So sick of impersonal service

[dreadnut]

One of our design engineers would take prototype products home for his kids to mess with. He said "they'll figure out a way to screw it up long before the adults will."

 

[fronobulax]

That has always been the struggle between technology and end users. Especially when it comes to software. Getting the programmer to think like an end user is always a struggle. Same goes for hardware design. The trick is for designers to not dictate that "this is how you should do this task" and tell the end user to change, too much that is. A very fine line sometimes between satisfaction and frustration.

Something people aren't realizing is that the software that is behind a call center is written for the customer service representatives (CSR), not the customers who call the center. Unless the CSR tells a customer that they cannot do something for the customer because of the software and the CSR is not lying, the problem the customer sees is not the software's fault and by extension not the responsibility of the people who built the software.

Many of the initial complaints in this thread are simply the result of using an automated system between the caller and the CSR, in hopes of labor driven cost savings. Many of the other complaints, involving CSRs, could be resolved by training. Sometimes the software or system design missed an opportunity to improve but sometimes the CSR would rather not do their job and so blames the software.

I have had a couple interesting calls when the CSR tells me they cannot do what I ask because of the software. I then ask to speak to a supervisor. Once someone refused and said "maybe we can figure this out" (and did). Sometimes I catch someone in a lie and their supervisor knows. Sometimes the CSR is right and the supervisor tells me why my expectation is unreasonable or files a Change Request.

But when we complain and then assign blame, it is most useful when the fingers are pointed in the right place.

I am riffing off of @hearth_man but not accusing them of being guilty of this particular sin

 

[dreadnut]

In the end, would it really cost more to just have someone answer the dadburn phone vs. the cost of automated systems?

There is also "opportunity cost," i.e., the things you lose without direct customer contact: real-time problem resolution, improved opportunities for future sales and contract renewals, and customer loyalty to name just a few.

When I get transferred to the "crappy hold music" wasteland I feel like I'm in the last scene of "Betelgeuse." You are caller number 27...

 

[GAD]

In the end, would it really cost more to just have someone answer the dadburn phone vs. the cost of automated systems?

Almost always yes.

Most call centers aren’t even for single companies anymore. Hell the cost of the call centers have been reduced by having agents answer calls from home and it’s STILL a huge cost benefit to have an IVR deal with first line calls.

This stuff all happens at huge scale. What seems like an easy solution (just have someone answer the phone) actually translates to hundreds if not thousands of people being hired, and since (again) no one wants to pay, all those agents will be in another country where callers will complain about the experience anyway.

 

[fronobulax]

In the end, would it really cost more to just have someone answer the dadburn phone vs. the cost of automated systems?

Yes it does cost more.

One thing to note is that there is a trend to do customer service on the internet. There are people who have the job of monitoring a companies Twitter feed, Facebook account etc, and responding to complaints made there. Corporate websites have bot and live chats. Several companies will let you request a callback from the voice automation system or their website. The next available CSR will call you and you get to bypass the automation. So by calling them you are making the choice to deal with them or using the only communications channel they have provided.

As a thought exercise, if you were charged $5 to be connected to a real person and then refunded $5 when the person resolved your problem or escalated, would you pay? The idea would be to deter frivolous calls (thus reducing costs) but then the issue would defining and defending the definition of frivolous with those folks who didn't get their money back. (Thought exercise only because this could be a type of discrimination).

I also have to note that there are companies that want my business and want me to be happy and they have provided me with a phone number that is only answered by a live person or my contact's personal voice mail. The personal banker at my local branch of a large nationwide bank is one example.

 

[GAD]

Yes it does cost more.

One thing to note is that there is a trend to do customer service on the internet. There are people who have the job of monitoring a companies Twitter feed, Facebook account etc, and responding to complaints made there. Corporate websites have bot and live chats. Several companies will let you request a callback from the voice automation system or their website. The next available CSR will call you and you get to bypass the automation. So by calling them you are making the choice to deal with them or using the only communications channel they have provided.

As a thought exercise, if you were charged $5 to be connected to a real person and then refunded $5 when the person resolved your problem or escalated, would you pay? The idea would be to deter frivolous calls (thus reducing costs) but then the issue would defining and defending the definition of frivolous with those folks who didn't get their money back. (Thought exercise only because this could be a type of discrimination).

I also have to note that there are companies that want my business and want me to be happy and they have provided me with a phone number that is only answered by a live person or my contact's personal voice mail. The personal banker at my local branch of a large nationwide bank is one example.

In a similar vein, I pay extra for Comcast Business Service Internet because I always get a live US-based person on the phone (during normal US hours) and they have always actually solved my problem within minutes of calling.

 

[dreadnut]

Of course there are those who still provide a decent measure of customer service. And they shall receive my business.

 

[geoguy]

When I call a # for assistance and get that "computer voice" that asks me my problem I say something so long and convoluted they can't make any sense of it whatsoever. They'll ask me to repeat 3 times or so and then they give up and transfer me to a real person. Doesn't always work but does a fair amount of the time. Works with Fed Ex and Bose for sure.

With FedEx, I've also found that answering the initial automated "how may I help you?" question with "Get a Human!" usually works right away.

 

[walrus]

...A very fine line sometimes between satisfaction and frustration.

Reminds me of my single days...

walrus

 

[walrus]

It costs a lot more! Automated systems, robots, etc. do not require a salary, health care, sick time, vacation time, etc. They rarely miss work, and never take holidays off. From a strictly financial point of view it's no-brainer. Unfortunately, the strategy doesn't match with most customer's desires. But if I have a choice of saving possibly millions of dollars a year, vs alienating some customers, I have to do it to stay competitive. As has been said, blaming the software is wrong on many levels, but keep the big picture in mind. It's always about money.

And even knowing this, it still bugs me!

walrus

 

[dreadnut]

It costs a lot more! Automated systems, robots, etc. do not require a salary, health care, sick time, vacation time, etc. They rarely miss work, and never take holidays off. From a strictly financial point of view it's no-brainer. Unfortunately, the strategy doesn't match with most customer's desires. But if I have a choice of saving possibly millions of dollars a year, vs alienating some customers, I have to do it to stay competitive. As has been said, blaming the software is wrong on many levels, but keep the big picture in mind. It's always about money.

And even knowing this, it still bugs me!

walrus

As I stated before, it's all in how you define "cost." Opportunity cost always should be in the equation.

My observation is that, in many cases, the most frustrating customer service experiences are with firms that don't really need me, but I need to deal with them in order to conduct my business.

 

[GAD]

As I stated before, it's all in how you define "cost." Opportunity cost always should be in the equation.

My observation is that, in many cases, the most frustrating customer service experiences are with firms that don't really need me, but I need to deal with them in order to conduct my business.

if you need them there is zero reason for them to change.

 

[dreadnut]

Exactly!

 

[fronobulax]

My observation is that, in many cases, the most frustrating customer service experiences are with firms that don't really need me, but I need to deal with them in order to conduct my business.

Which makes a lot of sense. At some level the customer service operation costs them more than they get from your business. Even if you go away, leave them alone and bad mouth them to everyone who listens, they made more money by driving you off than they would have by keeping your business.

The only cost that really matters is the cost to the entity that opens their wallet. Opportunity costs are real but often do not compete with real dollar costs. @GAD (et. al.) have noted that consumers who choose to share the costs (by paying for a level of service) do get better service.

Should we push the political envelope and talk about monopolies? (Nah, hold that thought but don't post it).

 

[dreadnut]

Nah, let's just stick with being ornery old curmudgeons.