Hacker News Reader

Comment by takinola | Hacker News Reader

Lots of comments seem to miss the point of this article. The point being made is to put the concerns of the customer first before yours. I see the opposite happen all the time in software development. You have two systems that somehow don't talk to each other. Instead of implementing some kind of connector between them, you make the customer log in twice and transfer information between the two systems. In this case, the maker has prioritized their convenience over that of the user. This is the wrong approach. Before someone gets pedantic, obviously, if you have analyzed the costs and decided it makes sense, then go ahead and do you but don't just make default decisions to benefit yourself at the cost to your customer

View on HN

Exactly this. Further, I'd expand on what they are saying to say that the difference between a bad customer experience, good customer experience, and great customer experience typically lies in the little details and goes beyond the core offering. Great customer service orgs take the time to check up on you and make sure you are happy (and have it not be an automated effort), they bend the rules to fit an edge case, they always own mistakes and try to make it right, and they are fundamentally customer focused. Bad orgs treat customers like numbers and hide behind policy and contracts at every opportunity so that they don't actually have to deal with people.

For example, I took my girlfriend to a nice hotel for our anniversary last year. When the hotel heard I was having an anniversary, they sent up a very nice hand written congratulatory card, a bottle of prosecco, and a selection of deserts on the house. That couldn't have taken them more than 15 minutes and cost them like 20 dollars, but it is something I will always remember; I will definitely return there in the future; and I recommend that hotel to any friends seeking a nice place to stay. That is great customer service.

At a more basic level, I was at a mid tier hotel a few weeks ago and somehow I didn't get the room upgrade I paid for. The management immediately refunded me the difference without complaint and gave me a few drink tickets to use at their bar as an apology. That is good customer service.

Contrast those to my experience at my former favorite steak house this year where for the last ten years I had been telling everyone to go. I went there for Valentine's day (had a reservation) and was told I had to wait 30 minutes for a table to open. While I was waiting, I saw multiple couples of the same size come in behind me and get seated. After the 30 minute wait, they tried to seat us at the loud and noisy bar. When I complained, they basically told me tough shit you get what you get. A reservation just guarantees you a table not a good one. I concluded that they were discriminating against us because we are younger than the average clientele there. Not only did I walk out and cost them my business, but I gave them a scathing Yelp review, and now shit talk them at every opportunity. I will never go back even though they were great every other time I was there, and instead always point friends to one of their main competitors when asked my opinion about local steak houses. I do this even though I know the competitor's food isn't as good. They could have given me the table I deserved; they could have comped some drinks or something; but no, they were right and I was wrong and so they lost a loyal customer instead.

> For example, I took my girlfriend to a nice hotel for our anniversary last year. When the hotel heard I was having an anniversary, they sent up a very nice hand written congratulatory card, a bottle of prosecco, and a selection of deserts on the house. That couldn't have taken them more than 15 minutes and cost them like 20 dollars, but it is something I will always remember; I will definitely return there in the future; and I recommend that hotel to any friends seeking a nice place to stay. That is great customer service.

I'm not doubting that this is nice, but in a lot of businesses this could be all or most of their margin. You can be nice all day long but at the end of the day there has to be something left to run the business. There are plenty of ways to exceed customer expectations without running your business into the ground.

> this could be all or most of their margin.

For that particular stay, yes. But it increases the likelihood that the customer will come back and, perhaps more importantly, tell everyone they know about how awesome the place is. It's hard to see how this wouldn't work out to a net positive in the longer run.

Depend show much utility you offer and how much money your clientele have. For some businesses, the customer doesn’t value anything other than the price.

I somehow doubt this is the case. When a business is described as low-margin, it’s on a per-sale basis; they make $.02 on every bolt sold kind of thing. If its a functioning business, then they still make reasonable total profit due to volume of sale.

So yes, if this were an additional $20 per sale it might deeply cut into their margins if they aren’t a luxury product.

However, I struggle to imagine that every, or most, or even many, of a hotels sales are anniversaries, or similar kinds of events, that would deserve such additional servicing.

If the total profit is $200k, a single $20 (or relatively few) instance is nothing, regardless of high or low margins.

Specially servicing these rare, one-off events, is exactly how you exceed customer expectations without running your business into the ground.

Generally I'd expect these kind of expenses to be tracked under Marketing, which often has a lot of leeway.

Exactly. Word of mouth marketing is authentic, advertisments are impersonal and deceptive.

