards and improving results. Most importantly, call centers serve all industries by helping them lower customer acquisition costs, increase customer retention, save money in the provision of personal customer service, and increase marketing effectiveness, thus aiding them in becoming more competitive and responsive.
Unfortunately, people outside the industry would never know that. Call centers in general, and outsource call centers specifically, are a much-maligned industry. The media loves reporting on our industry’s small number of failures, oversights, and errors; call center success stories are apparently not newsworthy nor sufficiently entertaining to merit attention. At the same time, our elected officials have found it politically expedient to restrictively regulate us, with reporters delighting in covering said legislation.
Transcending these two dichotomous perspectives is insight into the current state of the call center industry that can be gleaned from a recent study conducted by ContactBabel, called The US Contact Center Operational Review. It is their second edition and was published in late 2008. It is self-proclaimed to be “the largest and most comprehensive study of all aspects of the US contact center industry.”
The 299-page volume includes information on agent considerations, technology concerns, and general call center issues. It addresses various markets, in which the outsourcer vertical is included. An interesting, yet disconcerting, aside is that in their report they opted to use the label “contact center” instead of “call center” to describe our industry. This was not because contact center is a more accurate and inclusive moniker, but because they perceive too many negative connotations with the term call center. Ironically, this same reasoning was used in migrating from the telemarketing designation to call center several years ago.
The most sobering part of the survey was found in the respondents’ views of outsourcers. Five statements were presented to the participants, to which they responded with agreement, disagreement, or neutrality. These addressed outsourcer value, experience, visibility and information, offshoring, and comparability, as follows:
Value: The first statement considered was, “Outsourcers give good value for money.” Only about a quarter agreed with this assertion, and over half were neutral. (The figures were: 26 percent agreed, 52 percent were neutral, and 22 percent disagreed.)
Clearly, there is a deficiency, either real or perceived, in the economic utility of call center outsourcer services. In areas where value is in fact lacking, it can be improved though lower prices (not a recommended solution) or an increased quality of transactions and reporting. If doubts about call center value are merely perceived but not substantive, then efforts need to be undertaken to more effectively communicate overall competence and the resulting value via an intentional and ongoing campaign. Just as marketing initiatives are used to gain new clients, this same mindset needs to be applied to retain existing ones.
Positive Experience: The next statement considered was, “Our experience with outsourcing has been very positive.” About one in five concurred, and again over half were neutral, with more reacting negatively than positively. (The figures were: 19 percent agreed, 58 percent were neutral, and 23 percent disagreed.) Although experience tracks with value, the decrease in positive responses suggests that some of the respondents who acknowledge value nonetheless do not enjoy a positive experience. This exemplifies the old adage of winning the battle but losing the war.
Experience is challenging to accurately quantify. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that this is largely a perceptual issue. There are two areas to address in this consideration. The first consists of interactions between the outsourcers and their clients. This includes: 1) billing accuracy, errors, and corrections; 2) accessibility and usability of reports and data collected; 3) infrastructure reliability; and 4) customer service interactions. Each of these items must be reviewed and assessed so that client angst can be minimized. The other area relates to a call center’s clients’ customers. Are they complaining about the call center to their clients? Do they need to make additional contacts with the center’s clients to fully resolve a situation that the call center could have handled more effectively? Are there times when the call center seemingly causes their clients more work than they save? These are important questions to ask and critical areas to improve.
Visibility and Info: Next was, “Outsourcers do not provide the visibility or information that we would like.” This is a negatively worded statement and includes two variables, so it is difficult to interpret. However, 60 percent concurred that visibility or information was lacking. (The figures were: 60 percent agreed, 22 percent were neutral, and 19 percent disagreed.)
The information issues likely relates to the availability, accessibility, usability, and accuracy of what a call center provides to its clients. This applies to both contact records and general reporting. Visibility may relate to the call center’s management structure and organization. Quite simply, who do the call center’s clients contact for information or assistance? In this regard, call center outsourcers are advised to appoint a single client contact who will be a specific point of access for all customer interactions and queries.
Offshoring: Although the previous statements dealt with all forms of call center outsourcing (onshore, offshore, and blended), this statement deals only with the offshore segment. It reads, “Our company is very receptive to offshoring customer contact.” Over two-thirds reacted negatively to this assertion. (The figures were: 18 percent agreed, 11 percent were neutral, and 71 percent disagreed).
Clearly, this signals significant concern for offshore outsourcers. This can be mitigated by establishing onshore contacts and even onshore agents for call escalation.
