The debate tends to be kind of silly really. Companies everywhere are wrestling with their customers (figuratively, not WWE) and the CRM industry is arguing over the "differences between CRM and CEM" - is it a separate set, a subset (note I leave what "it" is out of the picture because I've seen the set/subset go either way), a superset, or a set-to or a settee or a settlement or a (HDTV) set, or a subset of a superset of a set?
Who gives a crap?
Not moi.
There are some things that we know.
- The customer is at the center of the business ecosystem
- The customer provides the value to the company - both strategic and tactical.
- We are in the midst of a dramatic transformation in what the customer is expecting of a business
- The youngest generations now spend more time online than watching TV (that's the Millenials, a.k.a. Gen Y) and are the generation fastest adopting technology in our history.
- The business logic that governs contemporary business doesn't work when it comes to the Generation Cers (see my "5Ps - Product, Price, Promotion & Pffft" entry a few days back) and that means its time to change the business logic.
You can call it CRM, CEM whatever but it has to be changed and the customer strategies have to be different than they have ever been, regardless of what industry you're in.
Okay, Now That THAT'S Off My Chest
Even though I know the debate is specious, there is an immutable fact. There actually are two business models out there that, while related, are NOT the same. That is one that is devoted to CRM and the other that is devoted to CEM. The former tends to be the process and technology guys and even some of the change management dudes and dudesses. The latter are designers and implementers focused around an emotional customer experience that is "managed" by the company i.e. created by the company and sold as a commodity along with products and services. Think Disney here.
There is also, particularly on the CRM side of the house (which is typically, though not always, the left side), an "old school", "new school" dichotomy that has fractured the CRM community to some extent and has led to the debate that I mock above. Its divided over how CRM has changed over the years. Its gone from a technology to a process driven system to a all encompassing customer strategy. The issues that divide the world of CRM are around how to execute the strategy and what a customer strategy is currently. For example, here are three definitions of CRM from CRM guru-types or publications that have reason to comment on CRM (not necessarily associated with CRMGuru)
"Customer Relationship Management) An integrated information system that is used to plan, schedule and control the presales and postsales activities in an organization. CRM embraces all aspects of dealing with prospects and customers, including the call center, sales force, marketing, technical support and field service. The primary goal of CRM is to improve long-term growth and profitability through a better understanding of customer behavior. CRM aims to provide more effective feedback and improved integration to better gauge the return on investment (ROI) in these areas." (PC Magazine Encyclopedia)
"We define CRM as the alignment of business strategy, organization structure and culture, and customer information and technology so that all customer interactions can be conducted to the long-term satisfaction of the customer and to the benefit and profit of the organization." (Claudia Imhoff, Jon Geiger, Lisa Loftis, Building the Customer Centric Enterprise, 2001)
"Customer relationship management is the implementation of customer-centric business strategies; which drives redesigning of functional activities; which demands re-engineering of work processes; which is supported, not driven, by CRM technology. I use this definition because it reinforces the understanding that CRM is a 'chain reaction' triggered by new strategic initiatives rather than something you can initiate at the work process, or worse yet, technology level." (Dick Lee, noted CRM author and consultant, CRMGuru Board of Advisors)
"CRM is a philosophy and a business strategy, supported by a system & a technology, designed to improve human interactions in a business environment." (Paul Greenberg, author of CRM at the Speed of Light, noted raconteur of fine wines & spirits, and most of all, me)
"Customer relationship management is a corporate level strategy, focusing on creating and maintaining relationships with customers. Several commercial CRM software packages are available which vary in their approach to CRM. However, CRM is not a technology itself, but rather a holistic approach to an organisation's philosophy, placing the emphasis firmly on the customer." (Wikipedia)
The thing about Wikipedia's definition is that, when you read what's written, its very "old school" emphasizing the META Group's defintion of the components of CRM as operational, analytical, collaborative - which were good for the late 90s but way out of date. They cite the definition as Gartner Group's which is wrong, if someone wants to go in and change it.
Isn't It Ironic, Dontcha Think?
