The good, the bad and the ugly: Thames Water

If there’s one thing that makes my blood boil – It’s seeing a company get away with providing repeatedly poor service and get away with it. No apparent sanction. No sense of guilt.

Yes, Thames Water – I am talking about you. What makes my anger even worse is an ownership structure which appears to point that the only people are suffering here are the customers. An absence of clarity is rarely an accident. I suspect it’s a lack of genuine care about those who pay them yet have to bear the brunt of their sheer incompetence!

What you might find strange is my anger is not because I am one of the Thames Water victims. I am actually an untroubled customer of Thames Water, without any major interruptions to my water supply in the four decades I have lived in South London. I have been a long-time advocate for great customer experience and when I see companies that so flagrantly disregard it – I speak up. The experiences written in this article should not be happening in 2017.

Let me tell you about the experience of David Wertheim as reported recently in the FT. David is the owner of an impressive Islington antiques shop and possesses a large and expensive collection of Japanese art built up over almost 40 years. Early one morning last December a cast-iron pipe burst and David arrived to find cabinets holding hundreds of thousands of pounds of unique and precious paintings and prints submerged in flood water. Completely ruined.

The shop is now back open, but water ingress is still very evident and he is very worried it will happen again. You could class this as simply bad luck – except in David Wertheim’s case it was not the first or indeed the second or the third. It’s the seventh – yes, the seven in seven years.

Not an isolated incident

Thames Water’s maintenance record suggests bad luck could happen to any of their London customers, since there were 31 serious bursts including eight high-profile floods in just two months at the end of 2016 according to an internal report that has now been made public. Thames Water’s record is simply the worst out of all of UK’s water companies.

Steve Robertson, the new Chief Executive Officer claimed that customer experience is a critical element of the company’s strategy and he has spent a significant amount of time meeting both customers and employees. Interestingly, given the turn of events you would expect David Wertheim would have been one of them. He was not.

I state again – Thames Water’s record is simply the worst out of all of UK’s water companies!

Do they have enough money?

Valid question. They made just over 2 billion GBP in revenue and an operating profit running at almost 30%. So, the answer is clearly yes.

Thames Water also proudly announced they spent 1 billion GBP on maintaining their pipes but that has worked out exactly the same amount as the average per year for the previous 12 years.

So, let’s get it straight: we have a water company posting healthy profit returns yet it is investing less in real terms per year than ever and posting the worst track record.

In for the long haul

Arguably, Thames Water has the most challenging area to look after given London’s extensive and ageing water and sewerage system. That doesn’t excuse a maintenance and replacement schedule that is running behind schedule – so far behind, in fact, that some estimates suggest it will take 357 years to renew the network if continued at the current rate.

What makes this frustrating is that the ownership of Thames Water seems about as murky as some of the water it processes, which makes accountability hard to pinpoint. Sure, we have a regulator but following criticism by the FT – again, are they the only people bothered by this? – OFWAT’s response reads as too little, too late and less than equal to the challenge.

Hopefully the residents of Islington won’t be troubled by repeated floods any longer as there are diversions around extensive repair works in Upper Street, although when I spoke to David Wertheim – still in discussion with Thames Water about compensation – he didn’t think it would fix his recurring problem.

I drove past the works the other day: a sign on the hoardings said, ‘come and chat to us about what we’re doing’. I guess if you’ve got 357 years to replace the pipes, a few minutes out to chat to the customers isn’t going to make much difference, but frankly I’d be happier if Thames Water’s long-term commitment to its customers went considerably beyond a bit of customer handling on the front line.

 

Universal Credit: customer experience without compassion

BBC Radio 4’s ‘Money Box’ isn’t often where you go for a scoop with political ramifications but today’s announcement by the programme that families on Universal Credit will miss out on payments over the festive period adds some excitement to what’s often a ‘worthy but dull’ feature in the Saturday schedule.

Leaving aside the politics for a bit, this is a story about service design that’s anything but customer-centric.

And if you’re on a low income, it sucks.

Continue reading

image of an airliner landing

Ryanair has a customer-centric approach, but it’s not what you think

I recently co-wrote a report on customer-centric strategy for NextTen that included Ryanair as a (positive) case study. The recent problems with pilot scheduling might cause me to make a hasty edit – but I think not: Ryanair is thoroughly customer-focused, but their low-cost approach illustrates the challenges of maintaining such a strategy when things go wrong. In fact, pursuing this strategy appears to be more likely to cause these problems.

