Sometime in 2006, I started to frequent a Malay barber guy in Race Course Road, close to where I used to live on Petain Road. Operating out of a shop underneath a HDB block, the joint has probably seen better days; it is now sparse and functional. Three of them (all in their 50s) worked out of the same premises and it took me a while to get comfortable with one particular guy. Other than being cheap (SG$8 per trim), a haircut at the barber gets the job done quickly and efficiently, none of the fussiness of the salon and its army of stylists.

My Malay barber’s a quiet man. Apart from pleasantries, Vespa stories and the weather, we hardly got personal. But all the same, my sessions with this guy had been very pleasant. We had a well-established, mutually-beneficial relationship. His colleagues knew that and respected this relationship well to never court me to sit in their chairs, even if the place was swarmed. I was this guy’s regular and loyal customer.

Loyalty is Painful Sometimes

I have loyally continued to patronise this place all these years, even after moving back to my folks in Pasir Ris (briefly before marriage) and now in our matrimonial home (Toa Payoh).

Yesterday, I made a Sunday morning trip to the barber shop for a haircut. I was looking forward to the occasion because a while ago (the Saturday before my convocation on May 22, to be exact), I had gone there wanting a trim. Unfortunately, he did not turned up as per usual and did not answer any calls to his mobile. I waited an hour for him to arrive (I really didn’t mind waiting at all) before reluctantly letting my hair to be trimmed by one of his colleagues. Yesterday, I had wanted to ‘playfully chide’ him for making me wait.

On arrival, I saw his spot remained empty and enquired if he’s late again. The news that greeted me at the door left me stumped and speechless.

My Malay barber guy had passed away on 6 June 2010.

A long-term loyal relationship has ended for good. And there was no opportunity to say goodbye or to express my deep gratitude for all these years.

What Made Our Relationship Great?

Nonetheless, I still needed a haircut yesterday and I received one from the same guy that stood in the last time. In all honesty, I wasn’t terribly thrilled with my haircuts, not that I wanted something fancy (my idea of a haircut is merely getting my hair trimmed to a length that will allow me to style it any way I want later on).

Unfortunately, I did not receive a memorable experience with this guy. It was just not the same.

So what really made the difference? You might say a haircut is a haircut.

Well, the difference is my late Malay barber guy listened. And again and again and again.

From the first time and every time since then, he would ask once before each session what I wanted (despite knowing very well what I wanted), listened to my request and proceeded. If I thought my hair needed a little more trimming (just like my dad’s, my hair burst into life and starts growing wildly the moment I step off the barber’s chair), I would make regular requests (in a single session) to have the sides trimmed to the length I wanted. He would listen, never let out a sigh or complain and gave it to me every time.

I also have a (call it peculiar) belief that buzz machine-cut hair do not grow out well and had insisted on a traditional scissors-cut the very first time I patronised his services. All these years, he remembered that very first request and never gave me a full haircut with a machine (only touch-ups).

The new guy left me disappointed. Crucially, he did not ask what I wanted or listened close enough to what I had to say.

All Great Marketers Listen to Their Customers

First rule of marketing: Give what the customers want. And that is only achievable by listening to what they really want.

That, in essence, is what my late Malay barber did. He asked what I wanted and continued to listen every time. He was a marketing guy in the most simple and effective way. He did not put forth fancy hairstyle ideas or suggest a new hair colour. He did not lavish me with in-store perks or loyalty points. He never called me by my name.

But he listened and listened. And gave me what I really wanted.

Truly a hallmark of any great marketer.

Farewell

I regretted knowing and calling my late Malay barber only as ‘Pakcik’ (Malay for uncle) (I’d love to give you a name here). I probably knew his name at some point but we had gotten on so comfortably, we never did have a need for names. Nonetheless, he’ll be greatly missed.

May God give strength to his family and friends and bless my Malay barber’s soul in the ever-after.

The simple guy who listened and listened and listened.

Post Updated: 5 May, see end of post

Are we really a First World country with a world-class service industry serving the economy? Certainly not if our still unresolved issue with Singapore Post (SingPost) is a yardstick for measurement. A simple request for Singapore Post to re-deliver my wife’s parcel (containing online purchases of clothes from Forever 21) has dragged on for almost 3 weeks with no end in sight. Much worse is the customer service treatment we have been receiving at the hands of this monopolistic (we don’t really have a choice, do we?) Singaporean postal service. Truth is: no one at SingPost seems to care!

