AUTO TRADING

Automated call handling appears to be suffering a backlash. But it could be argued that the criticism of computerised systems is coming from live-service telemarketing agencies.

James Hoseason, a director of Hoseasons Holidays, has very definite views on whether live operators or automated systems are better for handling inbound phone calls.

“We’ve found that conversion of brochure enquiries to actual sales is better with live operators by at least 40 per cent,” he says.

“We operate in an extremely competitive market, with very little perceived difference between product and price. The only way we can create that perceived difference is through our service and by going to extreme lengths to satisfy customer demands. We’re in the relationship marketing business – and consumers find it very difficult to have a relationship with a machine. With a live operator, you can begin to create the relationship before they’ve even seen your brochure,” he observes.

Hoseason, however, has a vested interest in the matter: Hoseasons Holidays is not only a user of telemarketing services – it is also a provider of predominantly live services, through its subsidiary Hoseasons Marketing Services. And as one of its rivals comments: “He would say that, wouldn’t he?”

Not everyone agrees there is a backlash to automated call handling. Robert Dirskovski, sales and promotions manager at Broadsystems, says he sees no problem with automated call handling. But then he has as much of a vested interest as Hoseason, if not more: Broadsystems is one of the country’s biggest providers of automated call handling systems.

Dirskovski argues: “The two are not in contention – they serve completely different purposes. We wouldn’t suggest that a client with a complicated financial services package uses automated systems. On the other hand, a client with a large DRTV campaign involving simple data capture shouldn’t use live operators – automated would work best for them.”

He also dismisses suggestions that the public has any problems dealing with automated systems. Broadsystems handles 50 million calls a year and, says Dirskovski, “we’d be a bit alarmed if we had more than a two per cent failure rate”. By failure rate he means those who hang up once connected to an automated system. A failure rate of two per cent means Broadsystems loses one million calls a year. Dirskovski, however, is happy with what he considers a low rate of hang- ups. “The majority of people are quite happy to deal with automated systems.” he says.

He further argues that, automated systems are cheaper, offer far greater capacity than live operators, and will operate 24 hours a day.

Not all agencies which offer live call handling appear to be concerned about the threat of automated systems, however. David Plank, new business director of Merit Direct, says: “This may sound contradictory coming from the biggest inbound agency in the UK, but I don’t think automated systems are a bad thing at all.”

He does believe, however, that there has been a backlash against automated systems. He says: “A lot of people, especially older consumers, don’t like automated systems. They particularly don’t like menu systems which require you to hit various keys on your phone. A lot of consumers get put off and hang up – and they don’t call again. Or people get nervous, and they garble their messages.”

It is this point which a number of telemarketers say poses a real problem for automated systems. If consumers are being asked to leave their names and addresses, then someone – an audio typist for example – has to listen to the tapes and input the information onto a computer database. Then it is all too easy for mistakes to be made which could have been avoided with a live operator.

Tony Moss, new business director of telemarketing consultancy Interactive Media Services, suggests that there is no need for conflict within the telemarketing industry.

He says: “There is room within the telemarketing arena for both live and automated bureaux. The consumer’s levels of expectation should determine which you use. For example, if they’re requesting a holiday brochure, then all you need is their name and address and you should use automated. If you’re discussing motor insurance, then it should be a live operator. It’s up to the telemarketer to advise the client on which approach should be used. This is why it’s important that we are brought in early in the campaign planning process.”

Moss also points out that automated systems can offer creative opportunities to advertisers which live handling may not be able to. For example, an automated system can have instructions recorded by the same actor who features in the television advertising, so extending the branding opportunities.

Plank also agrees that live and automated call handling systems serve different needs. He suggests that those companies which are simply “playing the numbers game”, such as some of the major holiday companies, have to send out as many brochures as they can as quickly as possible. “That’s a fact of life and

I wouldn’t argue against it.” Such companies are obviously going to be more likely to use automated systems.

Another example he cites is the Britvic Apple Tango Helpline, where consumers were invited to phone in and give their personal experiences of the “Apple Tango Seduction”. This was always going to generate such a high level of calls that only automated systems could possibly cope.

However, Plank adds, some companies are less interested in number crunching and more interested in the quality of the customer prospect. These will find live operators better for their purposes – an observation which is supported by James Hoseason’s findings.

Plank says: “When you’re in a ‘me-too’ market, the only way to differentiate is through the service you provide. And you can make or lose a sale in the first 30 seconds of a call.”

He adds: “If you’re Volvo, and you’re running the ‘Twister’ or ‘Control Freak’ ads, then it should be a live operator at the other end of the line. Because as a consumer looking to spend about 20,000 on what is the second biggest purchase you’ll ever make, you expect a certain level of service.”

And many telemarketers believe there are big opportunities for bringing live and automated systems together. Indeed, several agencies which offer live call handling use automated systems to deal with calls which come after business hours, or to take overflow calls.

Plank says calls must always be answered and never receive the engaged tone. If that happens, then it is unlikely the consumer will bother to ring again. There has to be some response.

This means that automated systems have a role to play even when calls are meant to be dealt

with by live operators. When all operators are busy, then a simple voice message saying: “Sorry, all our operators are busy. Please call on our freephone number, or leave your name and number and we’ll call you back”, can increase response conversion rates, Plank suggests.

He adds: “There are wonderful opportunities for a marriage between the two.”

Moss agrees and says: “The more sophisticated users of DRTV understand that it is possible to offer a combination of live and automated bureaux, although automated bureaux do more often than not have a larger capacity than operator systems, so removing the restrictions on the type of airtime which can realistically be bought.”

That means the real question should not be which of the two services is better but which of the three – live, automated or both.

Which in turn suggests integrating the telemarketing with the campaign planning from the beginning, because telemarketers can provide vital information on factors which affect response rates.

For example, Plank says: “The weather directly affects the number of calls you get. If it’s snowing, you will get twice as many calls because people are at home to see the ads. Or if the midweek football is on – all of a sudden, your traffic is doubled.”