Why Everyone Hates Customer Service
wsj.com
wsj.com
I've recently been involved in some customer support efforts, and there are customers who are just unreasonable. They'll demand to have their cake, eat it too, and even get a new one. For the nuisance that a completely made up problem caused them. A problem that wouldn't even be your fault if it had been real.
They are a vast minority, but they spoil it for everyone. They consume your time and especially your team's morale. There is only so much bullshit a support agent can take before getting fed up with it and degrading their service to subsequent customers.
Now the organization has to figure out a way to detect those customers early enough to prevent them from screwing up everything for everyone. But false positives are very expensive: get one wrong and it becomes a PR nightmare.
Furthermore, if you try to give the best possible support, you must empower your agents to act. They can now screw up and even get your company in legal trouble. Good training reduces this risk, but humans making calls means errors will be made eventually.
In the end, reducing support to the bare minimum possible appears a reasonable option for many companies: it is the easiest to implement, it reduces legal/PR risks, and it has a very measurable and consistent effect (how many people stop buying/using your service after failing to get support). If that number is low enough, it just doesn't make economical sense to try to provide good support, which is a very hard endeavor for the reasons mentioned above.
I agree that this is the best short interest for corporations. And that is why it is so important laws to protect consumers.
"Salmonella sickens 1.2 million Americans every year and causes 450 deaths ... But there’s a loophole when it comes to salmonella: It isn’t on that prohibited list of adulterants." https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/10/4/17936714/be...
Corporations act in completely selfish economic interest. Mandatory customer support and hefty fines and regular inspections are the only protection for consumers. Also, it creates a fair environment where having good customer support is not an extra cost because of all companies having to provide it.
Corporations have a social responsibility that needs to be enforced. Corporations are going to optimize their extractive capacity until we humans are just reduced to production machines that survive another day to feed corporations profits. Our society goal should be human wellbeing, not corporate profits.
Sweet Jesus, this. At one of my older software support jobs, we had a Law of Inverse Size-to-Attention: the guys with hundreds of employees who paid us hundreds of thousands of dollars in support rarely called us (or if they did, they had actually competent IT staff we could work with), while the Mom-and-Pop shops that paid for the bare minimum licensing and support were the ones that called us every day and repeatedly refused to RTFM. Some would balk at the idea of paying anything at all, as though we should be so honored that Bob's Shack in Bumf*ck, ID decided to use our software that we should wave all associated costs.
As a result our sales and customer support departments are massive compared to our engineering arm but we're doing pretty well for ourselves.
These are all related.
Customers who are successful businesses tend to have money, and competent employees who solve many of the problems themselves. Customers who are not successful tend not to have money and less competent employees.
This is why so many people recommend startups and contractors to raise their prices - not only do you get paid more, but also you filter out less competent customers.
Consider the example of the AT&T customer in the article. The agent said there was "nothing she could do" until right up to the moment when the customer was switching. It's now common knowledge that this is basically the best way to get a deal, so many people skip the whole "Can you please give me a discount?" and instead go straight to the combative "Just close my account" first, as that's often the only way to get a deal.
And as I recall, I had put a block on my credit report, so it took a few calls to the sales agents to close the deal. Each one was equally willing to deal, but then again, each time I called back I had to give more to get the same deal (1 year to 3 year, 100$ product gift certificate gone, and finally no free installation—uuug! They said I had the GC, but it never showed up. I called, they stalled, whatever)
In my experience anything even a little more "targeted" tends to have more reasonable customer service. I've had good customer service experiences from major sportswear brands, and we're not talking crazy high-end, boutique brands but major, publicly traded companies. That isn't to say they will just cater to your every whim, no questions asked, but if you have a legitimate grievance they will handle it without ruining your day.
Some companies care about reputation and customer satisfaction, and some just count every bean.
* not a shill for Comcast, just a happy customer. I tend to be extra-friendly over the phone, which maybe helps, but I have always received stupendous CS support from big corps like Apple, Comcast, Sprint, my CC companies, mortgage holder, and Amazon, to name a few I have dealt with regularly.