‘Parcel is Lost in Our Service’ says Singapore Post

The parcel, with a total purchase value of US$385.16, had been declared ‘lost’ by Singapore Post. And this happened while it was in its care! Unbelievable? Unfortunately, this is true, SingPost officially states so in this email and this one too. And for the record, there WAS an attempted parcel delivery to our door step on 30 December 2009 (more on this later). But it seems as though the parcel simply….vanished!

Obviously, we were deeply concerned and wanted this resolved as quickly as possible. As the lost item was a combined purchase between Elisa (my wife) and her friends and acquaintances, it is only right on Elisa’s part, as purchase coordinator, to rectify this quickly. If the parcel is really lost as claimed, then compensation must be made, especially when SingPost has clearly acknowledged losing it. Simple enough? Turns out, not quite.

Ignored by Singpost?

It is painfully obvious from our interactions that Singapore Post does not see any urgency in this matter nor does it feel totally responsible for this blunder. Despite countless calls and information request via emails, no single person at Singapore Post took the initiative or claimed any service responsibility over our case. Read on to find out how SingPost tries to ‘tai chi’ this problem away. (Note: ‘To tai chi’ is Singlish for shifting work or blame to someone else)

Since January 11, Elisa had been making periodic calls to Singapore Post’s customer service hotline to enquire about this parcel. The same mantras were repeated countless times: ‘We are looking into it’, ‘Our operation team is still investigating’, ‘The parcel is still missing’, etc. And she kept being told ‘We will give you a call’, but never heard back from anyone. Not a single call-back came from SingPost in the course of 2 weeks. Unbelievable but true.

This perceived ‘lack of interest’ by SingPost is also evident in email communication. A certain ‘Jxcqueline Lim – Senior Manager’ offered to keep a close watch on this case when Elisa spoke to her on January 22. Unfortunately, that did not happen. See the chain of emails that is still unresponded (and possibly ignored by Miss Lim) since January 22.

All Talk, No Action

From January 11 till the 22nd, this case was ‘ping-ponging’ between Singapore Post’s Customer Service team, their Investigation team and quite possibly their Claims Department. It seems like no one wanted to make any decision. If it takes 2 weeks to locate a single physical parcel, then there must be something seriously wrong operationally at SingPost.

Only on January 22, when we demanded immediate concrete action to be taken, was a police report given to us the very same evening (more about discrepancies of this police report later). We deduced it to be SingPost’s way of saying: ‘Yes, we lost your parcel but can you wait in case it turns up so that we don’t have to claim insurance and save some bucks?’

This whole episode, coming hot on the heels of the controversial Singapore Post’s "Acts of Vandalism" publicity stunt that backfired, does make us wonder the quality of decision-making business managers currently helming the company. SingPost is not exactly doing itself any favour here. And to think I had voluntarily proposed a revolutionary business idea to SingPost previously.

Next, I’ll detail a factual rundown of events that led to this blog post.

What Actually Happened

20 December: Elisa and myself left Singapore for a 3-week holiday in the Middle East.

29 December: Parcel arrived in Singapore on 29 December at 3.10pm. View the online tracking report by United States Postal Service for item CJ242179875US (Elisa’s parcel).

30 December: Delivery was attempted on 30 December by owner of mobile no. +6581461087 to our flat in Toa Payoh Central. The following are text messages (signed off as ‘S’pore post’) sent to Elisa on the same day regarding this attempted delivery:

Another text message was also sent on January 2:

31 December: My mom called on my mobile and mentioned that our neighbour, an elderly lady, had contacted her to inform of a postal delivery man at our door the previous day. Our kind neighbour had spoken to the delivery man and that she was ready to ‘make payment’ on our behalf (we found out later that Goods and Services Tax (GST) was due on Elisa’s parcel). However, our neighbour mentioned that the man was nowhere to be found when she returned to the door later with her money bag.

8-9 January: Elisa sent several text messages to +6581461087, but did not receive any reply.

11 January: Elisa made the first call to Singapore Post’s Customer Service to enquire on re-delivering the parcel. She was told that parcel cannot be located and SingPost advised that it will need at least 2 working days to look for the parcel. SingPost assured her that a return call will be made within the next few days.

