As a practitioner of Nuance's Voice Identity Program (VIP), I've written about extending corporate brands to the IVR, given webcasts on the topic, and do honestly believe it's a good practice.  That's why I'm often surprised by resistance to the notion.  However, I recently received a pointed question that might explain that resistance - and that might resonate with some of you skeptics out there.  

Q:  Why does an overall brand image matter when most of our customers are not repeat callers and only call in once or twice a year?

A:  First, It's not so much about using an IVR to advance your brand.  Rather, it's about using your IVR to avoid breaking the brand image callers will already have of your company.  A bad or inappropriate impression over the phone can easily undo any goodwill built up in other channels.

Furthermore, the image projected by your IVR to infrequent callers matters not in spite of infrequent calls, but because the customer interacts with it only occasionally.  Think about it:  if the few truly interactive contacts a customer has with your company are inferior, you've little opportunity to undo the resulting negative impressions.  My friend Tony recently commented that "I only interact with the Department of Motor Vehicles once every five years, but that interaction has a profound impact on my opinion of the agency."  Perhaps you can relate!  So unless your organization is a monopoly, the infrequency of inbound calls per customer really shouldn't stop you from caring about your brand image.  

Lastly, even if the branding of the IVR isn't important to you, having a quality IVR should be.  Having some foundation upon which to craft a consistent interface that considers the caller demographics and their expectations of the company is the way to do that.  Since your brand stewards already considered all of those things, why would you start anywhere else?