Comparability: Last was another contrary statement, “Outsourcing does not provide the same service as in-house operations.” Only a small number took exception to this assertion, while a whopping three-fourths agreed. (The figures were: 75 percent agreed, 21 percent were neutral, and 4 percent disagreed.) Clearly, there is the perception that in-house call center activity is deemed superior to outsourcer work. Although there is an expected natural tendency to judge one’s own company superior to a vendor, that fact does not provide an excuse to ignore this alarming result.
Addressing the first three items of value, positive experience, and visibility/info will go a long way to combat this comparability concern. Additionally, increased interaction between outsourcer and clients will serve to minimize perceived differences. Whenever it is feasible, outsourcer staff should periodically visit clients to gain knowledge and insights that can help the outsourcer perform better. Conversely, client staff can be invited to spend time in the outsource call center. This will increase understanding, improve empathy towards the outsourcer, and provide valuable information that can be used to mitigate the comparability issue.
In all cases, these initiatives should be implemented now and continued indefinitely, not hastily constructed when a major problem erupts or a contract renewal or continuance is in jeopardy.
Taking these actions is well worth the effort because there are many good things happening in the call center industry today. Remind yourself that millions are employed in desirable, eco-friendly positions; they are being trained for critical customer service roles and provide much-needed services to all sectors of our economy, thereby facilitating recession-busting commerce on multiple fronts. As call center practitioners, we must continue to move our industry forward; we are compelled to do nothing less.
Five years ago, the call center industry was confronted head on with the DNC (Do-Not-Call) legislation. As millions signed up to block most telemarketing calls to their home, the pool of prospect numbers shrank dramatically.
Since then, the face of outbound calling in the United States has been unalterably changed.
DNC registration has surged past the 100 million mark, with more residences now on the list than not. The latest development is that phone numbers on the registry have been made permanent, not expiring after five years as originally planned.
Given the immense popular support of the DNC legislation, politicians—seeing an opportunity to win votes and generate good PR—began introducing all sorts of bills to further regulate and restrict the manner and mode of marketing efforts.
One such area of attack is “Do-Not-Mail” legislation.
According to Jerry Cerasale, SVP of Government Affairs for the Direct Marketing Association (DMA), there are currently Do-Not-Mail bills pending in eleven states: Hawaii (both in the house and senate), Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington.
Soon, enough states will have joined this initiative that a tipping point will occur, prompting action at the federal level. (Federal action is not all bad, as it will help usher in a single set of regulations with which to comply, hopefully replacing a patchwork of differing and diverging state requirements.)
According to the USPS 2007 Annual Report, over 74 billion pieces of mail were sent last year. Direct mail was cited by Cerasale to account for about one third of that.
The Do-Not-Mail bills pose a danger to the cost-effective viability of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). The USPS management, staff, delivery schedule, and infrastructure all operate at a requisite level of mail volume. The revenues generated from that mail supports the current scale of operation and efficiency at the post office.
If revenues drop, then the operational status quo cannot be supported and maintained. The result would be either that prices would need to take a huge jump or services would need to be drastically curtailed. This could include the hours that post offices are open, closing smaller, less used offices, eliminating Saturday delivery, or only delivering mail every other day.
One option is that half the routes would be Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and the rest would be Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. Another option would simply be to pick up and deliver mail every other day, Monday through Friday.
This is not a far-fetched scenario. Since about one third of all mail is direct mail, as Do-Not-Mail bills are implemented, the number of households to which unsolicited mail could be legally sent would decrease.
Imagine a national Do-Not-Mail law with the same popularity and registration level as DNC. A large percentage of direct mail would cease to be sent, the USPS revenues would fall, and huge postage increases and/or dramatic service cuts would be made.
Just as DNC permanently changed outbound call centers, Do-Not-Mail would forever and irrevocably affect postal service.
Peter Lyle DeHaan is an entrepreneur and businessman who has managed, owned, and started multiple businesses over his career. Common themes at every turn have included customer service, sales and marketing, and leadership and management.
He shares his lifetime of business experience and personal insights through his books to encourage, inspire, and occasionally entertain.
If your call center is only making EBR (existing business relationship) calls, you may think you have nothing to worry about, right? No. Just because it is legal to dial a number, doesn’t mean you should.
Calling too often or for the wrong reasons could turn an EBR into a former EBR. This happened when I retaliated against a company that overcalled me.
I used to have a weekend newspaper subscription. Since I only had time to read it on the weekends, this was a splendid arrangement — one which I would have gladly continued if not for overzealous telemarketing.
One evening I received a call from an enthusiastic employee of the paper. They had a special upgrade price so that I could enjoy the paper all week long. I explained that I only wanted the paper on weekends.
