 |
|
|
|||||
How are we doing against the industry benchmark? This question made me recoil, and I felt my body tense up. I heard it twice in a short period of time at two different organizations. In both cases, the question led toward the same outcome: justifying current performance and not seeking true excellence. Ever since customer satisfaction and employee engagement surveys began, survey companies have been selling benchmark data to their clients. I have personally been involved with surveys for over three decades and I consistently object to the practice. In short, survey providers who cannot help their clients truly address the issues discovered sell them excuses about why they are good enough. Yes, it makes me mad. Why? Because it is the ultimate deception. As long as there is a lengthy list of bottom feeders in your industry, you are safe. You are not that bad. And with this false sense of security, you will make the biggest mistake: understanding your customers and creating exceptional value that will be worth the price and profit margins you charge. Two cases exemplify the issue Let me explain using two examples. In the first, the organization was celebrating an improved Net Promoter Score (NPS). Their 10-point jump sounded very respectable. But it was based on a 9% sample of its customers. Where are the other 91% of your customers, I asked. If they refuse to respond to a 5 minute survey, how committed are they to a long-term profitable relationship? Stop celebrating relative successes and instead examine the true essence of your customer relationships. In the second case, the company enjoyed close to a 90% response rate from its employees and celebrated beating the benchmark by double digit points. Cause for celebration, right? Think again. The company is a top industry performer and should never compare itself to the average. This companys expectations are very different than the expectations of number 50 on the industry list. It ought to determine how to lead the industry, not follow it! Benchmarkingthe wrong perspective Using industry benchmarks has its flaws: Regression to the mean: Benchmarking directs the attention to the industry average, not the leaders. Imitation over innovation: When focusing on competitors perspectives, one imitates their practices, not creating new one to delight customers. Competitors over customers: Focusing on competitors provides the wrong reference point for business value creation. Instead, focus on the customers. Blind context: Companies factor many decisions into creating and delivering value, which is then reflected in their customer scores. Profitability, market segments, and cost positioning are a few factors that can direct different strategies and therefore different customer engagement. Lowering standards: Benchmarking often results in relaxed performance standards. If the mean is acceptable, so is the justification to ignore the performance of competitors exceeding it. Future backwards: Customer scores reflect past performance and past value delivery. Companies may already be innovating, but those new developments are not part of the overall discussion as they are not reflected in the scores. But beyond these arguments, there is simple trust. The business truth we ought to consider above all. Is 50% customer satisfaction a good or bad number? If the industry benchmark is 22%, you are killing it. Keep it up If the industry benchmark is 83%, you are in trouble. Do you understand how ridiculous this conclusion is? Fifty percent of your customers are not happy with the value you deliver. They are at risk of switching to the competition. Should that a big enough red flag for immediate attention? In the empowered-customer era, we can no longer afford to compromise and play with the number. We live in a world where every customer is a segment of one. A personal brand using our product or solutions to promote their brand. They create content publicly and share their opinions. No, 50% customer satisfaction should not be considered good results. Unless, of course, you decide to get rid of the other 50% of your customer base. The pursuit of absolute performance In the late 1970s, benchmarking was first introduced by Xerox Corporation to compare themselves to their intense Japanese competitors and ensure they raise their performance bar. The original purpose was constant improvements and adopting best practices. But like many great concepts, it has become a method to relax the pursuit of excellence. Even for the bottom feeders in any benchmark, the goal was to become average, not exceptional. In a time when we are concerned about the impact of AI on organizations and performance, we can be confident that average work will be automated and taken over by AI. True exceptional value will be the survivor of the fittest. If your response level is low, it means your customers do not believe the sincerity of the dialogue you proclaim to conduct. If your employees do not take the time to respond, your situation is dire. The current state of surveys does not seem to produce the sincere dialogue necessary to truly improve relationships (customers or employees). We need to rethink this system. The addiction to the false sense of security peddled by survey companies with benchmark data should end. It is the pursuit of relative performance over ultimate performance. Relative performance focuses on the good enough vis a vis the competition. Ultimate performance is delightful and surprising customers, so they have no reason to consider any other provider. The former creates a false sense of security the latter ensures business continuity. To achieve ultimate performance, we ought to establish a true dialogue with our customers. A dialogue in which customers take the time to provide the insights and organizations address it sincerely, completely, and on time. This is not a one-time event but rather an ongoing dialogue about the performance process, ensuring that we are always ahead, not with the industry average, but with our customers expectations. In a world of ultimate performance, the real question we ought to ask is How can we outdo the current performance and value? Lior Arussy is chairperson of ImprintCX and author of Dare to Author!
