SleekFlow vs. Zoom Contact Center

The Contact Centre is fantastic for our festival environment; these systems are rarely accessible to an arts organisation without a significant premium. However, that's not the case with Zoom Contact Centre. It may be tricky initially if you don't have an IT Company to help you with the integration, but they have a great Professional Services Team (PSO) to guide you through the process. Be prepared for the transition to take a few months; I wouldn't recommend it if you need something set up today. Moving phone numbers from other Telcos takes time, and the PSO can provide a custom solution that takes time to develop.

Incentivized

• Easy to change behavior of a call queue
• Easy to modify call flow (normally this is very difficult and cumbersome in other contact centers)
• Language that is not esoteric to phone technicians (e.g., no "Hunt Group" or other inside baseball terms)
• Easy to see the overview of what is currently going on in the phone system and what people are doing right now
• Easy to add licenese, change changes, add phone numbers, change p#s, etc.

• Go deeper into a true separation of parameters, reporting, management, etc. so you could have multiple business units with very different needs, independently work. Some sort of "Multi-Tenant-Like" capabilities like the one seen in Zoom Phone Locations. In situations like these where you need "location/team isolation" is challenging, if not impossible to implement with Zoom Contact Center.
• More pre-canned integrations and ready-to-go examples to implement thins like the "InApp-Chat" channel for the Zoom Client Itself. This could be a great addition, especially when you use the ZCC to service your own company.
• ZCC is meant to be an independent solution that could interact with Zoom and non-Zoom products, but the capability to allow a tight-integration with Zoom Phone is really missing: Having the capability to make/receive calls between ZP and ZCC using just extension numbers should have been a given from the get-go; it really limits the use cases of Zoom Contact Center with its other star product Zoom Phone. I heard something is coming to address this, for lack of a better word I call "shortcoming", so I am really looking forward to see what is "being cooked" on this regard.
• Licensing Tiers: ZCC is really missing an Admin-Only Role from the licensing perspective; you have to "waste" a license to add Administrators, which is particularly bad when you have a fairly large organization with multiple admins.

First and foremost for our results, the omnichannel approach and ease of use on the internal side (agents, supervisors and administrators) have made adoption very simple, we have managed to reduce response times (SLA) and internal communication has become very fluid. We get good feedback from our clients for having implemented ZCC in the company to serve them.

Incentivized

There are options and ways to get to specific feature sets that are similar to what Zoom can offer. Many of the Zoom included features are add-ons for the RingCentral offering. So cost goes up and can also be an add-on difficulties/deployment costs as well. When we reviewed the features needed and the cost comparison, Zoom was less than half the cost with many of the features baked in as opposed to add-ons

• We migrated away from a telephony system that was antiquated and almost unusable for what we wanted to do, so Zoom has been a huge improvement for us!
• We're continuing to roll out new channels of contact for customers -- Calls, chat, video, email, etc.
• We're still getting our sea legs from a reporting perspective, and that could always be better, but so far the biggest improvement was for our staff actually using the software. They really enjoy the simplicity and robustness of the software.