Text messages and phone calls made to +6581461087 were still not answered. Gave up on that channel of communication.

13 January: No news from Singapore Post. When contacted, SingPost informed that ‘the Operations team is still trying to locate the parcel’. SingPost also mentioned that if the parcel is not found by January 18, a police report will be made in order to initiate claims. We decided to wait it out and requested to SingPost to provide a prompt update by January 18.

18 January: Again zero communication received from Singapore Post. Elisa made a call and told the same thing: ‘the Operations team is still trying to locate the parcel’.

So no police report had been made. When asked when exactly the police report will be filed, the Customer Service Officer  quipped that she had just updated the system for the ‘Operations team’ to file the police report. Ping! Pong! Among other things:

• Was also told that the police report would take THREE working days to complete
• After which the report will go to the Claims Department to look into the matter and handle the proceeding steps Ping! Pong!
• Will be updated via a phone call regarding the police report and claims

I guess Elisa and friends have to wait. Again.

The Singapore Post’s Police Report Mystery!

22 January: Still no update on a late Friday afternoon so we decided to give Singapore Post a call.

No police report had been made! The atrocity!

The SingPost Customer Service officer on the line said ‘Don’t worry, we’ll take care of it and will call you back on Monday’. ‘NO WAY!’ we protested. Eventually, by sheer verbal force, Elisa and yours truly managed to speak to Jxcquxlinx Lim (Senior Manager, Customer Service) and she agreed to file the report so that a compensation claim can be initiated as soon as possible.

Do see the chain of emails here on this. Notice an attempt to delay official action again, despite an earlier verbal agreement with Jxcquxlinx Lim. Elisa highlighted this in her last email reply.

A police report was eventually lodged by SingPost on the same evening and we duly received a copy of this report. Please do view the full copy of this police report.

Now, let’s play detective! Notice the following discrepancies in the police report:

1. Police report was made in the personal name of ‘Ayub Bin Hamzah’. Is this normal practice? I assume this is a safeguard so that Singapore Post, as a business entity, is likely to be absolved from any connection or responsibility in case a criminal offence had been committed.
2. No signature or name and details of police officer-in-charge visible in the report. The informant ‘Ayub Bin Hamzah’ did not sign as well. Extremely odd! I wonder what is the real story here. Anyone familiar with police reports?
3. Look again at the following text message sent by owner of mobile no. +6581461087 on the afternoon of 30 Dec when the parcel was still in his/her possession:

Notice the time and date message was sent and received:

30 December, 2.59pm

Now look at the ‘Time of Incident’ for loss of parcel as stated by Singpost in the police report.

30 December, 11.47am-11.59pm

So Many Questions!

• The parcel was reported/discovered ‘lost’ between those hours when it is obvious that, evidenced through the text messages sent to Elisa, the owner of mobile no. +6581461087 still had the parcel in his possession. Isn’t this downright fishy? A parcel gone missing while being delivered? Should this not be grounds for a criminal investigation?
• Who is the owner of mobile no. +6581461087 anyway? Singapore Post’s official response to us on this query is “We do not know to whom this mobile number belongs to”. ???
• Singapore Post does not keep track of its own delivery men/women? Inconceivable? Apparently so.
• Could the owner of mobile no. +6581461087 be ‘Ayub Bin Hamzah’?
• If parcel was already ‘lost’ on 30 December, why did Elisa receive another text message from +6581461087 on January 2? What was its purpose? There was no other communication after this message.
• How is it possible that a parcel, in SingPost’s care and ready to be delivered to owner, can go missing and untraceable within the space of a week? Aren’t all parcel shipments individually tagged and tracked?
• There was never a ‘Request for Re-delivery’ note left behind at our door by owner of mobile no. +6581461087 or was there ever an official SingPost call made to Elisa to arrange for re-delivery afterwards. Is this an attempt to cover up something?

25 January: No call from SingPost, specifically from the Claims Department.

26 January: Still no call and no news. So Elisa made a direct call to Jxcquxlinx Lim to ask for status of the claims.

Jxcquxlinx’s reply was: ‘Oh, no staff contacted you yesterday? Someone was supposed to call you. Ok, let me try to get hold of someone from the Claims department and have them speak to you.’

We felt really numb by now. Ping! Pong!