When I lived somewhere where the only alternative was terrible 5mbit (advertised, actually much less) AT&T DSL, they wouldn't extend any of my discounts and even when I canceled they didn't even try to stop me. They basically just told me "haha good luck, you'll be back".
When I've lived in other places where there are options like webpass or fiber, they behaved much more like you're describing.
I spent 47 minutes going around in circles with the rep, politely explaining that I did not wish to change my plan, or even get my bill lowered to the current promo rates which are about $30 less than what I'm paying for the exact same service. She would not budge, and offered me all kinds of crappy options such as entering into a new 2-year lock in contract, or removing ALL HD channels from my TV lineup. Finally I threw in the towel and said, "I guess I just have to cancel this, I'm sorry". She immediately said, "Wait, let me see... hmm, Ok yes there does seem to be an offer here where I can extend your loyalty discount for another year. I'll go ahead and do that." Magic. Just like that.
I asked her why we had to play an hour long cat-and-mouse game to get this done. She had no explanation.
Some MBA bean-counter types figured out there is money left on the table, and the relative hit to reputation and lost customers comes out to less than they gain by doing it.
Because she's quite literally given a set of rules that says, "if the customer says X, you're allowed to take action Y."
That seems like it'd bubble out and affect the surrounding communities, but I don't know how exactly. Do you have first-hand experience there?
Most of the time I just gave the callers the correct number, but if it was a product I had worked on I would try to answer their questions...
Some dumb f* called up once and claimed he had taken the batteries that came with a product of ours he bought, put them in his Apple keyboard, and they had leaked, ruining his keyboard. He was adamant he was owed a keyboard.
I tried explaining politely that batteries leak from being over-discharged... But he wasn't having any of it. I eventually handed him off to customer service, who I assume told him to pound sand.
And if you're finding that selling licenses and support bundled doesn't work, or that unlimited support doesn't work, start metering support.
Mom'n'pop and enterprise markets are hugely different. Sounds as if a fair bit of the problem you're encountering is trying to map them the same.
Then there's the alternative of providing a subsidy to transfer those customers to your competitors....
it's economically rational but it's also a classic externality. the cost of poor service is externalized onto customers not only as direct costs in time and money but also indirectly as human anger and violence, which trickles out socioeconomically as general incivility (e.g., road rage).
i'm all for strengthening the legal equality of the individual so that corporations can't shirk off such externalities as simply a cost of doing business, as you suggest.
most "bad" customers are reacting to unfairness and injustice, not trying to swindle the company. treat customers fairly, even erring on their side, rather than treating them like moneybags for the squeezing, and you'll find good customer service is fast and easy (if tricky to master).
You have to decide what you value more -- reliable and responsive ISP service, or a few extra bucks a month.
Agree to disagree. For most people it's probably the most important criterion, a make or break. It's why so few people go for the business services. SLAs cost. And without SLAs you get to learn that "0" is also "up to xxx Mbps" for example
The problem is companies like Comcast, AT&T and the likes champion low quality services for high prices because consumers have 0 protections.
If you're concerned with driving every last penny out of the cost of service, then you're going to have to deal with the lowest-level consumer support personnel. That's just how this works. Grandma and Grandpa are not going to get a direct line to the red phone at the NOC for $39.99/month, and neither will you.
Without an SLA it's just a different label on the same package. If it offers the same (lack of) guarantees as any residential contract, and only costs marginally more then why would it be better? Why are they giving you substantially better service for just slightly more money if there's absolutely no contractual obligation? You're probably just in an area with better service.
When the service is crap do you threaten them with the label on the plan or with the SLA in the contract?
Sigh
Without an SLA it's just a different label on the same package.
The whole point is that the service isn't crap. You have a separate telephone number for business support, where even the first-line support people are helpful.
And your static IP also comes from a different subnet in many/most cases, one that tends to stay off the radar of bottom-feeding copyright trolls.
