Customer Contempt 3 : BT Broadband (British Telecom)

The action taken by BT last week demonstrates their complete antipathy towards customers. The 'anti-spam' move has meant thousands of customers who use POP3/SMTP to send email through BT, instead receive an 0x800CCC78 error. It perfectly qualifies them to be the next entry in my occasional series on organisations that show contempt for their customers...

---

Sometime last week, probably on Thursday or Friday, without any warning, BT Broadband decided to change its policy with regard to the sending of POP3 or SMTP emails via the BT ISP servers. The result was that anyone using this approach received an 0x800CCC78, otherwise referred to as a 553, error when they tried to send email messages. They were still able to receive messages and their access to the internet was unaffected.

So who uses POP3/SMTP email? Well, over the years the number has grown phenomenally. Essentially, anyone who uses a transportable, personal or organisation-specific email address is probably using this approach. If you have your own domain name (my own is @grahamwilson.org, for example), if you use a free email and webhosting facility for a charity or sports club (a popular one is @freeuk.com), or you access work email from home, then you are one of these people. There are hundreds of thousands of us. You may not even realise it, but if you use Microsoft Outlook, Outlook Express or any other 'email client' then they use this approach.

The downside is that POP3 is vulnerable to hijacking by the Spam fraternity. Though most ISPs have effective tools for screening much of this out. The upside to users is that these email addresses can be given out to anyone, used in advertising literature and so on, and don't need to be changed when you change your Broadband provider or the club changes its secretary etc. With the massive expansion of people working from home they are, of course, essential to the smooth running of many businesses.

As far as BT is concerned, of course, they are also a threat! A transportable email address is one less incentive to remain with any particular ISP. So, it is in BTs interest to make sure its customers don't use them, but instead use the ridiculously meaningless email address that was created for them when they opened their account with BT (typically something like theandersonfamily@btinternet.com or 242neasdenroadwapping@btconnect.com). Then, if people decide to leave BT, for whatever reason, though price and offshore call centres apparently are the commonest ones, they have to let all their friends, family, registered websites, banks etc know of the change - a major upheaval, which something like Plaxo (www.plaxo.com) can ease but is still a nightmare to achieve.

So, BT initiated a new step that everyone wishing to use one of these email addresses has to go through. Basically, you have to log on to your "BT Yahoo!" account (if you didn't realise you had one, join the club), then complete a tedious process to register each additional email address, be sent an email to it, copy a 'verification code' from this incoming email to a special page on the BT system and then you can send emails this way. For more details have a look at the blog by Phil Gyford (http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2008/03/22/beware_of_the_le.php).

Incidentally, did you know that BT has a complete infrastructure to handle disenfranchised customers? Apparently known as the "revenue protection" team, they are the people you get forwarded to if you call to request a MAC code to allow another ISP to take over your Broadband connection. A common reason for people to demand this code is that they have got thoroughly fed-up with the BT "offshore" (in other words, Indian) call centres. A technical problem persists with their BT access and they decide to go to another ISP to get better service. Personally, I am off tomorrow! It is only two months before the end of my contract term, and although I suspect I could pursue a court case for their breach of contract, it simply isn't worth the effort, and for the £35 or so remaining I'd rather accept the loss and go somewhere better. Of course, you're left with a decision as to which is the least worst of these alternative providers. In my case I'm going to give Fast a try.

Best wishes

---

GRAHAM WILSON
London + Oxford - 07785 222380
Helping People Achieve Things They Never Dreamt Were Possible
grahamwilson.org & inter-faith.net

---

Incentive and Reward - why organisation-wide schemes often fail

It's important to be clear about the behaviours that you are seeking to reinforce, the diversity of people and their tendency to find jobs that suit their personality, and to ensure that complex and conflicting desirable behaviours are suitably reinforced.

---

Someone recently asked for assistance in designing an incentive scheme. Over the years, I've been involved in establishing quite a few, especially related to performance improvement, changes in culture (including the attitudes and behaviours that people demonstrate at work) and yet I often feel myself cringe when I learn of the schemes that some organisations put into place. Why is it so difficult to find a solution that works? Well, here are a few of the complexities...

Some types of people, who gravitate into certain types of role, are more responsive to certain types of incentive scheme. Organisation wide schemes therefore need to take this into account whereas schemes concerned with one area (eg Sales, Operations, or HR) each need to be tailored to the psyche of the individuals and their likely personal circumstances. (This is one reason for the popularity of "currency" schemes in the last few years.) For instance, sales people generally measure their self-worth in financial terms - that's why they are often driven [sorry!] to have better cars and more prestigious accoutrements. Operations professionals may get enormous satisfaction out of the buzz of day-to-day problem solving and love the thrill of tackling challenges, some of them seek similar excitement in their free-time, while others look for opportunities to enjoy the luxury of relaxation. HR staff often entered the profession because they wanted to see their fellow human beings treated fairly at work (sadly, today they quickly discover that this is not the role of HR, but that's another issue) and so they respond well to personal recognition and individual attention.

It is important to reward the right behaviours. A scheme for senior managers might reward demonstrable leadership skills, whereas one for front-line workers might reward team behaviour (IF they work in a team) or speed of processing (if they work independently). Most groups have a variety of behaviours that you are specifically trying to incentivise and so the scheme needs to reflect this overall.

However, there are some behaviours that you do NOT want to incentivise - not just because they are negative (eg bullying) but because they should be a part of "the way we do things around here" and therefore non-negotiable (for instance, taking the initiative in problem-solving).