Later on a Fxdilx called, informing Elisa that the claims process will take several days. However, Jxcquxlinx had earlier agreed to resolve the claims process by Monday, January 25. Fxdilx claimed that she was ‘unaware of this’. Com’mon, SingPost, COMMUNICATE!

When asked to speak to Jxcquxlinx, Fxdilx informed that she had left for the day and instead a ‘Miss Umx’ would be calling by 9.30pm that evening. Unfortunately, Elisa missed this call. A return call to ‘Miss Umx’ was, however, unanswered.

The Final Straw: Singapore Post Washes Hands and ‘Tai Chis’ Tasks to USA Post, Forever 21 and Us!

27 January: Elisa picked up the phone and called a ‘Miss Umxmagasvary – Asst Manager, Customer Relations’ (we theorise that the concept of calling back or following up apparently does not exist in SingPost’s operations manual). In the call, the message communicated by Miss Umx simply astounded us!  Elisa asked that this be documented in an email, which was received promptly. The full copy of the email is available for viewing. Reproduced here is an excerpt from Miss Umx’s email:

Dear Ms Elisa

ENQUIRY ON USA PARCEL NUMBER CJ242179875US

Please refer to your conversation with our call center dated 12 Jan 2010.

We are sorry to inform you that despite a through search, we are unable to locate the parcel. As such, the parcel has been declared as lost in our service.

We have reported the lost of the parcel to the USA Post and have requested to liasie with the sender accordingly. We have also informed them to compensate the sender at our expense as in accordance with the UPU Regulations.

As the sender would have the prior right of claim, please advise your sender to file a claim with the USA Post.

Our sincere apologies for the lost of the parcel and the inconvenience experienced

Yours sincerely

Umx (Ms)

Asst Manager, Customer Relations, Customer Service (Business Division)

DID: 65 68456222, Fax: 65 68425114

Case closed?! This is totally unbelievable! MAJOR PING PONG!

This is as good as Singapore Post saying:

‘Sorry, we fxxked up, please help clean the mess after us’.

After 3 weeks of dealing with Singapore Post’s Customer Service and after it admitted to losing Elisa’s parcel, SingPost now wants to close off this matter by making USA Post, Forever21 and us to ‘take care of business’. How much more crazier can this get? There are even more questions now:

• Why is Singapore Post getting USA Post involved in this when it is pretty obvious that SingPost lost Elisa’s parcel in Singapore? The parcel was delivered and arrived safely in Singapore on 29 December at 3.10pm. It went missing under SingPost’s watch, for goodness sake.
• And why is Singapore Post making my wife do their work for them? “Please advise your sender to file a claim with the USA Post”. Not content with making Elisa constantly following up with customer service at SingPost (who lost Elisa’s parcel, by the way, if I haven’t already mentioned that), she is suddenly asked to TAKE CARE OF HER OWN BUSINESS? Nasty.
• “Compensate the sender”: Whatever happened to the person whose money and time has been spent in this? In this email from Miss Umx, there is ZERO mention of claims or compensation to my wife, the paying customer. An oversight? Nah. It is likely that SingPost just does not care. Instead, the email implied as such: ‘Sorry, we tried our best but you are on your own. Now shoo. Leave us in peace.’
• Is this a way for Singapore Post not to claim compensation on its insurance? Or not to fork out any money from its own coffers by making the sender claim from its own insurance, etc.? In the real world, if I were to lose someone else’s property, I should jolly well be made responsible for it.

Answer our questions, Singapore Post!

Elisa and myself have given enough opportunity and time to Singapore Post to ‘play’ nice’ and resolve this matter amicably. Yes, Elisa will probably be fully compensated, albeit in a ‘gazillion years’. But there are still so many questions that need answers, even legal ones.

Thus, we decided to bring this out to a public forum. We decided to let you be a witness and, hopefully, a commentator to this issue. We are always lamenting about our Singaporean service industry and this is probably just one of many cases you’ve heard. Now here’s a platform for your thoughts so that we can all learn from this unfortunate episode.

But above all, we would like Singapore Post to respond publicly to our many unanswered questions and the mysteries surrounding the vanished parcel, police report, compensation etc. Keeping it quiet and under wraps have not worked at all in our favour. We have stopped believing in your ‘stories’ over the phone and now we desire some real deal honesty.

On to you, Singapore Post.