A few months later, I received another call for the same offer from a different rep. I assumed that turnover had occurred and my preference for weekend-only delivery had not been noted in my account (so much for an effective CRM). I repeated my penchant for weekend-only delivery.
These calls became a regular occurrence — and I grew increasingly annoyed. Sometimes the interval was two or three months, other times only a couple of weeks; once it was two days.
No one seemed to realize that regardless of how often it was offered, I was not going to capitulate to their plea to expand my subscription. Even when it was offered at no additional cost, I declined. I asked that they stop calling, but my request was disregarded.
My exasperation over the persistent phone calls grew until it exceeded my satisfaction in reading the paper. I realized that by cancelling my subscription, the EBR provision would soon cease to be a factor and eventually I would have legal recourse should the calls continue.
I expected the effort to end my subscription would provide one final opportunity to stop the phone calls—and continue receiving the paper, sans telemarketing. I was mistaken. Incredibly, when I called to cancel my subscription, no one asked why.
They didn’t say they were sorry. Most surprising—especially given their proclivity for phoning me—no one made a follow-up call. Even though there was a window of opportunity for them to call to win me back, that never occurred. The unwanted calls stopped.
The paper thought they were safe by placing calls that complied with legal requirements, but they were wrong. Their unrestrained calling turned a happy subscriber into an irritated ex-subscriber. I wonder how much other business they lost because of their legal, but unrestrained calling practices?
Five years ago, the call center industry was confronted head on with the DNC (Do-Not-Call) legislation. As millions signed up to block most telemarketing calls to their home, the pool of prospect numbers shrank dramatically. Since then, the face of outbound calling in the United States has been unalterably changed.
In the intervening years, many outbound centers switched from calling consumers to calling businesses. Others exchanged outbound work for inbound, or at least added inbound into their service mix. Many call centers scaled back as demand and efficacy plummeted, while a few closed their doors. Some outbound call centers fine-tuned their niche or redefined their business, allowing them to remain viable; only a few thrived.
Today, DNC registration has surged past the 100 million mark, with more residences now on the list than not. The latest development is that phone numbers on the registry have been made permanent, not expiring after five years as originally planned. All this adds up to some grave challenges for the outbound call center industry.
Throughout all this, the inbound side of the industry breathed a sigh of relief. “At least inbound is safe,” many a call center manager or owner thought. The only tangible change was that some of the formerly outbound-only call centers were now their competitors, bidding against them on RFPs (Request for Proposals) for inbound campaigns.
Given the immense popular support of the DNC legislation, politicians – seeing an opportunity to win votes and generate good PR – began introducing all sorts of bills to further regulate and restrict the manner and mode in which call centers operate, for both outbound calling and inbound response. These proposed bills stand as future industry threats, but they are not the biggest or the most ominous. That designation may be reserved for “Do-Not-Mail” legislation.
According to Jerry Cerasale, SVP of Government Affairs for the Direct Marketing Association (DMA), there are currently Do-Not-Mail bills pending in eleven states: Hawaii (both in the house and senate), Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington. Soon, enough states will have joined this initiative that a tipping point will occur, prompting action at the federal level. (Federal action is not all bad, as it will help usher in a single set of regulations with which to comply, hopefully replacing a patchwork of differing and diverging state requirements.)
“What does Do-Not-Mail have to do with call centers?” you might be asking. Plenty, it turns out. Direct mail, the specific marketing vehicle that would be limited or squelched by the Do-Not-Mail bills, is a huge driver of calls to call centers – inbound call centers, the ones who thought they were safe from onerous legislation.
Every direct mail piece is designed and sent to accomplish a specific purpose. That purpose, or call to action, is for the recipient to do something. This might include mailing a response, faxing a form, visiting a website, or placing a call. Making a phone call is the most commonly selected, easiest, and quickest option. That phone call might be to place an order, add a service, make a payment, take a survey, give a donation, ask a question, request literature, subscribe to a service, schedule an appointment, solve a problem, register a complaint, voice support, clarify a question, or pursue a myriad of other outcomes. Obviously, direct mail prompts and inspires a great deal of telephone activity, virtually all of which ends up in a call center.
According to the USPS 2007 Annual Report, over 74 billion pieces of mail were sent last year. Direct mail was cited by Cerasale to account for about one third of that. Even if just a small fraction of those mailings generated a call center communication, it is still an enormous amount. Consider what would happen if those calls went away. Billions of call center contacts would be summarily eliminated. That’s the big picture.
Now, look at the view from within your call center. Analyze your larger accounts to discover how they drive calls to your center. Is direct mail part of the mix? To what extent? Imagine those calls disappearing. How would that affect your call volumes, your economies-of-scale, and your profitability? How would you need to adjust your call center to adapt? Could you make the changes required to ensure survival?