Controversially, I admit, but I would argue that most productivity related bonuses fall into this category - we expect people to do their best and to pace their work to deliver the most performance in a given time. (This could be the only thing my management philosophy has in common with that of Alan Sugar.) This is non-negotiable and failure to do it might be considered a reason for management intervention (ie investigation or discipline) but doing it should not be incentivised.

Most schemes though have to compromise, as there are usually conflicting priorities in most jobs - this is why decision making is an important skill for managers or for people who are self-managing. Again, it's important for the scheme to reflect this underlying skill rather than (one or other of) the individual behaviours. The classic blunder of such schemes is to incentivise the sales force for sales value (period), where their efforts can easily cause untold problems in operations and ultimately lead to dissatisfied customers.

I hope this provides food for thought, as they say. To begin with, why don't you spend a few minutes reflecting on what would incentivise you to do something different with your time TODAY? That might give you an insight into the complexity of such schemes.

Best wishes

---

GRAHAM WILSON
London + Oxford - 07785 222380
Helping People Achieve Things They Never Dreamt Were Possible
grahamwilson.org & inter-faith.net

---

The ethics of false or grandiose claims in advertising...

I just followed a link on ecademy.com to a forum for business referrals. On it an individual has made an offer to provide a free video brochure for anyone who passes two business contacts who sign up for his video production service.

So far, so good. In the rubric of the posting he makes it clear that:

To date I have been working in the Defence sectors, but am now moving into local markets.

Unfortunately at the moment {the company} is just me and I am really stretched for time, what I am after is your business contacts for an introduction and for me to telephone and send video brochures, then follow up.

This is great. It is open and honest and, in my view, presents a very credible approach to the market.

However, when you follow the link to his corporate website (which is, incidentally, superbly produced and has clearly had a great deal invested in it), you find that it is uses "We" rather than "I", he introduces himself as the "Managing Director", and, most seriously, claims to have experience from Defence to Legal and "just about everything in between".

Now, last week, Virgin Atlantic were penalised by the Advertising Standards Authority for the inaccuracy of some of their claims for their Premier class - seats were only really bigger on 2/3rds of the fleet, dedicated cabin crew were seen serving passengers in other classes, and so on. They were found to have breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

To my way of thinking (which I fully accept is only my own), I can't help wondering whether the behaviour of the video producer is any more morally acceptable than that of Virgin Atlantic. It seems to me that, were there a body for internet ads to be referred to for adjudication, then a similar verdict would be passed.

And yet, how do start-ups promote themselves in an accurate way without grandiosity or false claims to experience that they aspire to but have yet to achieve? Some sectors seem to me to be highly aspirational in the claims that are made, while others stick very much to the facts and don't attempt to distort things. Is this a reflection of the character of those who run them or of the sectors involved?

So, let's all take a look at OUR advertising and ask ourselves whether our claims (implicit or explicit) are accurate or aspirational, grandiose or grounded.

Best wishes

---

GRAHAM WILSON
London + Oxford - 07785 222380
Helping People Achieve Things They Never Dreamt Were Possible
grahamwilson.org & inter-faith.net

---

Corporate Prosperity and Posterity

---

Step back for a moment and ask yourself which companies YOU hold in high esteem?

The Forbes list of the World’s Most Respected Companies - based on CEOs' feedback – is a measure of their reputation among the wider business community. Forbes also publish a list of companies most respected by the investment community – an assessment of their long-term financial reputation. The annual “Great Places to Work” surveys rank companies according to how popular they are with their employees – one of few publicly available benchmarks of “employee engagement”. Membership of the lists varies and some are published globally whereas others are geographically restricted. Nevertheless there are some striking consistencies.

Companies regularly featuring at or near the top of all three lists, include the following (the date in brackets is the year they were founded):

IKEA (1943)

Samsung (1936)

PWC (1849)

Ferrero (1946)

Tesco (1919)

GE (1870)

Kraft Foods (1903)

Tata (1868)

Microsoft (1975)

Lego (1932)

Caterpillar (1925)

Coca-Cola (1886)

Mars (1911)

Since the work of Bob Waterman in the 1980s, it has been recognised that the short-, medium- and long-term performance of businesses is directly correlated with the degree of engagement of the employees, and that this in turn is directly related to the behaviour of the leaders within them. The shares of organisations high in engagement outperform the rest two- to three-times. With the exception of Microsoft, you will see that they also tend to have a far greater longevity. Companies low in engagement tend to last a few years and are then consumed or cease to trade.

What does ‘engagement’ mean? It means that employees trust the people they work for, have pride in what they do, and enjoy the people they work with, and central to this is the idea of trust.

So how, as leaders, do we build trust?

There appear to be five components to TRUST:

Credibility - Established through open and accessible communication, and carrying out the Vision with integrity and consistency.

Respect - Involving people in relevant decisions, supporting their professional and personal development and taking pride and an interest in the outcome.

Fairness - A balanced approach to reward and recognition, that is seen as fair and equitable by both those who do well and those who do less well.

Pride - An open, and two-way, interest in the work of individuals, their particular work area, and the organisation as a whole.

Camaraderie - A sense of ‘family’ and ‘team’ demonstrated in the day-to-day relationships among people.

Whether you run a multi-national corporation, a small or medium enterprise with a handful of employees or volunteers, some other organisation, or are self-employed yet somehow dependent on a loose association of suppliers and colaborators, it is worth giving a little time to consider how you build trust among the group of people on whom you depend and so ensure your own PROSPERITY and POSTERITY!

Best wishes

---

GRAHAM WILSON
London + Oxford - 07785 222380
Helping People Achieve Things They Never Dreamt Were Possible
grahamwilson.org & inter-faith.net

---