Boo-boo

Ryanair reported record earnings earlier this year, attributing this uptick to a  increased focus on customer experience. However, what was described by CEO Michael O’Leary as a ‘boo-boo’ (may not have been his exact words) on pilot schedules caused the cancellation of 2,000 flights and has unleashed a storm of criticism from customers, staff and commentators.

So, what’s gone wrong? Leaving aside the technicalities of pilot rostering, the issue that’s surfaced shows that, when your customer proposition is low-cost, you walk a tightrope between delivering against that proposition and driving the model too hard with no slack for when cock-ups happen. Ryanair’s been an acknowledged leader in driving down costs in an industry where being perceived by your customers as lowest cost represents an enviable position to occupy. O’Leary’s acknowledged that their crew costs are about €5 per passenger (versus an alleged €9 by Easyjet) and this gives little room for manoeuvre when you ask your pilots to go the extra mile and forgo some leave, even when there is a financial reward. Ryanair is raising pilot pay in some centres, but whether this is enough to stop the defection to other airlines remains to be seen.

Hello schadenfreude

For those who like to indulge in schadenfreude, the travails of Ryanair are a boon, and rivals such as Lufthansa have lost no time in capitalising on their misfortune. Meanwhile it’s provided the humorous end of the commentariat with another opportunity to sneer and roll out the old jokes about Ryanair’s destination airports’ distance from the actual destination, surly staff and so on. But none of this is likely to matter in the long term: Ryanair will continue to have a reputation for low-cost travel and customers will continue to put up with some inconvenience in their search for a bargain.

That said, some of the customer experiences when their flights were cancelled were not a shining example of customer care. I heard many accounts in the media of long-planned special trips that were not happening and, whilst Ryanair are offering standard compensation, this will probably not be sufficient for those whose desired outcome was more than ‘get me from A to B for least cost’.

Maintaining a laser-like focus on its core, low-cost customer proposition is what Ryanair does very well and if that focus has blurred a little in recent weeks with a consequent impact on share price, it’s unlikely to dent their performance in the long term. I see no need to change my view that Ryanair remains thoroughly customer-centric.

“Customer Experience Day? That means eff-all to me!”

Did you have a good CX Day? You didn’t realise it was happening? Strange! I thought it was up there with Pancake Day, Mothers’ Day, Fathers’ Day and the Eurovision Song Contest as a red-letter day in anyone’s calendar. Well, maybe I’m exaggerating a touch, but the reaction – quoted verbatim above – when I mentioned to someone that it was, indeed, Customer Experience Day proved to me not that there had been a failure of publicity, but that the day itself possibly didn’t have much point if you’re not a CX specialist. Which made me realise that we can get far too obsessed with customer experience itself and lose the point of why it’s important.

Continue reading

Ryanair has a customer-centric approach, but it’s not what you think

I recently co-wrote a report on customer-centric strategy for NextTen – more on that later – that included Ryanair as a (positive) case study. The recent problems with pilot scheduling might cause me to make a hasty edit – but I think not: Ryanair is thoroughly customer-focused, but their low-cost approach illustrates the challenges of maintaining such a strategy when things go wrong. In fact, pursuing this strategy appears to be more likely to cause these problems.

Continue reading

Shaving is boring? Not when you’re customer-obsessive

Photo by Christoffer Engström on Unsplash

The avid reader of these posts (and whoever you are, you’re keeping a low profile) may have noticed the odd, obscure music reference creeping in to the titles. I think this week I’ve found the most obscure one and you’ll have to read to the end to find out what it is. (Cheap trick, I know, but it’s slightly better than calling this post Five Reasons Why Shaving Is Not Boring.)

Tales from the sharp end #3

Continue reading

Do you want friction with that? The limits of ‘frictionless’ experience

Following my earlier post on my experience with BT replacing my WiFi router (all gone well, the new router appears to be an improvement) I came across an interesting article from InnovationBubble on whether a frictionless service means a meaningless service and a less valuable relationship as a result.

To avoid wasting money investing in a frictionless service it’s worth understanding what it is your customers want – or more precisely, what outcome they are trying to achieve.

Continue reading

When great service is good enough – but could be even better

I’ve just had a great service experience with BT and now that more than 10 years have passed since I was responsible for their customer service strategy, I’m not blowing my own trumpet to praise them. It made me realise that when you get a great service it’s sometimes unremarkable. In this case, having a better understanding of customer outcomes could have moved it from great to outstanding.

Continue reading