Lest you dismiss this as an overreaction to an overstated threat that may not occur, outbound call centers found themselves at this same point five years ago. Yes, Do-Not-Mail legislation is a huge threat to the inbound call center industry – and to your call center.
The Do-Not-Mail bills also pose a more general danger to the cost-effective viability of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). The USPS management, staff, delivery schedule, and infrastructure all operate at a requisite level of mail volume. The revenues generated from that mail supports the current scale of operation and efficiency at the post office. If revenues drop, then the operational status quo cannot be supported and maintained. The result would be either that prices would need to take a huge jump or services would need to be drastically curtailed. This could include the hours that post offices are open, closing smaller, less used offices, eliminating Saturday delivery, or only delivering mail every other day. (One option is that half the routes would be Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and the rest would be Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. Another option would simply be to pick up and deliver mail every other day, Monday through Friday.)
This is not a far-fetched scenario. Since about one third of all mail is direct mail, as Do-Not-Mail bills are implemented, the number of households to which unsolicited mail could be legally sent would decrease. Imagine a national Do-Not-Mail law with the same popularity and registration level as DNC. A large percentage of direct mail would cease to be sent, the USPS revenues would fall, and huge postage increases and/or dramatic service cuts would be made. Just as DNC permanently changed outbound call centers, Do-Not-Mail would forever and irrevocably affect postal service.
There are three possible reactions to this situation. The first is to do nothing, either out of apathy or denial. The second is to assume that Do-Not-Mail is a foregone conclusion and begin forming contingency plans. The third (and recommended) option is to get involved. The DMA (Direct Mail Association) is leading the fight.
Don’t let DNC history repeat itself with Do-Not-Mail.
At the ATA (American Teleservices Association) meeting, one of the exciting topics was self-regulation for call centers. If the terms “teleservices” and “call center” are meaningless to you, consider the more common, but less preferred label of “telemarketing.”
Yeah, telemarketers — those folks who call you during dinner time. Although teleservices includes telemarketing calls, it encompasses so much more. It is also the people who answer the phone when you call a company, as well as those who respond to your emails and text messages.
Anyway, the idea of self-regulated call centers may seem nonsensical to you. However, unlike many industries’ attempts at self-regulation, which can be categorized as disingenuous or inadequate, ATA’s efforts, I believe, are poised for success.
In essence, they are taking call center best-practices, the intent of politicians, and the desires of consumers to advance standards for call centers to follow. This fall the first certified auditors will be trained and the first compliant call centers, earning the seal of approval, are expected to be named in October.
This isn’t going to have an immediate, across-the-board impact, but it will be a significant step in the right direction. As more call centers earn the “seal” and more companies seek to do business with certified call centers, we will increasingly see “telemarketers” with a more customer-centric attitude.
And when that happens, self-regulation will have worked.
The most buffeted segment of call center work has been the outbound arena, specifically, consumer calling.
With the combined effects of a public outcry against intrusion, political expediency, and the enactment of state and ultimately a national do not call (DNC) law, outbound calling to consumers has, by most all accounts, been devastated.
Some outsource call centers elected to cease all outbound work, migrating to inbound (thereby diverting work from existing inbound centers, resulting in a smaller slice of the market for inbound centers).
Other outbound call centers elected to switch from consumer campaigns to business calling, something to which I can personally attest.
I am sad to report that these call centers have learned nothing from the motivation behind the DNC legislation. They are employing the same tactics with business calling that caused the downfall of consumer calling.
This includes inadequately compiled lists, poorly screened and trained agents, badly written scripts, and overly aggressively dialer settings. I’m all for a smartly targeted call, dispensing useful and relevant information–-but in my experience, it’s just not happening.
Too often, I receive inept B2B telemarketing calls. To make matters worse, often the dialing rate is set too tight and I get dead air or am disconnected. It is one thing to be interrupted by a useless phone call, but it is infuriating to be interrupted so that a machine can hang up on me.
Outbound call centers need to be careful. The same lackadaisical business practices that resulted in the government regulation and legal restrictions on residential calling could easily be extended to include business numbers.
It appears that these centers are still stuck the old numbers game: if you make enough calls, you are going to get some sales. Their focus is on quantity over quality.
I would much rather have an agent who made four quality contacts an hour and close 25%, than an agent who cranked out 20 mediocre calls an hour and closed 5%.
The sales number would be the same, but the in the first situation, the agent would be less stressed, the caller parties less frustrated, the quality of the interaction much greater, and fewer people interrupted.
In addition, the 75% who didn’t buy would most likely be left with a positive impression of that company, leaving the door open for future sales and referrals.
