by Tony Vidler
The concept of segmenting clients into different categories is driven by the desire to introduce efficiency into a practice while recognising that not all clients are of equal value to the firm. It is also a way of recognising that not all clients provide the same opportunity, or potential, to grow with the firm and being able to identify those who are future growth, though not perhaps highest current value.
The concept is sound but the execution often risks damaging client relationships.
Who wants be known as a “C” client? Nobody….
Do you feel better if you are called a “Silver” client? Not especially…
Why not have all customers as “A” level clients?
Bearing in mind that any client can see their file and records at any time, why would we want them to see that we rank them as pretty low value to our firm?
Imagine if the lowest value client in the firm was still labelled an “A” – how would they feel if (or when!) they saw their file? A heck of a lot better than the “C” client I imagine.
Consider using all A’s for client categories – and you can still segment and differentiate service levels. It could look like this:
I would consider a fifth category which is absolutely not an “A”, and that is the category of client record where the relationship has ceased but where we wish to keep records. The Dead Files….scan everything and store it electronically in the CRM, and then archive any paper versions. Just in case.
It is not a massive shift to re-think the client segmentation labelling, and it can make a huge difference to how the clients perceive their relationship with the firm. It just might also have an impact on how the staff of the practice perceive the value of clients too – perhaps no more “oh my god it is a C client wanting some time”…after all, everyone who is a client of the firm deserves to feel like, and be treated like, they are in fact an “A client”.
You may also find this post useful: Which clients are the most valuable?0