Category:
E-Commerce
In 1982, personal computers were beige, boxy, and built for engineers. They were powerful, but uninviting. Few people knew what they were for, or why they might need one. It took more than just better processors to turn computers into objects of mass adoption; it took design. Design transformed the computer from an obscure tool into an essential companion. It gave form to possibility. It helped people trust, understand, and eventually fall in love with machines. Apple ushered in a new era of human-centered computer when it released the Macintosh in 1984. Design is the next frontier in robotics Jacob Hennessey-Rubin, executive director of NY Robotics, a non-profit that serves as the hub for robotics innovation in the New York and Tri-State region, recently told me that robotics is having its 1982 moment. Like the early personal computer, robots have the processing power but not the consumer-friendly design. The technology is here. Robots can move, perceive, and make decisions in complex environments. AI enables them to generalize across tasks, understand natural language, and collaborate with humans. The building blocks are ready, but the experience is not. Most robots still resemble their industrial ancestors: articulated arms from factory floors or the humanoid silhouettes of science fiction. These platforms have enabled impressive mechanical advances and have been created to operate effectively in human-built environments. Theyve also helped us to imagine what robots could be and remain valuable in many contexts. But as robotics expand into new domains, from home to healthcare to creative expression, we have the opportunity to grow our design vocabulary and reimagine how these systems take shape across new environments and experiences. Robotics has long been seen as an engineering challenge. But the next breakthrough wont be technical, it will be experiential. To unlock the next wave of adoption, robots must be designed not just to work, but to live alongside us, in our homes, hospitals, restaurants, and stores. Our approach must be mindful of how their presence shapes the wind-down routine, the medical procedure, the restaurant kitchen, or the customer interaction, and intentional in shaping both their actions and their stillness. If robots are to be part of the messy, meaningful, deeply human moments that define our days, they must earn their place through thoughtful, human-centered design. Design is how we help robots fit into life. We believe these five design principles will define robotics next era. Design for context Robotic forms should emerge from context, not from the machine. Their expression, movement, and interaction style should reflect and shape the space and culture. In practice, they might borrow cues from furniture, chefs tools, classic cars, or other familiar elementsnot to mimic them, but to evoke emotion, convey meaning, and set the emotional tone. In a social setting, a robot might use animation techniques to express its state gently and intuitively; in a clinic, it might signal clarity and precision through forms reminiscent of medical instruments. Match capability with expression When a robot looks too human, we expect too much. And when it looks too mechanical, we trust too little. The sweet spot? Forms that are honest, clear expressions of their true capabilities. Trust begins with legible forms, which lead to more open and meaningful engagement. Design for natural interaction Great interaction goes both ways. Robots shouldnt just perform tasks; they should communicate intent and respond to ours with clarity. Movements, gestures, lights, and sounds should feel intuitive and appropriate, helping people to understand what a robot is doing and how to engage with it. At the same time, todays robots are better equipped than ever to understand us, they recognize our actions, focus, and even unspoken cues. This opens the door to more natural, multimodal interaction, where people can use voice, touch, gesture, or even demonstration depending on what feels most intuitive. Instead of rigid commands, we can teach robots by showing them how we would do it ourselves. When communication flows both ways, robots feel less like machines and more like capable collaborators. Design for collaboration Collaboration begins with coexistence. As robots become part of our environments, we must design them to move with our rhythms, respond to our cues, and respect their context. The most impactful robots will work with us, even when they replace aspects of what