To personalize George Santayana’s advice, if we don’t learn from history, we will be doomed to repeat it.
It seems that “outsourcing” has been politicized. Once a word becomes politicized, as outsourcing was in the 2004 United States presidential campaign, all reasonable thinking stops and logic becomes, well, illogical.
Rhetoric steps in and common sense is relegated to lesser important things. Think of any major societal issue and it has likely been politicized by a one word rallying cry.
Regardless of what the word is, or it’s original and true intent, proponents hold it up high as a emblem of virtue and all that is good, while opponents decry it as indicative of evil, being characteristic of what is wrong in the world today.
Twenty years ago, the word telemarketing was coined to put an apt and descriptive label on a nascent and promising industry; one that used the telephone to cost-effectively promote products, better service customers, and provide companies with a competitive advantage.
But then that simple and benign word became politicized and now few people use it.
Those who still do telemarketing, have long since adopted a less emotionally-laden label for fear of verbal retaliation or psychological retribution.
While those who vehemently object to telemarketing’s practice, wield that word as an offensive slur to convey their frustration against all they find unacceptable in businesses. In short, it is no longer politically correct to engage in telemarketing. A word is a powerful thing.
So, emotion and rhetoric aside, what is outsourcing? In it’s broadest, most general sense, outsourcing is having another company to do work for you that you could do yourself. This occurs at both the business level and a personal level—and more frequently then you might think.
Some common business outsourcing examples include: payroll, bookkeeping, human resources, building maintenance, cleaning services, telecommunications management, public relations, executive search, tax accounting, information technology, and, call processing. On the personal level, we outsource as well.
Consider the dry cleaners, car washes, tax accountants, lawn services, car mechanics, maid services, pizza delivery, catering, and so forth. In fact, anyone who provides a service is actually an outsourcer and we are all, in one way or another, consumers of outsourcing services.
Does this imply that outsourcing is a manifestation of laziness? Although that may be the case in some limited instances, the far more common and general reasoning is that outsourcing can reduce costs, save time, or result in higher quality.
Sometimes outsourcers can provide two of these results or maybe even all three.
Another oft-stated justification for outsourcing is that it allows organizations to offload nonessential tasks, thereby permitting them to focus limited resources (which is a reality for every organization limited resources) on their core competencies.
Some organizations have found it beneficial to even outsource their core competencies. Why not if it can be done cheaper, better, or faster by a specialist?
Therefore, we can correctly conclude that the entire service sector provides outsourcing services, that we all use these outsourcing services, and that there are many wise and beneficial business reasons to do so. So why all the flap over something that is so common and so pervasive?
Although the word “outsourcing” is the moniker that has been villainized, this is a grossly unfair and ignorant generalization. What the focus and outcry is truly about is offshore call center outsourcing that is done badly. Offshoring is not outsourcing, but rather a small subset of it.
In fact, the majority of call center outsourcing today is reportedly intra-country, that is, it is companies located within the United States, outsourcing call processing work to call centers located within the United States.
Yes, there is an increasing trend towards offshore call center outsourcing, and it may one day represent the majority, but for the near future it embodies a minority of call center outsourcing, where it is projected to remain for the next several years.
This is in no way to imply that I am against offshore call center outsourcing per se. I am, in fact, a hard-core, free-market, laissez-faire idealist.
At least until my phone call is answered by someone who I can’t understand, be it due to a heavy accent or words that are used in a way that simply doesn’t make sense.
While such a result may be indicative (but not necessarily so) that a call center is located outside the country, it is critical to point out that the converse should not be assumed either. That is, every agent who speaks with clear and comprehensible English, is not automatically US-based.
Just as lucid communication can occur with agents in other countries, severe communication hurdles can exist with agents located within our borders.
The original and true frustration was not with the location of the agent, but quite simply with their ability to effective communicate in understandable and conversational English.
Politicians saw this frustration as a safe and universally acceptable cause on which to campaign. They made the false assumption that it was a location issue, put a wrong label on it (outsourcing versus offshoring), vilified it, and promoted themselves as the ones who could solve the problem they defined. That’s politics.
The next step was to feed the fire by adding fuel to their argument. National security issues were brought into play, as was personal privacy concerns, since information was leaving the country to reside in a foreign-located database.
The exporting of jobs was denounced, as was the harm that this was causing to the U.S. economy.
By the time the politicians were done, “outsourcing” (or more correctly, offshore call center outsourcing) was portrayed as a threat to all that is American. It was the enemy and it had to be stopped. Rhetoric is persuasive and as such, a word becomes a powerful thing.