And my whole point is trying to understand how a service that costs basically the same and has 0 extra contractual obligations for the provider is somehow better than the regular residential internet. I'll say coincidence and you'll say "no but I can't tell you why".
If you don't have a smoking gun for why a service is good then it's happenstance and there are no guarantees that others will have the same experience. It's a good area, the infrastructure is better there, there are very few "business but no guarantees" subscribers so your dedicated line isn't busy all the time, etc. So it may very well be good but with no SLAs you're still at their mercy and they can do to you whatever they do to the "plebes internet".
What happens if on the dedicated line (that you get without paying much) you get told "we'll look into it, kthxbye" and then nothing?
I have great residential internet and actually only had to call my provider for my connection once in my life (thought they cut me off after not paying the bill for 3 months; turned out they didn't care and I just had to reboot the router). Would you take this anecdata as proof that all internet connections are good or as mere coincidence?
I pointed out that this type of support is still available if you have a business account, and that it doesn't cost much more (if at all) to sign up for a business account with major ISPs such as Comcast than it does to sign up for a residential account.
I don't need the typing practice, so I'll stand by my point and leave it at that. SLAs and contractual obligations and whatever are not the topic of the subthread. The fact is, there are good reasons for technically-literate users to sign up for business accounts instead of residential accounts. Support personnel who don't begin the conversation with, "Have you tried turning it off and on again?" or who at least listen when you tell them that in fact, you have tried turning it off and on again, are one of those reasons.
I purchased a utility sink/cabinet combo from Home Depot last year for $200. The same product is sold by Lowes and all over the Internet in various styles. The OEM is this company called Conglom, but Home Depot markets all its plumbing products as "Glacier Bay" and has its own support system for those products.
So anyway, I install the sink and the faucet has a small leak. So I call the Glacier Bay number expecting terrible service. The call is answered immediately. A lady takes my information and says she'll contact the OEM and get a new part sent to me and puts me on hold. She picks back up a minute or two later to say the OEM is closed for the day but she'll contact them the next day. I think that's the end of it, but then I get a call from her the next day to confirm she's reached the OEM and the replacement part is on the way.
HD can't make but a few dollars if anything on this product.
Aside, Moen also provides insanely good customer service. And I've heard Delta faucets does too. Maybe it's a plumbing thing. :-)
In the past few years, I’ve noticed a proliferation of material included in the box that attempts to preempt this. “Don’t return this to the store! Call us at 1-800-WHAT-EVER for help.”
Where the customer’s remedy isn’t so easy and costly for the business, it’s much more hit or miss.
Faulty items returned to the store may or may not be returned to the manufacturer. In trying to suss out what went wrong, having the actual failed hardware in hand is useful.
And certain sectors (especially manufacturing) face numerous other competitors. A few bad reviews can have a large impact on purchases.
Also as a consumer, I would never notice the difference between 1:1000 and 1:100000000 (non-safety related small goods).
HD probably doesn’t have anyone returning their garden soil or electric wire because it didn’t work, but will have more returns on electromechanical appliances.
During a large format printer I built, their website claimed that the 90deg brackets werent guaranteed to be 90deg ?! So, I called them, and got the secretary. I was expecting to be shoved off. She looked at the website where I indicated, and asked me to wait a few moments.
About 45 seconds go by, and I'm talking with a Japanese engineer who's fluent in English who runs the line ! He looks at the design schematic and the website, and says it had to do with a data import that didnt convert the tolerance data (90deg +- .0021) correctly, and instead put a boilerplate 'NOTANUMBER' result.
He then sent me the design schematic for all incident angles.
It was absolutely amazing - that I talked with the engineer responsible for that part in less than a minute.
So.. I keep buying from Misumi. :)
Excellent products and customer service seems to also be a very Japanese thing.
We used to order ring clamps from a manufacturer, and they would always come back polished absolutely perfectly. We didn't order it that way, and we told them several times that they were wasting money doing that. It didn't matter; there was an old Japanese engineer running that line and he was going to be consigned to the fires of hell before a part with a substandard finish would leave his line.
