Читать книгу A Customer-oriented Manager for B2B Services - Valerie Mathieu - Страница 24

Marketing and customer orientation are not seen as an expense but as an investment that needs to be skillfully managed by finding the right long-term balance between customer satisfaction and profitability for the company. If it is quite simple to satisfy the customer as it is also quite simple to reach a given level of profitability, the difficulty lies in maintaining the balance between satisfaction and profit. Some people will want to allow the occasional and exceptional “sales opportunity” that offers the company a much higher profitability than customer satisfaction. But this imbalance cannot be maintained over time without running the risk of exposing oneself sooner or later to a competition that, either for the same level of profit, manages to offer the customer greater satisfaction, or for the same level of satisfaction, manages to lower the price with lower profitability. The opposite situation, where satisfaction is higher than profitability, is just as dangerous, since it is difficult to imagine the company maintaining its competitiveness over time with such an imbalance in its profitability.

When managers in B2B environments are asked about the percentage of business achieved at such a fine balance, they are often surprised by the proportion of those who acknowledge that they satisfy the customer more than the company. B2B seems to be much more characterized than B2C by an imbalance between satisfaction and profit in favor of the former. The duration of the relationship, the proximity with the customer, the passion for the job and the technical challenge can explain a lesser vigilance of managers on this balance. By wanting to please the customer, the employee often pleases himself/herself first. In this proximity to the customer, which is the basis of customer orientation, saying no to the customer is often difficult.

However, there are several reasons why a manager might say no to a client:

 – financial and economic reasons: in order to achieve what the client requests, it would be necessary to commit resources (financial, technical, human, time, etc.) that would be too great in relation to the expected return;

 – technical reasons: the provider is not sure to be able to bring the expected result to the customer;

 – safety reasons: what the client asks for carries a risk both for his/her own employees and for the service provider;

 – image reasons: what the customer asks for can damage the reputation of the provider.

However, we must distinguish between over-quality and customer delight, because while we must guard against the former, the latter is inherent to customer orientation. The notion of delight appears in the field of marketing through the notions of customer satisfaction and experience.

Customer delight, considered as a positive emotional reaction (Oliver et al. 1997), consists of surprising the customer, in going beyond his/her expectations (see Table 1.1 for illustrations of these differences between over-quality and enchantment).

Table 1.1. Over-quality and customer delight

Over-quality

Enchantment

– A superior performance that the provider brings compared to what is expected by the client or what was agreed upon.– The customer does not always perceive this superior performance.– This performance has no real value for the customer.– The customer is not willing to pay for this performance.– The extra performance does not lead to increased customer satisfaction.– But it can mean an additional cost to the provider (direct or indirect, visible or hidden costs).– Example: cleaning an additional space that was not foreseen in the contract.

– An additional value that the provider brings to its client that is not expected or asked for.– The customer clearly perceives this additional value.– This additional value brings the customer an additional benefit.– The customer might be willing to pay to benefit from this value.– Customer satisfaction is positively (and strongly) impacted.– It may involve additional cost for the provider, but it is a profitable investment.– Example: cleaning a site at the end of an intervention.

This issue of the balance between satisfaction and profit questions the relationship between the service provider and its client more broadly. In complex cases and relationships where the financial and technical stakes are high, the question of the commitment of the service provider and also of the client arises. The service provider is not the only one involved in maintaining the balance between satisfaction and profitability. This balance will also depend on the client’s commitment to participate, to get involved in the long-term, to aim towards a partnership relationship. This will in turn justify for the service provider the investment in a relationship which, if it can be unbalanced at the beginning, because it requires taking a real risk, turning out to be more balanced in the long-term.