The results of all this are sad, but predictable. First, people learned that is was okay to be intolerant of agents who spoke with an accent or hadn’t yet fully mastered the English vernacular.
Unfortunately, some people went beyond intolerance, with their attitudes spilling over into hatred, bigotry, and abhorrence. Second, we were taught that any form of call center outsourcing—in fact, all outsourcing—is an increasingly unpatriotic and unacceptable act.
Lastly, and most dangerously for the industry, is a spate of bills that were introduced on the national, state, and local level to control, limit, or restrict the inbound call center industry.
Although the intent of these bills are ostensibly focused against the offshore call center, their broad and inclusive language is all-encompassing, covering all call center outsourcers (remember that U.S.-based call centers handle the majority of US outsourcing work) and has widespread ramifications for the in-house call center as well.
Less anyone misunderstand what I am saying or the way in which I communicated it:
Outsourcing is not synonymous with offshoring.
I support outsourcing as good, beneficial, and necessary and I am passionate about the importance and value it.
Offshore outsourcing is here, it is real, and the marketplace should decide its position in the global economy.
The real enemy is legislation, which if left unchecked will forever and detrimentally change the entire call center industry, be it outbound or inbound, outsource, or in-house, as well as offshore.
I love the USA—it’s the politicians that drive me crazy!
Don’t let the politicians skew your understanding of outsourcing.
Peter Lyle DeHaan is an entrepreneur and businessman who has managed, owned, and started multiple businesses over his career. Common themes at every turn have included customer service, sales and marketing, and leadership and management.
He shares his lifetime of business experience and personal insights through his books to encourage, inspire, and occasionally entertain.
A few weeks ago, I did something outrageous. I stopped answering my phone. Although that is a bold, foolhardy step for anyone in business, it is heretical for someone whose entire professional career has revolved around the telephone. However, before you plan an intervention on my behalf, let me assure you that this was a short term situation and I am once again totally accountable to my phone, dutifully answering its ringing with Pavlovian consistency. Here’s what happened.
Over the past few years I have noticed what many of you have experienced in your call centers; I was not getting as many phone calls as I used to. In fact, there are days when I only get one or two calls; occasionally, no one calls!
I am fortunate to be in a unique position in that I am privileged to communicate with a wide range of CEOs, directors, and managers at outsource call centers. About five years ago, the overwhelming concern of inbound centers was that call volume had dropped off and revenue was down, way down. It seemed to happen unexpectedly and no one was sure why, but most had their theories. Interestingly, this information was always shared with me confidently. Seemingly, each person was seeking confirmation that this was an industry wide dilemma, while at the same time declining to publicly acknowledge that they had been affected in like manner.
Since then, at each hint that a rebound was eminent, something would happen to squelch it – bad economic news, a terrorist attack, a war, and more than a few natural disasters. However, there has now become some divergence in the empirical feedback that I receive. Although most reports continue to confirm that call traffic is languishing, some indicate that it has leveled off, and a few claim to be experiencing a robust rebound, asserting that business has never been as good or more promising. Although a skeptic might maintain that such grandiose statements are nothing more than an attempt to talk oneself into prosperity, I prefer to believe that some call centers have indeed successfully navigated these troubled waters.
Perhaps the most buffeted segment of call center outsourcing work has been the outbound arena, specifically, consumer calling. With the combined effects of a public outcry, political expediency, and the enactment of state and ultimately a national do not call (DNC) law, outbound calling to consumers has, by most accounts, been devastated. Some call centers elected to cease all outbound work, migrating to inbound (thereby diverting work from existing inbound centers, resulting in a smaller slice of the pie for everyone – compounding the issue of lower call volume).
Other outbound call centers elected to make the switch from consumer campaigns to business calling, something that I can personally attest to. Before the national DNC law, I would only occasionally receive a sales call, from the Fraternal Order of Police or a high school student selling an ad in their organization’s program. That has changed. Now I receive all manner of telemarketing calls. I am sad to report that these call centers have learned nothing from the motivation behind the DNC legislation. They are employing the same tactics with business calling that caused the demise in consumer calling such as inadequately compiled lists, poorly trained agents, badly written scripts, and overly aggressively programmed predictive dialers. I’m all for a smartly targeted call, dispensing useful and relevant information – but that’s not happening. These firms still insist on employing the old numbers game, quantity over quality.
On all too many days, I receive more inept telemarketing calls than “real” business calls. To make matters worse, often the dialing rate is seemingly set too tight and I get dead air or am disconnected. It is one thing to get interrupted by a useless phone call, but it is even more infuriating to be interrupted so that a machine can hang up on you. Outbound call centers need to be careful. The same lackadaisical business practices that resulted in the government regulation and legal restrictions of making calls to residential numbers could easily be extended to include business numbers.