Just an FYI to start - I HATE Alanis Morrisette's stuff, so forgive me for I know not what I do with that headline.
What I do find ironic - as opposed to a black fly in a chardonnay which I find contrasting but not ironic, is that I don't find the debate over what CRM is in the CEM community at all., There doesn't seem to be anything but a kind of patina of contempt for CRMers, which is a shame since both sides have a lot to offer.
I found some references to CEM versus CRM in various ways. Adam Renshaw, a co-founder of Genroe, a self-styled "customer experience consulting" firm, calls CEM the "poor cousin" of CRM, though in a mildly disparaging way for CRM. Says for every one search for CEM on Google, there are 90 on CRM. There are others, but the CEM world is less obsessed with figuring out its place in CRM than the CRM world is in the opposite direction.
Bridge Over Confused Waters
What is apparent is that a bridge between the two communities needs to exist - regardless of definition. This means the two self-defined camps that we're dealing with. It's what I, YEARS ago, called the left-brained, right-brained dichotomy that existed in CRM. I called for a "whole-brained" CRM that is fundamentallly the CRM/CEM mashup we're all apparently debating now.
Interestingly, there are some attempts to bridge the gap. One of my personal favorite CRM blogs, CRMChump (best name for a CRM blog, hands down) has been running a series on CEM that is quite good. (Go HERE and HERE and HERE for the articles so far) The chump (his name for himself - he's anything but...) is drawing parallels and identifying differences between CRM and CEM and most of them are appropriate though I don't think they're that different.
Problem is that the vendors are barely visible in trying to transform the landscape and create that bridge though its in their direct interest to do so. The verbiage from Right Now is good on that front so far, though I don't see the changes in their approach or the interaction with the "CE" community particularly. But I applaud them for at least refocusing their marketing efforts.
Sampson Lee, a dear friend who runs Greater China CRM has refocused his consulting practice on CEM and he is not only redoing the marketing but also has substantial content build around a CRM/CEM bridge. He is leading the effort for the integration of CRM/CEM in Asia actually, though not as his direct focus, but as a result of his re-engineering.
In the states, BPT Partners, the training/consulting/content delivery company that I co-own with Bruce Culbert is leading the way, if I do say so myself. Our training is focused around customer value as the core of anyone's business value proposition and we espouse customer strategies that combine the elements of CRM/CEM into a whole-brained overall strategy - designed with the 21st century ecosystem in mind. I'm always a little uncomfortable pushing my own ventures but this is what it is, so no apologies, okay?
Graham Hill, who is a principal at Sophron Partners in the U.K., is also seriously concerned with figuring out how to bridge the gap, though being U.K.he might be minding the gap (bad joke for all you U.K doyens out there)
Otherwise, I don't see a lot of bridging the gap going on out there. Lots of chatter, lots of verbiage, a little bit of hype, no soul and little effort.
Its time to get on the stick and start doing something. Neither community can do the good possible without the participation of the other.
The Declaration of 2007
To that end, I'm working on something with a colleague and dear, dear friend, Mei Lin Fung (check out her blog here) that will kick the collaboration into gear and hopefully provide the beginnings of a service that will benefit the proponents - both practitioners and vendors - of the experience economy. It will be based in Singapore, which has taken a responsibility as a leading country in both Asia and potentially globally for figuring out how to carry out a national effort to "improve the customer experience" for every citizen and every visitor to the country with their 2005 National Service Excellence Initiative. I won't outline the details yet, but it involves something that will allow us to create a set of measures for the experience economy that just don't exist yet and will involve some serious players from CRM and CEM in the academic world, thought leadership circles, practitioner and vendor worlds.
Stay Tuned. 2007 is looking really good for bridge building.
I was reading CRMguru.com article you featured today on how to “Turn Your Customers Into Advocates”. That is one of the best articles I have read this quarter. Really put things into perspective for me. Great blog too. Looking forward to reading more from you.
Rach in Washington state :)
Posted by: Rachel | October 23, 2006 at 11:24 PM