Embarq announced the launch of an Embarq YouTube channel, which will feature instructional videos for Embarq services. Embarq says the strategy will “bring customer service to the customer.” As of this posting, the Embarq channel had 17 instructional videos for things like Embarq email, the eGo phone, and several promotional videos about RescueIT, their residential tech support service. "The YouTube Channel is another way for us to show our customers that we are here for them," said Dan Alcazar, Embarq Consumer Marketing Officer. "From this site, we can use videos to provide them with step-by-step instructions while actively listening and responding to their questions and concerns." Embarq is promoting the new channel through a user generated content contest, inviting customers to upload a “48 second” video demonstrating their unique talent. Kind of reminds me of David Letterman’s “stupid human tricks.”

With this new YouTube channel, Embarq joins most major service providers, including AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint, to name a few, who have YouTube channels. They’re all trying to figure out how to tap YouTube’s mass appeal for their own gain. Embarq’s twist on it is interesting. I didn’t do an exhaustive search, but I didn’t see other service provider examples of a customer service angle. Most are using it strictly for promotional purposes. Of course Embarq is too, but using the customer service hook seems to be unique, for now.

Sprint issued a press release today that highlights a new customer service initiative for its retail stores. The new focus will be “a revolution in the wireless retail experience.” I think we can all agree, if there was ever a retail experience that needed revolutionizing, it’s the wireless retail store. But I digress. The real issue here is why do companies like Sprint seem to put the focus on customer service when times are bad? Seems to me that if customer service were a priority when times are good, the chance of those good times turning into bad times is lessened. Shouldn’t excellent customer service be a priority ALL THE TIME? Sprint goes on to say that this initiative is “Part of Ongoing Plan to Revolutionize Customer Service One Customer at a Time.” Good for them, but the sheer fact that Sprint is admitting that their customer service has to be “revolutionized” speaks to the problem. Memo to large conglomerates who service consumers with a product or service – take good care of customer service all the time and customers will take care of you. You won’t need to execute an expensive PR campaign to convince people of your new found focus on good customer service.

This is not a sweeping indictment on all service providers (or a rant on Sprint - I applaud them for addressing the issue). Some large service providers seem to be doing ok with customer service. I don’t know one that I would characterize as doing well – at least from a customer point of view. From a boardroom view, I’m sure many large conglomerates are patting themselves on the back relative to their perceived view of customer service success. And certainly smaller service providers tend to do much better with customer service. In fact, most of them use customer service as a competitive weapon against larger competitors. I also recognize that customer service does not scale well. The larger you get, the harder it is to do. But I guess the larger question is, why didn’t Sprint decide to make a customer service “covenant with new and existing wireless customers,” when they weren’t hemorrhaging a million plus subscribers per quarter?

I don’t usually comment on my own experiences, but I feel compelled to do so today. Along with being a telecom industry analyst and consultant, I’m also an obvious consumer of telecom services. Over the past few days, I’ve had the most aggravating experiences in trying to establish new telecom service (we’re in the process of moving our offices), that it really makes me wonder about the true impact of competition on the marketplace. What I mean by that is, my experience in trying to buy services from both an incumbent telecom carrier and a national wireless company have been so frustrating and aggravating, it makes me wonder if competition and its impact really exists.

It seems to me that these service providers would have systems in place that allow me to easily spend money with them, rather than with their competitors. But what I found was a bureaucratic mess that put me in an endless loop of phone transfers to customer service reps who were either indifferent, incompetent, unable, or unwilling to accept my monthly check for their services. I find it absolutely amazing that I have spoken to seven representatives (not an exaggeration) from the incumbent telephone company to try to order business DSL service, and I still haven’t been able to get an order placed. This experience is either great news for their competitors or bad news for competition proponents. The great news angle is that if you can create a system that simply allows people to start spending money with you without having to jump through endless loops, you should be in business. The bad news is maybe incumbents have squashed competitors to the point that they can live with these incredible inefficiencies and care less about them. As for me, lesson learned. The next call is to the cable company, who is aggressively pursuing the small business market. Any bets on the number of reps I’ll have to talk to there, before giving them the opportunity to collect money from me every month?

With the announcement of Colorado Springs, CO being their latest digital voice market, Comcast now claims just over 3 million voice customers. Windstream, the sixth largest phone company (3.4 million access lines) in the U.S. is now within sight of Comcast. They have already surpassed both CenturyTel and Citizens Communications, and would rank as the seventh largest phone company in the U.S. (by access line count).

Some would argue this is proof positive that bundling works. After all, who would have predicted five years ago that Comcast could overcome poor customer service perceptions and convince millions of subscribers to abandon their local phone company for their local cable company? Not many. You could draw a conclusion that effective bundling works - even overcoming poor service provider perceptions. Consumers seem willing to give companies with a “checkered” past (from a customer service point of view) a try, provided the perceived value is there.

New analysis from ABI Research suggests that the cable industry’s poor reputation for customer service may present problems for them, while opening windows of opportunity for their competitors. “We’re starting to see more bundles of voice and data integration offerings, and we have seen promotional pricing to capture the market. But there is such discontent among CATV subscribers that telcos are able to move in and steal customers,” says Stan Schatt, vice president and research director for ABI. Before telecom competitors start patting themselves on the back, ABI suggests that telecom customer service is not exactly stellar either, just better than low performing cable. Interestingly enough, cable is being rated higher than telcos for phone service in recent studies, but as this ABI research suggests, lower for their core video service.

ABI goes on to postulate that telcos have a real advantage when/if they are able to leverage IPTV and its many potential advanced features. Coupled with cable’s poor service reputation, telcos have a real opportunity to seize the market. Cable recognizes these deficiencies and says they are committed to improving their customer service practices. Comcast CEO Brian Roberts recently acknowledged that Comcast needed improvement and outlined some steps they plan to implement. Time will tell if this is just lip service. ABI suggests that telcos may gain competitive advantage from these factors, provided they can execute well and not make some of the same customer service mistakes that has led to cable’s poor reputation.