5 May Update:

We thank you, visitors here who have found our story, for reading and sharing your thoughts on the SingPost issue and also for giving us your encouragement and support. We are happy to update that we had received compensation directly from SingPost for the full value of the lost package.

There are still questions that remains unanswered, including what really happened with the lost package and the conclusion of the police investigation on the matter. However, we commend SingPost for taking up our issue directly, visiting us to discuss in detail, leaving comments on this blog and keeping the conversation open. Please read Peggy Chong’s reply to us on this matter.

We hope in some ways we have helped institutions like SingPost and other exasperated consumers find a way to communicate better in resolving similar issues. Technologies and communication platforms that allow a much closer interaction between businesses and consumers have evolved greatly with the Web2.0 revolution. We hope opportunities like these will be fully utilised on both sides of the commercial divide.

Thanks again for visiting and do leave your thoughts and opinions for the benefits of others. I also invite you to read the rest of the blog if you have the time. Cheers!

Facebook is a great place for small businesses and startups to stay in touch with their customers online. In fact, there are many other social media tools that can help SMEs get around the big revolution that is the social Web 2.0. Fika Cafe is a new food place, serving Swedish food in a quaint district of Singapore. Fika’s on Facebook too and the subject of my case study.

The Attraction of Swedish Meatballs

In all honesty, I had earlier started on a post about how Fika Cafe excites me with its niche business idea: halal Swedish cuisine in Singapore, a rarity indeed. Couple that with a major culinary disappointment for Muslim food lovers/hunters over the years: Ikea’s Swedish meatballs (they contain pork which is forbidden in a Muslim’s diet). Because those who had them, have been talking about them for years! It is a gilded gap in the market and Fika is on to it. Fantastic so far.

Then something happened. My close friend (whom I had introduced to Fika via Facebook) had a confirmed reservation (made in person!) double-booked, 20 mins before breaking of fast (its the Muslim month of Ramadan). She was turned away with mere apologies. What really didn’t sit in well was the fact that the staff who attended to her did nothing more than merely saying “really sorry”. There was no attempt to find a solution, or have them on priority once a table clears or to simply ask for contact info to make up for what happened. So when I stumbled on a fitting post by Fika in my FB stream, I left a note about this matter. I kept in mind to be as objective as possible, as I care that a new business will need all the help it can get to tread the 2.0 waters. Click on image below for an enlarged view of my comments, captured earlier.

Fika did reply to my initial comment and so did others. Some in support of Fika and others who agreed with me. Fair enough, but I was really happy that Fika responded and engaged. It showed that they are savvy with this.

So, this was a new story that I wanted to blog about, so I began drafting a new post to say how well Fika Cafe has done in connecting and engaging its customers/fans online via their Facebook Fan Page. I was impressed with this, the direct replies to their FB fans, the genuine concern and their public promise ‘to make it up to me’. (However, at time of this post, I have not heard from them. I am still interested in a friendly chat.)

The Horror!

While trying to get screen captures for this post, I discovered something which made my heart skipped a beat. My comments on Fika’s Facebook page were deleted! There were at least 6 other comments in that deleted post. Another fan’s post, an ‘Erin Syahnaz Bangi’, which touched on her disappointment of a recent visit, was deleted too, along with 2-3 other posts from Fika’s fans, in response to me, who commented on the excellent service and experience they had received.

(Click to enlarge view)

The realisation that I, along with others, was censored in free speech didn’t feel good. Not at all.

Nonetheless, I do agree that Fika is free to do as they wish on their online properties.

Voices in the Social Economy

We are all aware that the online identity is an extension of your offline self. Same goes for a business. More important than online commerce, it is a PR tool. Hence, all conduct is scrutinised, a recent case in point being Microsoft’s Photoshop fiasco. Therefore, I can only conclude that it is important for businesses to remain open and transparent with customers or stakeholders, especially when engaged in social media. Any discernible actions deemed negative will be amplified and passed on to the next listener.

Is it any good to be all too transparent? In the age of corporate social responsibility (CSR), this is all the more important.

Again, let me use Zappos as an example. Try visiting twitter.zappos.com. Any mention of “Zappos” by anyone in Twitter-verse gets streamed on this page. Good or bad, its all exposed and open. They have an Employee Tweet page too. With 474 tweeting employees to date, you can certainly have a feel of what goes on in Zappos HQ.