Then he passed away. And even the tolerance control (which is vitally important) went to shit. It seems that attention to detail is all or nothing.
If you tell them you're missing parts from a product, it'll ship. It happened to me once. The set was missing an entire bag. They shipped one out. No proof of purchase required.
If you tell them you're missing a manual or it got destroyed. They'll ship one out.
A hiccup on their site caused me to miss out on a promotional item. And when I realized, the promotion was over. They sent me one. Just my word was enough.
Sometimes they’ll insist you go to the store, but if you push them, they’ll mail it out.
But it’s obvious their powers that be are playing the long game, not the next quarter game.
I wonder if Public Incs like AT&T has a dial where they decrease or increase their level of support based on how that quarter is doing.
Gotta best the analysts’ estimates by a penny or else.
The issue with that is, I'll rarely call them for such a problem. Companies tend to let you fill out some form on their website for such an issue these days.
Sometimes calling with an oddball problem goes okay because you hit an excellent person on the other end, but often they're clueless, and the whole thing becomes a struggle.
This is, I suspect, made worse by call centers having metrics around call time. They want to get rid of you quickly and move to the next call.
How do newspapers find anecdotal stories like this? I mean this could have been anyone, anywhere - we all have these sorts of frustrating stories.
Is there a sort of marketplace or broker who has a list of on-demand anecdotes?
I just can’t imagine it’s worth it for WSJ to fly a reporter halfway across the country to get a head shot and a one paragraph statement.
"Help A Reporter Out (HARO): Your PR Agency's Worst Nightmare" https://www.forbes.com/sites/zalmiduchman/2015/11/27/haro/
"Help a Reporter Out (HARO): Ultimate Guide 2019" https://fitsmallbusiness.com/help-a-reporter-out-haro/
I think I found my new startup ideaLikely picked telco's since they rank so low on customer satisfaction, ditto with banks
Large part of being a good reporter and getting the story right is networking and finding where the story leads you
This is certainly right in this case - if you count the sources in the story you'll see the reporter spoke to at least 9 people and cited a few reports and previous reporting
edit: it's also possible the reporter didn't fly to IL - she may have done the interview over the phone/video and the editor sent in a local freelance or bureau photographer
- A very large online footprint associated vaguely with the story.
- Knew the reporter socially.
- Knew the reporter through previous contacts. (Emailing the publication can do this.)
- Chaining through other contacts -- "oh, you should talk to ...".
That includes a decade or three's experience. Today with social media the task is much easier.
Various public filings (court records, consumer complaints to gov't offices, to watchdog groups) can also trigger journalist follow-ups, depending on the case.
The reporter very likely talked to 10x the people cited in the article -- one reason good journalism is hard. As with high-quality video and audio production, it's what's left out that makes what's left in much better.
It doesn't help that the relationship between customers and businesses is so often just directly antagonistic, customer service isn't something that businesses want to do, it's something they have to do. CS people end up being the meat shield between the customer who knows they are being exploited or manipulated and the people in the company making decisions for little bits of profit or to cut costs here and there and never directly has to face repercussions for all the shortcuts they take just to bolster their personal KPIs. There's a reason people hate working CS and retail; it can be legitimately traumatic, and they often have to find themselves being the friendly face pasted over an uncaring machine.
For all the hate that open offices get, I appreciate the fact that my desk is within earshot of CS taking phone calls. As a developer it's a hell of a lot easier to see what the downstream effects of the things you do and the changes you make are when you can hear the repercussions of them directly. It also definitely motivates me to try to find ways I can ease the burden on them. These stresses ought to be distributed as equally among a corporation as possible.
I think the relationship is actually between the company, which abuses its customers, and the CSRs, which are hired as a meat shield.
Companies can’t stop this that easily. If they do, they basically have to try to call bullshit and confront them. Any system that counters this will end up harming normal customers who are generally angry.
