In PR agency workings, client servicing experts would talk about going out for lunches with clients and many other hi-funda things when asked about the best ways to get pally with your client. I won’t go into such advanced details, but focus on two simple day-to-day client contact mediums for an executive or a manager - the phone and the email. What’s the big deal, you’d asked.
Perhaps there’s no big deal. But given that most of the smaller agencies in India (and even some of the big ones) do not have a standardised system of client servicing manual, it’s important for the young PR professionals to know the advantages and disadvantages of both these contact mediums.
Phone -
1. Works well if the client contact is manageable and is the friendly type. You can explain issues and things in proper and in length over the phone than on email.
2. One disadvantage is that you don’t have any written record if things go wrong or the client suddenly turns around.
Email -
1. Many of us in our earlier years tend to think getting into a mobile phone chit-chat everyday with the client will break the ice and help get into a smooth client-agency relationship. Not true for some kinds of clients. If the client contact is the hard-to-please type with unreasonable expectations, make sure your correspondence is more on the mail, copied to his/her boss and yours. On every mail. Why so? Because on the phone, you are more likely to get gobbled up with no very less room for negotiations. For example, if the client contact calls in the morning and asks you to draft a case study and provide it to him/her by the end of the day, demand that she/he send you an email on that. I think most of the unreasonable client demands are done on the phone, hardly on the email. Well, I don’t have any stats to prove it though.
2. Disadvantage is that email is time consuming (writing, sending, receiving, reading), and many clients in particular sectors are not that comfortable with the emailing business.
What do you say? Any more tips. Please share on the comments.
