25th April 2012

Over a quarter of the interactions currently being handled by UK contact centres are either unnecessary or avoidable according to new research.
The research also highlights that the cost of supporting these distracting interactions for a typical UK contact centre can account for around £6.75 million annually.
The research by Sabio and the Customer Contact Association (CCA) found that – on average – 27 percent of contacts received are increasingly seen as unnecessary, with some companies reporting the situation as much worse, with as many as 40 percent of contacts proving unnecessary or wasted. According to the survey, the most common categories of these calls were:
“While cost benefits are clearly uppermost in the minds of the many contact centre directors who make up our membership, this research project with Sabio has shown that the desire to improve customer service is also a key motivator for organisations in challenging demand,” commented Anne Marie Forsyth, the Customer Contact Association’s Chief Executive. “Initiatives such as challenging demand increasingly show that customer satisfaction and cost reduction aren’t mutually exclusive objectives. For example, for organisations looking to improve customer effort scores, it makes perfect sense to spend time driving out the unnecessary repeat calls or poorly designed services that can frustrate customers and reduce repeat business.”

Kenneth Hitchen
“While today’s ‘austerity’ economy is driving intense pressure on costs, it’s great to see a clear majority of CCA members choosing not to pursue the easy option of simply removing live service from lower value contacts, and instead putting in the time to really challenge demand,” added Sabio Founding Director, Kenneth Hitchen. “This research illustrates how actively identifying and encouraging the right kind of interactions – while executing strategies to remove the need for other interaction types – can also unlock significant improvements in both the customer experience offered as well as lowering overall operational costs.”