Once I started yelling, the situation drastically changed and suddenly they were offering free shipment. I demanded a ship box delivered, since I shouldn't have to go out of my way for counterfeits. More yelling and...
And they sent a ship box to my house, and included 3 months of prime.
Literally, the more I abused someone on behalf of shitty corporate policy, the more I got.
The only way I was able to escape Comcast's dogshit service was by moving to a different house.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-15/american-...
A lot of people miss this fact. Airlines monopolize routes, not air travel in general.
Reminds me of a totally different example, recently saw a documentary on the history of Whistler Blackcomb (ski resort in BC). They used to be two different resorts geographically right next to each others. While they were competing, they were innovating, one playing on the cool side, crafting runs to be perfect for snowboarding. The other was playing on the family / classy side, distributing hot chocolate in the lineups. Prices were kept down. Then they merged into one resort, which apart from the purely skiing part is undifferentiable from others. Prices went up. The resort got bought out by Vale 3y ago, prices skirocketed (50% increase on the daily tickets).
Point is, competition was keeping two small businesses at bay, caring at least 2fks for their satisfaction cause if they weren't, they would just climb the south mountain rather than the north. Now if you want actual competition you need to drive 6h to the east, so who cares. Plus you now need to extract administration cost for the larger entity and dividends for the larger number of shareholders that have supported the investment.
Any consolidation that happens makes me sad, cause it's never good for you as a customer.
This isn't a happy accident for those "idiot businesspeople", it's a carefully thought out business plan.
I think the worst part is, people will adapt and start to treat customer service with more anger, as they'll learn it solves their problems more frequently. Some of them will take this behavior out into meatspace instead of just doing it over the phone. Of course, people already do this, but even more people will do it as a result of this sort of treatment.
In the 21st century so many companies really rely on good ratings by consumers they go out of their way to get a negative review, or to compensate you to take one away if you do post one.
Maybe the companies stuck in the 20th century or the ones that think they'll just hold on to their monopoly forever still believe they'll get away with it but those are businesses most likely to be disrupted in the next 10-20 years.
When you look at the industries with the best and worst customer service, it’s mostly just a difference between low and high switching costs.
Personally, I called them, sent them messages, etc... And every time I had a helpful human (or an incredibly advanced AI) within a reasonable time.
So companies less profitable than Amazon that skimp on customer service using analytics should learn something here. Particularly ironic if they run their system on AWS.
That was an automated call to tell me that a human would be with me soon and the current wait time was one minute. As soon as the message ended, a human picked up.
Unfortunately, they could not do anything about my issue. Briefly, I ordered something on Prime Day that is normally available in 3 colors. My first choice was not available, my second choice was listed as taking a week, and my third choice could ship immediately. I went for my second choice.
A week later, they admitted that it was not actually going to be available for something like three weeks. Meanwhile, my first choice color was now available. I wanted to change my color choice to that.
Alas, apparently customer service does not have the ability to change the color option on an existing order. All they could suggest was cancel the order and re-order, but that would lose Prime Day pricing, which had been $22 on an item whose normal price was $49.
(Yesterday, I got a notice that because of the delays they were canceling the order, and they gave me a coupon code to get the $22 price if I wanted to re-order, along with a $5 gift card to help make up for the inconvenience. The color I originally ordered was listed as being back on stock on Aug 9 for Aug 12 delivery. My first choice was listed as being back in stock on Aug 9 for Aug 9 delivery...not sure how that works. My third choice was listed as in stock for 2 day delivery. I decided that the third color would work with my decor after all, and ordered that just to get this whole thing over with. It's been shipped and I'll get it tomorrow).
As I'd commented a few days ago[1], Google's then-CEO Eric Schmidt said "The Google policy on a lot of things is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it".
The problem with such a policy is in thinking that cultural and legal boundaries are fixed and inviolate. The very process of repeatedly pressing up to a border may trigger the backlash which moves it, and can leave the fate-tempting party in deep water -- with its own culture, processes, amd institutions unable to adapt, or with goodwill so badly burnt it never recovers.
