Top Menu

Buzzword Battle: Omni vs. Multi-Channel

Buzzword Battle: Omni vs. Multi-Channel

There is a new buzzword battle in the contact center market. The defender is the term “multi-channel” and the contender is “omni-channel.” While it’s tempting to let Webster end this debate, buzzwords and phrases are not subject to the rules of language, and therefore anything goes, and the market gets to make the choice.
In the last two months, I have been interviewed on the benefits of omni-channel contact centers vs. multi-channel contact centers, have been corrected by vendors when I used the “outdated” term multi-channel, and have been laughed at when I suggested that other vendors are more comfortable using omni rather than multi-channel. While this inconsistency is laughable – even if it causes vendors to spend thousands of dollars to change their marketing materials and website content – the underlying reason for the desire to move away from the term “multi-channel” is a serious matter.
The History of Multi-Channel Contact Centers
I went to Gartner 17 years ago to cover two emerging trends: Web self-service and multi-channel contact centers, as well as other established areas. As someone who had spent the prior 14 years in financial services, I saw the great potential of Web self-service solutions and multi-channel servicing environments. As is often the case with new technologies, the adoption curve was much slower than anticipated by the vendors. In the case of Web self-service, the market and consumers around the world experienced the pain of the early generation of these environments. While there is still great opportunity for improvement, companies have been steadily making investments in their websites, though it has taken too long to realize that customer service should be an essential element in every step and screen.
As bad as the investment picture was for Web self-service, it was much worse for multi-channel environments. Investment dollars, already limited in the late 1990’s, become almost non-existent for customer service and contact centers in 2000, due to the technology recession. The mantras of “if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it” and “doing more with less” became the standard for these departments around the world. At the same time, new servicing channels were becoming popular among consumers, who expect companies to support them in their channel of choice, which hardly ever happened then and is still rare now. Email came on strong in the late 1990s although most organizations either didn’t bother to respond or waited too long to get back to customers. Chat arrived on the scene a few years later, followed by SMS. And social customer care is still being ignored or mishandled by all but a few organizations, even while the volume of these interactions is growing at warp speed.
Slow adoption of multi-channel servicing was exacerbated by the lack of integration between servicing applications. The more innovative companies who were willing to spend money on their service organizations added new channels. But even they missed the importance (or were not willing to make the investment) to create a frictionless customer experience, and instead established silo’ed groups to handle each one. So, all too often, if a customer first sent an email and then called, the phone agent had no knowledge or way to find out what happened in the alternative channel, forcing the customer to start over every time they reached out in a different mode of communication. The US continues to lag behind Europe, particularly Scandinavia, in adoption of servicing channels, but the lack of a fully integrated servicing environment remains a major issue around the world.
Though brief, this summary of the history of servicing channels points out that most companies have not invested properly in building multi-channel servicing environments, even though the technology has been available for years. This is where the omni-channel concept comes in.
Does a Name Make a Difference?
When pushed, vendors explain that the difference between multi-channel and omni-channel is that the former is a failed concept and the latter is an unsullied one with great potential. In the world of “buzz,” the words “multi” and “omni” are virtually interchangeable. What’s different and worthy of attention is the growing emphasis being placed on building effective omni-channel contact centers to deliver an outstanding and consistent customer journey throughout all channels. If changing a word can get companies to invest in improving their servicing environments, then count me in the “omni” camp.

DMG IN THE NEWS

5/1/2014
WFM Growth Brings Choices and Challenges
(destinationCRM)

5/1/2014
Use Desktop Analytics to Improve Your Servicing Environment
(destinationCRM)

Ask the Experts

Question:

We need to replace our on-site PBX and are thinking about moving to a cloud-based PBX solution. What are the pros and cons of using a cloud-based IP-PBX?
Answer:
A cloud-based Internet Protocol-Private Branch Exchange (IP-PBX) is a PBX that is based in someone else’s data center. Your organization will not have to deploy or maintain the hardware or software. Nor will you be responsible for upgrading the solution or installing patches or fixes, when there is a need. As with any cloud-versus-premise decision, you should analyze your business and technical requirements to determine which type of solution would be the most beneficial to your organization. Below are key pros and cons of a cloud-based IP-PBX implementation to consider when performing your analysis:
Cloud-Based IP-PBX
Pros Cons
Reduced capital expenditure Voice quality and connectivity are directly related to the quality of your MPLS or Internet connection
Cloud-based vendor responsible for upgrades and maintenance of IP-PBX Phone service is dependent on network connectivity; loss of the network will cause an outage for the phone service
Simplified moves, adds and changes (MACs) Cloud-based vendor has control over the platform and may not be able or willing to make specific changes and/or add features as quickly as you could with a premise-based solution
Improved business continuity and disaster recovery by having the cloud-based PBX deployed in multiple high-availability data centers; this eliminates any single point of failure Early cancellation fee could be imposed if you decide to terminate the service before your initial contract ends
Simplified support for mobile and at-home employees Potentially higher ongoing service provider costs
Single-locale numbering plan for all employees, regardless of location Cloud-based vendor may not be able to precisely match your business and technical requirements

DMG Consulting LLC is a leading independent research, advisory and consulting firm specializing in unified communications, contact centers, back-office and real-time analytics. Learn more at www.dmgconsult.com.