What Went Wrong

In Fika’s case above, censoring comments is akin to saying “thanks for chatting, noted, but let’s keep these away”. If there is an open Facebook Fan Page to comment on, then these comments should stick. Be open, but consistency is important too. Also, what are the justifications for deleting these comments? I personally believe comments are delete-able only if foul language, personal insults or insensitivity to religions are involved. Otherwise, its fair game. And if there’s a real need to delete, then send a note to explain the action and why it is necessary. Be accountable for action, a CSR mandate.

Perhaps the comments struck a nerve with someone at Fika. But the only way to respond to bad criticisms is to respond positively (remember word-of-mouth is powerful.)

This is the problem, in reality, Fika did really well in responding and very positively at that. The Fika comments would have been a good positive indication of whom the people behind the brand are. To me, they seem genuine and honest. But regrettably the comments have all but disappeared. I can’t show them to you and I can’t speak more good things about them. Its an opportunity lost for free and good publicity.

Here’s a quote from Seth Godin’s ‘Spare No Expense’: ‘The way around it, I think, is to set expectations early and often. If you’re going to give me your phone number, you better answer it. If you’re going to offer a warranty, you better honor it. If you position yourself as a company with real people eager to make every single person happy–you better deliver.’

PS. Still looking forward to some halal Swedish meatballs.

My favourite shoe folks, Zappos, (disclosure: never bought anything from them, but maybe that should change soon) has launched a no-brainer.

They’ve called it the Internet Vendor Mentor program. Rolled out by the Customer Loyalty team, they had vendor folks from Birkenstock and Munro over in Zappos to sit in with the employees who are actually selling their products. What better way to know how your sales are are being managed than to sit right in, butt-to-butt, with your salesperson! 

Two major benefits of doing this:

1. For vendors: Other than being able to meet Zappos up close and providing guidance, the sessions allowed them to listen in to customers’ experience of buying their products online. The kind of questions they ask, the type or make of products they like. Any concerns that might. Very meaningful insights by really listening to your customers.

2. Zappos get to show off Zappos and what they stand for. I am sure the vendors go away knowing that their shoe-buying customers are in good hands and very well taken care of.

Absolutely Amazing Bonus: Listen closely, at 0:55, the Zappos customer consultant is giving directions to a Clarks store to a caller on the line! That is ZERO revenue and accidental COST incurred for Zappos! Can anyone else claim to such ‘shenanigans’?

I am sure all of these ‘live’ Zappos customer service goodness are rubbing off on these vendors. I had earlier posted on Zappos’ culture, watch the video if you are still unconvinced that this is the best company to work for :)

Still unconvinced? Read actual CEO’s email to employees (on acquisition by Amazon), can’t get any more open and transparent than this.

C

I am sure some of you have heard of the Singaporean taxi driver with the Stanford PHD.  Much has been said about about Dr. Cai Ming Jie, especially among the Twitteratis (SG #trend of the week?), you can personally check out his blog and see what’s the buzz is about. Its a good read and what I love most is Dr Cai does not go on ranting or lamenting on his predicament. That was kept only to the first post. Everything else written is about his daily encounters and conversations with customers from behind his trusty wheels, captured with his brand of perspectives. I like that.

Social media works, doesn’t it?

A blogging taxi driver. Now that’s a purple cow. Other than the remarkable fact that he has a PHD and was a Principal Investigator in a government lab for 16 years before getting retrenched, blogging got his story out into the open. In this economic climate, there are probably thousands of other folks in the same quandary as Dr Cai. But blogging gave him an edge, a story to tell. Perhaps, he may even score a job out of this spot in the limelight. Time will tell as we peel our ears to hear more from Dr Cai.

Its tough.

If you continue reading Dr Cai’s posts, you will know that taxi driving isn’t exactly a walk in the park. People have pre-conceived ideas about taxi drivers, especially in Singapore. They place a stereotypical social profile on them. Even though there are many angels among them, a taxi driver’s profile isn’t very flattering. Furthermore, making a living is tough. There are many competitors, including an increasingly affluent society with too many cars and, of course, our “world class” public transport in Singapore. Which got me thinking, how then can Dr Cai and his fellow taxi drivers get an edge in a “social-media inflected” world? How can Dr Cai and the likes of him (the nice, honest guy kind) differentiate themselves from the competition and leverage on the Web 2.0 economy? As much as we would like to help him out directly, the odds of flagging him down the next time you need a cab is pretty slim.