In particular, the resource most being burnt is trust, a commodity that's expensive to acquire, quick to burn, and that big business in particular has had in short supply for most of the past 50 years[3]. Trust, once earned and deserved, hugely reduces costs of business in that counterparties -- not just customers, but vendors, employees, regulators, and even competitors -- tend to be inclined to cooperate and assist. And when squandered, makes every interaction (including customer service) a scorched-earth battleground. The topic is something of an evergreen in the business field, I'd posted an item recently on it.[4]
There are numerous places where customer service gets it wrong, but breakdowns of trust across multiple boundaries is hugely evident: the company doesn't trust its customers, or CSRs, marketing doesn't trust manufacturing, sales doesn't trust service, engineering doesn't trust sales, and more. Combine this with monopoly-sector practices and you've got huge problems. Add in elements of James C. Scott's Seeing Like a State and much more.
______________________________
Notes:
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20507894#20511372
2. https://www.businessinsider.com/eric-schmidt-googles-policy-...
3. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.as...
This is exactly the worst kind IMHO. I once had a support person telling me to listen to him telling me what my problem was as I was describing it to him.
Me: "The device doesn't work..."
Him: "Listen. Listen! LISTEN! Your device isn't connected."
Me: "Uhm, no it's ..."
Him: "Listen. Listen! LISTEN! You haven't plugged the cable in."
Me: "If you would please LISTEN to me maybe we can get somewhere?"Often the only people empowered to help are those in the customer retention department.
The standard response of 'before I can help you I need to ask you a few questions...' is another way of saying 'I am going to offer you no help whatsoever but keep you on the line anyway...'
All this achieves is a high rate of staff turnover and a lot of bad feeling on both sides of the fence.
The distinction from the article, is that the big companies whom can afford this tech, are doing analytics and reporting to the CSR when to not offer solutions, and when to offer. And unfortunately when doing voice analytics, the louder you are and the more 'power words' you use, the better you're treated by the company.
I in no way said this was good or ethical. It's abhorrent, and I'd rather steer clear with companies that use this. But in the bigger scheme of things, if I deal with a handful of mega-conglomerates that have phone lines, I must use this tactic in order to be made whole.
And then, I help create the horrible work environment... Sigh.
> Some companies now equip call centers with software that analyzes a caller’s tone of voice and pace of speech to determine how upset the person is. Angrier callers get routed to agents skilled at de-escalating conflict
Being a sophisticated programmer I thought complaining too much might weight my feedback. Seems the airlines and hotels aren’t that sophisticated.
Anyway:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/malus
>Noun
>malus (plural maluses)
> (business) The return of performance-related compensation originally paid by an employer to an employee as a result of the discovery of a defect in the performance.
and now that you mention it, i think i might have seen that term in a legal context, but it's not used in any other context i am acquainted with.
The "entrance class" is the 14th, worst is 18th and best is 1st.
I think that's something to consider when doing your customer feedback.
That strategy might work as long as you have to deal with large corporations/chains/etc., but besides being unfair to the people involved, it won't likely work in places where you are not a number.
If United, however asks how clean the aircraft was and there was chocolate smeared on my seat they get a 1 out of 5. I think people don’t use these surveys enough to tell companies how they’re doing. If the company wants to take general cleanliness feedback and punish good hard working employees then I’m not sure what my role in that toxicity is. I prefer to err on the side of strong signals rather than weak ones because they help force the system to respond. If that means they loose key people to Delta for treating them poorly then maybe it all works out. I have no idea how I’d know or could take action otherwise. It’s a big opaque bureaucracy.
Well, but then that is not nit picking anything, it is objectively reporting issues that are real.
From your original post it sounded (to me at least) like you would downrate a hotel because the maid forgot to leave in the bathroom a shower cap. (as opposed to just call service for one, if needed)
BTW I know someone that actually did that, and he was (is) completely bald.