The following is a true story. The names have been changed so I don’t get in trouble.
Pat, the Director of Marketing at a “just right” sized financial institution (i.e., not too big, not too small) inadvertently sent out emails to a small — but not insignificant — number of customers under her (or his) own email address instead of the financial institution’s. Pat didn’t send out another email explaining what happened, deciding instead to see what percentage of emails would be reported as spam. Considering the situation, Pat also wanted to see what the open and response rates on the inadvertent emails were, compared to the correct emails sent under the FI’s name.
My take: I thought Pat should have immediately sent out a follow up email explaining to the group what had happened.
My rationale: Whether or not people think it’s spam, they might not realize it was a mistake. Hiding your mistakes is never a good strategy. In fact, one of the key elements of being perceived as a customer advocate (doing what’s right for the customer and not just bottom line at the expense of your customers) is being transparent and proactive about fixing mistakes.
To me, this was an opportunity to differentiate the firm. Granted, I’m just a data point of one, but if I got an email from the marketing director of my bank, apologizing for sending an email from his/her own email address, I would be impressed. Not only would it put a little more of a human face on the bank, but I would appreciate the fact the s/he acknowledged the mistake and took a proactive step.
What would you have done?
I’m all for admitting mistakes. Believe me, I’ve made my share of mistakes sending out email. But I’m confused on this one, Ron. If you are impressed with the humanness of a personal follow-up apology email, why not just pretend that the original personal email was what was intended in the first place?
Or perhaps you are advocating the “false disappointment/set-up a save” strategy whereby you purposefully create a disappointing situation, and then make the save for the customer. I’ve heard that when done effectively, it can make a big impression. An example is the Matre D’ at the fancy restaurant who says to the arriving customers, I’m sorry, but we’ve been so busy, we had to give away your reservations. But let me check the table that we reserve for unannounced VIPs, and see if I can get you that. After disappearing for a few minutes, the matre d’ informs the customers of his success securing the VIP table. The patrons are seated and are even more delighted/feel even more special than if the matre d’ had simply seated them right away.
It’s all about reframing expectations, right?
@Morriss No, just advocating that “Pat” tell his/her email recipients what happened. No setup or fakery.
[Clarfiication: I agree with you 100% on the "expectations" comment. Just seems to me that setting up the "mistake" to fix it afterwards is just too complicated]
I agree with you Ron. Fessing up when you’ve made a mistake is always the right thing to do. In life and in business.
First, I agree on fessing up to customers when mistakes are made. For one, it won’t be overlooked (whether you hear from them or not), and two, it gives you another chance to make contact be a real person rather than just another company.
At the same time, my original reaction is closer to that of Morriss. OK, if it was an accident, fess up. But I kinda like the idea of the Marketing Director of a company following up directly with the customer. Am I missing something?
@Brett No, not missing anything. I was reacting to the staging of a situation. And thanks for commenting.
I don’t get it either. I’d rather get email from a real person than [the financial institution]. In fact, I would be 10x more likely to notice an email from a real person at a [bank/credit union] than from the generic organization.
Sending out a second email explaining the mistake would have sounded like this: “Hi, that email you just received from a real person (me) should have come from a computer. We apologize for the human-to-human contact, which is not our normal policy.”
In general, I find any email solicitations that come from an organization vs. a person a little frustrating/annoying. I want a “Reply To” address *that works*, not some generic customer service address (or worse, the “No-Reply” address).
The marketing director’s penance should be that s/he has to “own” any replies, questions, enquiries, etc., from the email’s recipients – for as long as it takes. Some recipient(s) may adopt the marketing director as their new private banker.
@JP When you get credit card offers in the mail, and they’re signed by some “VP of Marketing” that you don’t know, do you really notice that more often than an offer that isn’t signed by a person?
Personally, I can’t help but wonder if these are real people in the first place or some pseudonym.
What you’re really advocating for, I think, is that the Pat’s firm should send out the emails under his/her adderss(or maybe someone else’s) — IN THE FIRST PLACE.
If I’m interpreting you correctly, then fine. That’s an approach certainly worth testing.
For the purpose of this blog post, though, I’m simply wondering what the right course of action is, GIVEN the policy to not send emails from the marketing director’s personal email address.
With an email from a “real person,” there is the perception that I could contact them quickly and personally. Unless they avoid reading their email or use multiple addresses, they can’t escape.
Direct mail leaves me with the impression that if I tried to respond (perhaps in-kind, with more snail mail), my reply could be easily ignored or screened by someone else. So why bother?
It’s the same thing with phone solicitations. There is a feeling of helplessness when you look at your caller ID and you know that if you ever tried calling the company back (presumably to complain), it would be a corporate number with a robot on the other end.
Now here’s an idea: What if every phone solicitor was compelled by law to display the CEO’s home number on caller ID? Wouldn’t that be something?