So let’s step back a moment and discuss Dr Cai’s story in a different context. Here’s something I am passionate about. My pet agenda, as a life-long customer advocate, customer service as a social media/marketing strategy. Plus a ‘one-tiered’ social conversations strategy I thought out to get the ball rolling.

The Social Economy is Here

Many have discussed using conversations with your customers as a long-term strategy to get customers interested and loyal, but how exactly would it work in a profession such as taxi driving? The touch on customers is always fleeting, you may leave a great impression but repeat customers are few and rare (unless you’re in the business of chartering). Its always the next customer down the road that fills your coffer.

How then can a taxi company get an edge in an increasingly social world? How DO they differentiate themselves and help their driving employees, honest folks like Dr Cai? Or do they still cling on to “nah, we are an old school business, we will be okay! People will always need cabs!”  Now, simply ignoring the changes in how business is being done these days or that your customers are talking about you will only hurt you in the long run. Imagine a one-time negative buzz gone berserk, not unlike United Breaks Guitars or the Whole Foods Facebook boycott, your taxi company may never recover. And believe me your customers ARE talking.

Ponder this:

Have we ever discussed this in our commuting: “Oh, Comfort Cab has better customer service!” or “Stay away from that company’s cabs, they have uncouth drivers”. No, we do not differentiate our choice of cabby, its almost always the next one empty (most times anyway, and even if we do, its usually something trivial like “oh i want that newer cab!”)

But someday this kind of talk will happen. And taxi co. executives should take heed and take advantage now.

So how can our taxi companies differentiate themselves and their brand? How to engage? What is this ‘one-tiered’ strategy?

Simply, make customer service your marketing-social media strategy! Leverage on the hundreds of your employees out there who are serving your customers every single day. Teach them to interact with Your Customers in a ‘socially-savvy’ way. But forget the social media tools (for now at least, it is really hard to envision anyone joining your Facebook page, the groundbuzz has to come first).

In reality, you have only one engagement opportunity per customer. Unlike a social media strategy in retail or B2B, your taxi drivers are probably not going to meet the same customers over and over again and build great relationships off that. So its a one-bullet, one-kill operation.

How to do this and how to start?

Be different. Don’t stop at half-day sessions to extol the virtues of good customer service to your drivers. Have a Public Relations specialist speak to them on PR101, let them understand the power of public perception, see the big picture. Importantly, tell them about the power of the internet, how easy it is for their customers to post a complain or highlight a bad experience online.

Definitely keep a close tab on recruitment and training, you will need the right kind of workforce. I am sorry if I offend the many folks who depend on taxi driving for a living, but the reality is not all of you are suited for the job. You are not doing any favour for your company or your colleagues by sticking around.

Also remember that Customer Service is not through a Toll-Free number. It should not get that far.

And on the road…

Start with a simple greeting. Many a times drivers don’t even bother asking where we are going. Initiate niceness.

Conversations matter. I know this is a 50/50. Some customers hate being in conversations with taxi drivers. Drivers need to learn to step back if a customer doesn’t wish to chat.  But if customers really want to chat, use that permission to impress with good conversation skills! Teach the drivers on the hows to manage conversations and also to listen. Sometimes customers wish to share too.

“Brand-Drop” When is the last time you heard any cabby promoting their company’s brand? Hardly. Which company did the last cab you took belong to? Dunno. So train your drivers to talk “brand”, subtly of course.

Now this is the good creamy topping!

There are actually two types of conversations, offline and online. But if you do the offline well, you can be sure the online conversations will take care of itself. And best of all, all these for free! Social media will work for you, for next to nothing.

When everyone in your team plays a part to be the brand ambassador or the customer advocate, the collective effect is pronounced. Zappos is always a good example for me. A very apt local Singaporean example is Botak Jones. So by virtue of making good impressions through customer service everywhere, your brand will be memorable. And memorable brands get talked about very much, online.

Soon enough you will watch your brand grow online, as long as the conversation is good and worth sharing.

Maybe next time we will talk about how to leverage on these online conversations.

What will you get out of this?

Brand differentiation and social media wins through excellent customer service.  And a definite edge in the new social economy.

Will this work? I think it will work like a dream. Perhaps you think otherwise? Please share below :)