information, empower citizens to
understand how their data is being used,
and raise complaints where deemed in
breach, it is one thing to have regulation
and another to have customers feel that
a brand cares for them to the extent that
they will not manipulate or abuse them.
Digital platforms, those social in nature
more especially, in response imply that
where free services are meted, then the
customer should know that they are the
actual product that belong to the service
provider. This almost justifies the old age
adage that nothing in this world is truly
for free?
The critical question therefore to
adequately manage this situation, is to ask
if customer education is in place to ensure
customers are aware of the personal data
collection and its use. Beyond the fine
print in the terms and conditions that
customers world over never read, the next
question would be - are there mechanics
in place to ensure the customer actually
knows what they are getting themselves
into and the potential risks?
Even with these user regulations in place,
there are unwritten rules of ethics that
govern the world towards treating human
beings decently. Disclosure has become
the order of the day, with customer data
becoming a black market commodity
being sold to the highest bidder as
currency to wield power... Brands should
therefore – in their marketing and
Although KYC in its
original form was a risk
management strategy
initiated by the need for
businesses to verify cli-
ent identity and assess
potential risks of ille-
gal intentions for due
diligence purposes, it
has since taken a life of
its own and is the go to
core factor for under-
standing current and
potential customers.
22 MAL25/18 ISSUE
Recent happenings indicate though, that there is
need for brands to actively draw the line between
the much touted "KYC" initiatives and being
invasive. Customers who have customized mar-
keting material thrown at them online by brands,
and conversations directed to them that are high-
ly personalized, have not only indicated great
discomfort, but gone forward to describe these
as ‘creepy’.
customer experience excellence efforts -
seek to play higher up in the scale where
there is a gray area and there is a choice to
do what is right.
The other danger zone in the KYC
equation is the practice of stereotyping
customers. The more that is known
about customers, the more information
gathered, the more brands opt to box
them into specific classifications. Is
gathering customer data and placing in
them in predetermined stereotypes a
good thing or a bad thing?
Is it out of order to collect customer
information
and
make
informed
generalizations about them based on
their demographics including their age,
socio economic backgrounds, religions,
cultures, geographic locations, ethnicity,
race, countries of origin, gender, sexual
orientation and professions? Is this drive
towards truly knowing and understanding
customers helpful or hurtful towards the
niche marketing and customer experience
cause?
Where does knowing our customers start
and ‘judging’ them end? Does boxing
people types in order to know them and
speak to or serve them as best possible,
provide an ideal strategy for progress?
Do the categorizations actually work for
good towards communicating effectively
and delivering exceptional service?
Are for example: all baby boomers
apathetic towards technology and slow
as early adopters to new and innovative
practices; all centennials impatient,
attention deficient and all for quick and
instantaneous results; or all challenged
persons be it vertically, physically,
economically, gender or health related
defiant about their situations and
unwilling to cede opinion?
Are these assumed truths worth following
through? Should marketers and customer
experience professionals alike rely on
these general stereotypes when making
customer based decisions? When does
one use their knowledge of a given group
to positively spur effective marketing and
customer experience excellence, while
running on the laid out assumptions
or go the arduous route of beyond the
stereotypes and pre-conceived notions,
to consistently strive to see the individual
and not the group?
This is not to say that marketing and
customer experience sectors will not
benefit from understanding group
dynamics and putting in place strategies
towards enhancing their experience of
products and services, elevating customer
comfort, and improving the speed and
efficiency of transactions. Classifying
customers has its advantages in the sense
that instead of stabbing in the dark whilst
trying to develop and implement solutions
that would be counter-productive, there is
wisdom in taking an in depth look first.
These classifications though, would
need to be based on sufficient KYC
data that provides insights into the
sentiment around products and services,
preferred communication and outreach
channels, and displeasure points. Stalking
customers online and tracing their steps
to understand them better, does provide
comprehension about their behavior and
activity, without necessarily getting in
touch.
Non-personalized studies through digital
perusal of social sites, bio info sites,
articles, and customer documentation
also serve to provide an alternative source