Tough customer 

Pope hope 

discuss

Let me give you a little personal background: I'm a senior customer service rep on the phones for a consumer tech company. I've been a supervisor, and I've trained hundreds of reps. My impressions:

80% of customer service questions can be answered by reading the manual. Very few people bother. 90% of customer service and technical calls CAN be answered on the website. Most people don't want to spend 10 minutes searching. The company I work for has a very good searchable knowledge base on the website. In fact, all the level one customer service questions have answers and troubleshooting steps identical to what the customer can find on the website. And the majority of our customers are able to answer their own questions there.

We have a voice response system. It directs people to the website, and through the basic triage of a call. Up to this point, the philosphy is that the faster the customer can answer their own question, the better off they are. Most people who have complaints about the voice response system are almost unintelligble on the phone, even to most humans.

Of the calls that get through to a human, 90% of them can be solved within 3 minutes, if the customer follows directions. over 90% of them are from people who won't use the website, follow written instructions, or read the manual.

Less than 5% of the calls get escalated to my level, which means I deal with irate customers, and people who actually have a question not answered on the web site. Of those, I'd estimate that 30% are genuine issues that our site hasn't addressed, or a level one agent couldn't handle. About 30% of the calls I get are because customers can't or won't follow written instructions. About 40% are people who want exceptions made to our policies, and that inevitably means they want something more than they've paid for or are entitled to. And about 10% are from people who just want to complain about something - anything - or need some human contact.

So in reality, my experience is that about 1.5% of people who get through the voice recognition system actually have real issues that aren't addressed on the website or in the manual. It is the other 99% of the calls that get to a breathing human being that create long hold times. I am far more likely to spend 30 minutes on the phone with an irate customer who thinks we should compensate him or her $300 for having to sit on hold for 10 minutes, than to deal with a genuine issue. And that genuine issue has to wait for the irate egoist who needs "special compensation", is loudly profane at great length while threatening frivolous legal action.

So it's not good - in fact, the post you refer to sucks.

discuss

Let's take a look at the issue, and understand that 'you'' and 'we' are global and not personal.

If you read my post, you will see that I mentioned trying the website and all of the options, FAQ, forms, email, etc 'if available' to resolve an issue, before getting on the telephone. I am not adverse to waiting a reasonable amount of time, as those websites ask, for a reply.

But, when you get past that point, and you do call, then we end up with what you euphemistically call a ''voice response system'' I have one of those too, they are called ears. It does not get any easier by having telephone 'triage', referring us to places like the website, we had to go to, to find the phone number, because we could not find the answer in the first place.

If you actually read the post, nowhere did any mention of crappy service reps, (in my experience), at various times are also unintelligble on the phone,(think Indian call centers) take place. It is a tough job.

I did take a jab at my fellow web designers, because they are not doing the job. But their responsibility ends with the companies committment to providing customer service online. Which brings us right back to the 'voice response system'. Which is my point, someone with lungs who works at the dumb products company, can probably route the call to the person most able to help the customer and shorten the total time on the phone, saving the company money which may give you a bump in salary because of how well oiled a machine your department has become, or if you are actually trying to be that good, the gilmet eyed accounting department is gonna RIF you.

In either of these cases I win, which is the point. I want to be a winner, I want to think that I received value from your product for my money. If there is a question, and I do end up on the phone, the value diminishes in a direct proportion to how much time it takes to get an answer.

If I receive value, I will tell my friends which will in turn sell more of your product to pay your salary.

Do you see how we are all joined at the hip, despite the fact we have never met, will probably never meet, but do share a desire to feel good about the choices we make, knowing that there is someone who we can turn to if there is a problem?

Because the majority of products are sold in large stores who have salespeople who are not trained in the use of the products they sell and whose livelihood is determined by moving product and not explaining it. Although most stores do have a no hassle return policy, I don't want to return the product, I just want it to work.

Being a 'senior customer service rep' makes this real chilling as what are the freshman reps doing? Why are there levels? Is customer service such an monumentally diffcult career that levels are required to handle the large call volume?

This brings up a couple of issues, the first which comes to mind is that what ever solutions are made, this information does not go upstairs to have the website updated to reduce the call volume.

I can see where a certain amount of self preservation is a concern as if we can solve the problem from the website, your job becomes a target for the next budget axe.

I don't want to call you. I don't want to get pissed listening to a recording telling me that the website will answer all of my questions, when I am on the phone because clearly it doesn't.

I don't want to have to be moved to a new level of customer support because the first level cannot do the job, with it's own wait time.

I am likely to be profane although I am working on it, because, and this is the most important part of this whole thing,

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I am calling you because your company already made the sale, but it's value is diminishing rapidly with every moment I spend waiting for you. -----------------------------------------------------------------

The idea that I will sue you or that I require compensation for my inconvience is the most laughable part of your defense, as I will not sue you or ask you to write me a check, but I can do far more damage by not giving your company any more of my money, which if you are selling millions of these things may not seem like a big deal, but since I am on the internet I can tell a potential audience of millions why I do not like your product and why I don't think it is a good choice for them.

Can you hear me now?

alan herrell - the head lemur

discuss

I do here you, actually. The issue here is that your approach is not the typical approach of end users, but you seem to think it is.

Being a 'senior customer service rep' makes this real chilling as what are the freshman reps doing? Why are there levels? Is customer service such an monumentally diffcult career that levels are required to handle the large call volume?

There are different levels of issues = that's no different than recognizing that a Programmer Analyst 1 may not be able to handle a situation a Programmer Analyst 2 can handle. As a matter of cost controls, you do NOT want every agent able to make concessions (read: giveaways) to the customer. Some agents need to, if you have any flexibility in your policies.

And as I said, MOST of the calls my unit gets are easy-to-handle issues that wouldn't require a call if the customer was willing to read and follow written instructions they already have.

This brings up a couple of issues, the first which comes to mind is that what ever solutions are made, this information does not go upstairs to have the website updated to reduce the call volume

I can only speak for my experience - and we spend a tremendous amount of time and money updating the website. All of our agents and customers have the ability to suggest additions and changes, and many do so. We WANT to reduce the call volume, in part becase the larger the queues, the longer each individual call takes, and the worse the queue gets.

The idea that I will sue you or that I require compensation for my inconvience is the most laughable part of your defense, as I will not sue you or ask you to write me a check, but I can do far more damage by not giving your company any more of my money, which if you are selling millions of these things may not seem like a big deal, but since I am on the internet I can tell a potential audience of millions why I do not like your product and why I don't think it is a good choice for them.

Unfortunately, it's not laughable - I handle these calls every day, repeatedly. Again, this is a difference in your approach and the way other people respond.

We're very aware of the value of word-of-mouth - our company is built on it. Our agents are trained to recognize that it's the most important thing to remember in a call. We try to bend over backwards to support our customers, because we don't have jobs without them, and our customers have trusted us.

Unfortunately, many people DO still look for advantage, and many threaten agents with badmouthing the company as well as yes, lawsuits and demands for compensation. I wish it was otherwise, because these people make the situation worse for all customers.

And I do recognize that not all companies implement their CRM as efficiently, and with the goal of superior customer service. Nonetheless, to imply that ALL consumer companies fall down on website design and customer service does an injustice to the thousands of people who actually care, despite the presence of chronic complainers and scam artists.

discuss