Michael Willner

Go Wide, With A Problem
November 15, 2006

We've been having a recurring debate lately. It started back in May, when we were hurriedly forced to migrate the backbone of our Internet service from an outside provider to our own network. We tried to do 120 days' worth of work in 60.  

It didn't go well.

For several weeks, many of our customers experienced slow, spotty connections and unreliable e-mail delivery. We knew that some customers did not experience problems; we simply didn't know who they were or how many.

We quickly did some market research and learned that one-third of our customers did not perceive that they had any issues, one-third perceived a series of small problems and one-third perceived a significant set of problems. 

With that information, we were confronted with that classic public-relations question: "What should we say?"

Over the next couple of days, we debated whether we should attempt to confine our comments to those who tell us they're having a problem, or should we go "wide?" 

A very compelling argument was not to go wide because many customers did not have a problem (or didn't know they did). We could deal with the others as they identified themselves. The other side of the discussion was to admit the problem, express empathy and assure customers that we were doing everything possible to fix it.

After very spirited debate, we chose to go wide. Very wide. I, as CEO, was elected to go to one of our call centers the very next day and tape four TV spots telling everyone what was happening and taking full responsibility. The spots aired on most cable networks and were posted on our Web site. 

I also went to several local newspapers, which were particularly tough on us, and discussed the issue with their editorial boards. When they learned more about the situation and how much we were doing about it, they lightened up on us. We opened up a communication for customers to get updates online. I posted my e-mail address for all customers to have and responded to hundreds of e-mails and hundreds more phone calls personally.

When the issues dragged on for several weeks, we wondered if we had exposed ourselves to additional unnecessary criticism by going wide. 

Sure, we had a few people ask for credit even though they didn't subscribe to our broadband service, but, over time, we began to notice that most of our customers really appreciated the honesty. Indeed, we lost very few customers as a result of these problems despite a few sleazy ad campaigns by a couple of our competitors. At the end of the day, we weathered the storm. 

There is no doubt in my mind that we are a stronger company today. We saw firsthand how proactive communications with our customers builds loyalty. And we're applying the principle to everything we do now. 

The cable industry does not have a stellar history when it comes to proactive communications with customers. I am as guilty as anyone when I think of how we handled public relations in the past. 

We tended to tailor our communications to doing the "least damage" when perhaps it should be based on the "most effective" communication instead. Today, I'm on a mission within my company to rethink our historical practice of telling things on a limited need-to-know basis. Instead, I've been challenging our people to keep our customers as fully informed about their service as we possibly can. 

The vast majority appreciate being informed, even if the news isn't always good. We have found that most will not hold it against you and won't try to take advantage. 

We've stopped solving for the minuscule minority who will give us a hard time. Instead, we're solving for the 99% who won't.

Posted by Michael Willner on November 15, 2006 | Comments (9)