Even more troublesome is that the political fodder gained by enacting laws limiting outbound calling has emboldened legislators to turn their attention to inbound calling. The spate of these various proposed restrictions would be laughable, if not for the seriousness of the politicians proposing them. These laws could end up regulating how you staff your call center, what technology is used and how it is programmed, the location of your office and staff, and your hours of operation. Furthermore, they could mandate statistical response rates, customer satisfaction levels, and even invoke penalties for long hold time. The offshore outsourcing of call center service is often a prime target in these proposed bills, but the wording is often vague or general enough to include outsourcing within the United States.
However, I am digressing; let’s go back to my story. My phone had rung for the fourth time that morning and thrice in 15 minutes. Each time I was met with silence; there was no one there! I was working on last month’s column – you remember, “The Ripple Effect” – and wanted to write without needless interruption. In frustration, I did something that I had never considered before. I decided to stop answering the phone and let voicemail handle it. Although I received many more phone calls throughout the day, no one left a message. There were some hang ups and dead air messages, but no people, not even breathing. It wasn’t until the afternoon the next day that someone left a message. After three days of letting voicemail screen my calls, I had amassed only three messages. What about the rest? Were they all telemarketing calls? Were some from people who didn’t feel their call was important enough to leave a message? If so, why were they calling? Frankly, it makes me wonder if I even need to have a business phone line! (Forgive me for my academic musings – yes, I do need a phone.)
Even with this spike of telemarketing calls that I have received, my overall incoming call volume is still down. At the same time, email communication has soared. The increased quantity of email is attributable to both spam and “real” messages. It is not uncommon for me to spend an hour or more each morning responding to the email messages that came in during the night. On Mondays, it sometimes takes all morning to handle the weekend’s deluge.
So where does this leave the outsourcing call center? Call volume is down, regulation is present, and more is looming. There is an apparent shift from telephone to email. Some possible solutions have already been alluded to. Many outbound centers have switched from consumer calling to business calling (just make sure you do it right). Those who are opting to continue doing consumer calling are needing to navigate regulatory restrictions, spending increasing amounts of money to ensure compliance, and take measures to protect themselves from increasingly large fines and damages if mistakes occur. These facts favor larger call centers (think economies of scale) plus they produce a nice barrier to entry, thereby reducing competition.
It is counterintuitive, but now may be the right time for some call centers to get into consumer calling. Interestingly, in the past few years, some inbound centers have successfully begun outbound work. Their key, seemingly, is focused around carefully selected and crafted niches, the details of which they are reluctant to share.
Another switch, or diversification strategy, is for outbound centers to move to inbound work. Many have done this and although it is presently a much safer arena in which to operate, this advantage may not last for much longer.
The real call center opportunity, however, may reside in the Internet. More on that next month.
A reader complained about our content in the May issue. In fact, he was downright mad over our coverage promoting outsourcing call centers. The ironic thing is that this reader actually works for an outsourcing call center! Yes, they go by a different label, but they are, by definition, an outsourcing call center – no more and no less.
The May issue had focused on explaining and advancing the cause of call center outsourcing, which would benefit this reader, but offense was taken and ire stirred. My response to this unexpected criticism ranged between bewilderment and anger, but has since settled down to be mere amusement. Yes, a word is a powerful thing.
It seems that “outsourcing” has been politicized. Once a word becomes politicized, as outsourcing was in the 2004 United States presidential campaign, all reasonable thinking stops and logic becomes, well, illogical. Rhetoric steps in and common sense is relegated to lesser important things.
Think of any major societal issue and it has likely been politicized by a one word rallying cry. Regardless of what the word is, or it’s original and true intent, proponents hold it up high as a emblem of virtue and all that is good, while opponents decry it as indicative of evil, being characteristic of what is wrong in the world today.
Twenty years ago, the word telemarketing was coined to put an apt and descriptive label on a nascent and promising industry; one that used the telephone to cost-effectively promote products, better service customers, and provide companies with a competitive advantage. But then that simple and benign word became politicized and now few people use it; in most circles we are reluctant to even utter it out loud.
Those who still do telemarketing, have long since adopted a less emotionally-laden label for fear of verbal retaliation or psychological retribution. While those who vehemently object to telemarketing’s practice, wield that word as an offensive slur to convey their frustration against all they find unacceptable relating to conducting business over the phone. In short, it is no longer politically correct to engage in telemarketing. A word is a powerful thing.
So, emotion and rhetoric aside, what is outsourcing? In it’s broadest, most general sense, outsourcing is having another company to do work for you that you could do yourself. This occurs at both the business level and a personal level – and more frequently then you might think.