we do. We must also consider how they collaborate amongst themselves, adding to the ecosystem and accomplishing more together, rather than competing with it. Automate the drudgery, not the joy As author Joanna Maciejewska quipped: I want my AI to do my laundry and dishes so I can do art and writing, not the other way around. Let’s preserve the things that make us feel human and automate the things that make us feel like machines. From machines to cohabitants When robots stop being tools and start becoming cohabitants, everything changes. We start to ask new questions: How might the presence of robots reshape our sense of space and privacy? What rituals are worth preserving as appliances become more intelligent? What new roles can robots play beyond utility and across care and companionship? What design languages do robots demand, in form, tone, and gesture? The answers wont come from code alone. Theyll come from design. Just as Apple redefined computing through design, the teams that rethink the why of robotics, not just the how, will lead the next wave of human-centered robotics, made for everyday lifenot in the distant future, but right now. Were already living with robots. Its time we start designing like it. Thanks to my colleagues Tom Frejowski and Katie Lim for their collaboration and contributions to this article. Inna Lobel is head of industrial design at frog North America.
Category:
E-Commerce
Amazon.com forecast third-quarter sales above market estimates on Thursday but failed to live up to lofty expectations for its Amazon Web Services cloud computing unit after rivals handily beat expectations. Shares fell by more than 2% in after-market trading after finishing regular trading up 1.7% to $234.11. Both Google-parent Alphabet and Microsoft posted big cloud computing revenue gains earlier this month. AWS profit margins also contracted. Amazon said they were 32.9% in the second quarter, compared with 39.5% in this year’s first quarter and 35.5% a year ago. The second-quarter margin results were at their lowest level since the final quarter of 2023. AWS, the cloud unit, reported a 17.5% increase in revenue to $30.9 billion, edging past expectations of $30.77 billion. After strong growth from Microsoft and Google, “AWS is lingering at 17% growth,” said Gil Luria, a D.A. Davidson analyst. “That is very disappointing, even to the point where if Microsoft’s Azure continues to grow at these rates, it may overtake AWS as the largest cloud provider by the end of next year.” The company expects total net sales to be between $174.0 billion and $179.5 billion in the third quarter, compared with analysts’ average estimate of $173.08 billion, according to data compiled by LSEG. Blockbuster cloud revenue growth at Microsoft and Alphabet’s Google raised expectations for AWS, the world’s largest cloud provider. Both Microsoft and Alphabet cited massive demand for their cloud computing services to boost their already huge capital spending, but also noted they still faced capacity constraints that limited their ability to meet demand. AWS represents a small part of Amazon’s total revenue, but it is a key driver of profits, typically accounting for about 60% of Amazon’s overall operating income. While Amazon has poured billions into AI infrastructure, analysts have said the lack of a strong AI model from AWS is causing some concerns that the company could be trailing rivals in AI development, analysts said. President Donald Trump’s tariffs have dampened the U.S. retail industry, leaving major retailers and consumer goods companies scrambling to protect their margins or resort to price increases, all while ensuring consumer demand remains intact. Trump has said the levies will bring manufacturing power and jobs back to the U.S. Investors have been closely watching Amazon’s e-commerce unit for any signs that tariff-related uncertainty has dashed consumer confidence. U.S. data showed consumer spending rose moderately in June. Analysts had said Amazon’s focus on low prices, quick delivery and the sheer number of product categories has helped cement its position as the No. 1 e-commerce retailer for U.S. consumers, giving it an edge over rivals. Amazon has said it was pushing suppliers to pull forward inventories to ensure supply and keep prices as low as possible. Still, prices for goods made in China and sold on Amazon.com have been rising faster than overall inflation, Reuters reported last month. Deborah Mary Sophia and Greg Bensinger, Reuters
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||