I first heard the phrase “Be more human” from a presenter on stage at a marketing conference back in 2016. She gave an engaging speech and told loads of stories to illustrate her ideas.
Her messages obviously resonated with the audience. In the pub afterwards, I heard “Be more human” being discussed more than that day’s football results.
At 2018’s Protection Review Conference, “Be more human” became a theme that developed during the talks and panel debates. As one of the organisers of that event, I don’t recall us setting that as the theme, but nevertheless it was what dominated many conversations at the dinner later that day.
Isn’t it interesting people are discussing the same subjects and ideas seven years later?
And just last week, I was monitoring the social feeds for a conference I’d wanted to go to but couldn’t and realised with a grin that “Be more human” was the theme most exciting the delegates again.
Isn’t it interesting people are discussing the same subjects and ideas seven years later? It certainly suggests that despite talking about being more human, people in business might not be very good at making it happen.
Not all the events I’ve mentioned were financial services based but the topic is obviously prevalent across many, if not all, industries.
It got me thinking. What exactly does “Be more human” mean?
Does it mean that companies need to talk to their customers in simple language rather than management speak mumbo-jumbo and gobbledegook? This would certainly be true of the financial services industry.
It’s an issue we haven’t fixed despite many attempts over the years. Why do we still talk about synergies, strategic staircases and taking things offline? Why do we still use passive language when we know most humans use active language when they talk?
In the past, when we’ve allowed humans to talk to humans, service has got worse
If you’re in the pub with a friend, you’d say, “I’ll go and buy us a couple of drinks”. You wouldn’t say, “A couple drinks will be bought for us by me”. The latter sounds wrong and yet corporate communications are still blighted by passive language.
Does it mean giving people a better service? Being more human surely means allowing humans to talk to humans rather than endless chatbots, doesn’t it? I think so, but in the past, when we’ve allowed humans to talk to humans, service has got worse.
Remember when many industries realised they could cut costs by building offshore call centres in other countries where salaries were much lower and infrastructure was cheaper? Companies certainly cut costs as predicted but service deteriorated due to lack of training, over scripting and giving staff no autonomy or flexibility in deviating from what the computer says.
Many companies eventually brought their call centres back onshore in an effort to improve service levels.
Are we heading for a similar debacle with artificial intelligence (AI)? Once again, there’s a promise of cost cutting and some are talking about replacing humans completely. I hear stories of people using ChatGPT as a lifestyle coach or a therapist. Some even go as far to say that ChatGPT empathises with them.
Does being more human also mean giving more help and support to frontline staff?
Let’s be clear. While AI might eventually get there, at the moment it doesn’t empathise. It doesn’t feel. And it doesn’t understand. You need a real human for that.
But even real humans can have difficulty showing empathy, either because they haven’t had the right training or because the computer systems that guide their conversations don’t allow them to be.
I remember trying to claim on my father’s many small life insurance policies across multiple providers following his death. The people I spoke to all tried to be kind and show empathy but they were often frustrated by the hoops and checks their systems made them, and me, jump through.
I got upset and I work in the protection industry. I’m so glad I was able to handle all that administration on my mother’s behalf. She would have struggled.
I think being more human definitely means giving great service but it’s a difficult balance to achieve when people are woven so tightly into the systems that support them. As we head towards more AI, we must keep it at the level of “tool” rather than “replacement”.
It’s also worth thinking about the people who work in the protection industry. Especially those dealing with claims on a daily basis.
Being more human has to start with a deep, almost obsessive understanding of the humans who are our customers
Exposure to conversations and evidence of disability, disease and death could at once desensitise people so that they find it hard to show empathy, but could also affect their own mental health and wellbeing.
Does being more human also mean giving more help and support to frontline staff? More technology might not be what they need.
For me, having worked in marketing and product development for so long, being more human means understanding our customers more so that we can deliver the products and services they want and value.
In the protection industry, we often talk about making our propositions more appealing to younger people. But to do that we need to talk to them more.
It’s an unconscious bias older people have – me and many that work in marketing and product development included – that means we project our own feelings and desire onto those of our customers and assume that’s what they want. But it isn’t, and I’m not convinced we are talking to them enough to find out.
Being more human has to start with a deep, almost obsessive understanding of the humans who are our customers. And that means more human-on-human conversations. Let’s check back in another seven years and see how we are doing.
Roger Edwards is managing director of Roger Edwards Marketing and marketing director at Protection Review