Some common business outsourcing examples include: payroll, bookkeeping, human resources, building maintenance, cleaning services, telecommunications management, public relations, executive search, tax accounting, information technology, and, of course, call processing.
On the personal level, we outsource as well. Consider the dry cleaners, car washes, tax accountants, lawn services, car mechanics, maid services, pizza delivery, catering, and so forth. In fact, anyone who provides a service is actually an outsourcer and we are all, in one way or another, consumers of outsourcing services.
Does this imply that outsourcing is a manifestation of laziness? Although that may be the case in some limited instances, the far more common and general reasoning is that outsourcing can reduce costs, save time, or result in higher quality. Sometimes outsourcers can provide two of these results or maybe even all three.
Another oft-stated justification for outsourcing is that it allows organizations to offload nonessential tasks, thereby permitting them to focus limited resources (which is a reality for every organization) on their core competencies. Some organizations have found it beneficial to even outsource their core competencies. Why not if it can be done cheaper, better, or faster by a specialist?
Therefore, we can correctly conclude that the entire service sector provides outsourcing services, that we all use these outsourcing services, and that there are many wise and beneficial business reasons to do so. So why all the flap over something that is so common and so pervasive?
Although the word “outsourcing” is the moniker that has been villainized, this is a grossly unfair and ignorant generalization. What the focus and outcry is truly about is offshore call center outsourcing that is done badly. Offshoring is not outsourcing, but rather a small subset of it.
In fact, the majority of call center outsourcing today is reportedly intra-country, that is, it is companies located within the United States, outsourcing call processing work to call centers located within the United States.
Yes, there is an increasing trend towards offshore call center outsourcing, and it may one day represent the majority, but for the near future it embodies a minority of call center outsourcing, where it is projected to remain for the next several years.
This is in no way to imply that I am against offshore call center outsourcing per se. I am, in fact, a hard-core, free-market, laissez-faire idealist. At least until my phone call is answered by someone who I can’t understand, be it due to a heavy accent or words that are used in a way that simply doesn’t make sense.
While such a result may be indicative (but not necessarily so) that a call center is located outside the country, it is critical to point out that the converse should not be assumed either. That is, every agent who speaks with clear and comprehensible English, is not automatically US-based.
Just as lucid and concise communication can occur with agents in other countries, severe communication hurdles can exist with agents located within our borders. The original and true frustration was not with the location of the agent, but quite simply with their ability to effective communicate in understandable and conversational English.
Politicians saw this frustration as a safe and universally acceptable cause on which to campaign. They made the false assumption that it was a location issue, put a wrong label on it (outsourcing versus offshoring), vilified it, and promoted themselves as the ones who could solve the problem they defined. That’s politics!
The next step was to feed the fire by adding fuel to their argument. National security issues were brought into play, as was personal privacy concerns, since information was leaving the country to reside in a foreign-located database. The exporting of jobs was denounced, as was the harm that this was causing to the U.S. economy. By the time the politicians were done, “outsourcing” (or more correctly, offshore call center outsourcing) was portrayed as a threat to all that is near and dear to the hearts and minds of the people. It was the enemy and it had to be stopped. Rhetoric is persuasive and as such, a word becomes a powerful thing.
The results of all this are sad, but predictable. First, people learned that is was okay to be intolerant of agents who spoke with an accent or hadn’t yet fully mastered the English vernacular. Unfortunately, some people went beyond intolerance, with their attitudes spilling over into hatred, bigotry, and abhorrence.
Secondly, we were taught that any form of call center outsourcing – and to a degree, all outsourcing – is an increasingly unpatriotic and unacceptable act.
Lastly, and most dangerously for the industry, is a spate of bills that were introduced on the national, state, and local level to control, limit, or restrict the inbound call center industry.
Although the intent of these bills are ostensibly focused against the offshore call center, their broad and inclusive language is all-encompassing, covering all call center outsourcers (remember that U.S.-based call centers handle the majority of US outsourcing work) and has widespread ramifications for the in-house call center as well.
Less anyone misunderstand what I am saying or the way in which I communicated it:
Outsourcing is not synonymous with offshoring.
I support outsourcing as good, beneficial, and necessary and I am passionate about the importance and value of call center outsourcing.
Offshore outsourcing is here, it is real, and the marketplace should decide its position in the global economy.
The real enemy is legislation, which if left unchecked will forever and detrimentally change the entire call center industry, be it outbound or inbound, outsource or in-house, as well as offshore.
I love the United States of America – it’s the politicians that drive me crazy!
Yes, a word is a powerful thing – and I try to choose mine carefully.
