True Visual IVR Comparison

• Fails to provide visual content during a voice call.

SHORTCOMINGS

• Fails to provide a good user experience
• Fails to provide good self-service opportunities
• Fails to provide content storage options
• Fails to transfer IVR browsing history and entered data to live agents, thereby forcing callers to repeat information

How It Becomes A True Visual IVR Platform

• Can upgrade to a True Visual IVR with only a slight script change

• Fails to provide visual content during a call

SHORTCOMINGS

• Fails to incorporate interactive content during the voice call
• Fails to provide secure data transmission
• Fails to provide effective content storage options
• Fails frequently to provide a front-end telephone number
• Fails to leverage smart devices and browsers to improve self-service solutions because call-back solutions always connect with live people

How It Can Complement A True Visual IVR

• Call back can be incorporated into Visual IVRs to improve the user experience and improve a browser-based solution

• Fails to provide a front-end phone number for callers
• Fails to provide visual content during a voice call

SHORTCOMINGS

• Fails to work seamlessly among all phone types
• Fails to provide secure data transmission
• Fails to provide effective content storage options, especially for HIPAA and PCI requirements

How It Can Complement A True Visual IVR Platform

• Adding click-to-call functionality in browser-based solutions can reduce both front-end voice time by auto-dialing through an IVRs' phone tree and back-end waiting time for a live agent
• Can provide a web-based navigation tree during voice calls where the solution provider calls both a company and the call initiator and then merges the calls