Whilst checking into Hotel Sir Albert in Amsterdam we mentioned it was the fourth time we'd stayed there. When we returned to the room later in the day there was a charming card featuring a hand drawn Kiwi and a note, something like "Welcome home Mr and Mrs Forster". My wife has kept that card, even though she hates being called Mrs Forster (that's not her name). Total cost, maybe $0.5. Customer loyalty delta, very positive.

Your story highlights why customer service is not as easy as we think because of the requirement for sustained performance being quite high.

By your own admission, you went to this steak house for 10 years and had liked it so much you encouraged others. I'd imagine you would've visited multiple times per year? So, let's say 20~30 visits total? All that time you were happy and raved about it, but one bad visit and not only did it sour your opinion to the point you won't return, but you also mentioned that you will disparage them whenever you can. At around 30 visits, 97% of your experience there was positive to the point of rave reviews.

I'm not having a go at you, I'm just using your story to highlight the difficulty in customer service and how fickle we all are as customers (myself included). I suppose that really just speaks more to our recency bias as humans as well.

I see what you're saying and agree, but that didn't just sound bad, that sounded awful. The basics of customer service were not met.

I wouldn't call that fickle as it went further than just a bad visit.

Losing 30 minutes, eating in a noisy environment, and not being able to control how the restaurant manages a schedule the GP doesn't have insight into is awful?

Getting pissed off over an experience like that is probably an appropriate response. Or bringing the 10 year history of being a loyal client to the management's attention. But going to war against them for a once in 10 years event sounds like first world entitlement.

The overall point about the lengths needed to maintain an experience that keeps customers happy is real, though. You don't make money by trying to profit on every transaction or treating entitled people like you know they're acting like an ass.

Right, it sounds like Thriptic blew up the problem and he had to make a scene to be heard. It's now pride that prevents him from going back even though he would lose his favorite dinner spot.

In his defense, if a customer is paying and not asking for out of the ordinary, it's really bad business to not at least acknowledge the customer when they are generous enough to complain.

In general I'd be inclined to agree, but two things come to mind. One: if I had a reservation I'd expect it's for a table not a seat at the bar. Two: being deliberately singled out versus being an accident. If the staff had been more obvious (e.g. tables are for whites only), would you suggest giving them another chance?

DOSA in SF (the one on Fillmore) deserves an honorable mention for not honoring reservations. We showed up early with a reservation and they continued to seat people before us, after like half an hour we all left because we were going to a show. I talked to the manager who claimed we arrived late, etc., etc. I wasn't a regular customer, I didn't make a scene, but you can bet your ass I'll badmouth DOSA every chance I get. If you're not going to honor reservations, why take them?

You don't make money by trying to profit on every transaction or treating entitled people like you know they're acting like an ass.

And what makes someone entitled? Wanting a table to go with the reservation? Or looking different than the typical customers?

It's more that from how he described it they didn't apologise or treat him well as well.

Do the exact same thing they did except simply present it better and apologise and now you're likely not going to piss off a loyal customer.

People's reactions to how they are treated is emotional.

The guy apparently received appalling service and was humiliated in front of his girlfriend on Valentine's day by a restaurant he trusted and was attached to.

This was personal betrayal.

This is why cause people to react so strongly. We don't see this as a simple business transaction, this is personal and emotional.

Yes you can see that reaction and even description after some time passes is purely emotional. Nothing logical can pierce that. It doesn't matter that he gives his friends bad recommendation, as long as the restaurant which betrayed him is punished by lost customers. That's outsider's perspective, I can bet for him he feels this perfectly fine and good behavior and maybe even doing a service to his friends.

The reality is, if 97% was a great experience and 3% awful, its still a great place when averaged. I for example would gladly try out such a place if it would be described objectively, without some stupid emotions overshadowing every single fact.

Some would call the reaction appropriate, some overblown. Not judging, haven't been treated like that. But generally emotions are bad long-term advisor, unless decision also passes some basic logic check (which usually they don't).

A Spock-like character always shows up in HN threads like these to claim perfect rationality, cite some figures, etc. You know what? People are emotional creatures. and sometimes, yes, a humiliating and excessive failure on the part of a restaurant is enough to warrant a strong and permanent reaction. This is a restaurant, after all. In the end, who gives a shit? You’re going there to have a good time. If you don’t have a good time, it’s perfectly valid to not go back.

We need to listen to our emotions more, not less in some circumstances. I don’t mean to make a scene, but to take it as a sign that we shouldn’t eat at that restaurant, take that job, date that person, patronize that airline, etc.

Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/325/

In general this sounds reasonable. But another perspective has to do with binary reasoning. Are you trustworthy? IMHO its a yes/no answer. Are you dependable? Again yes/no. If you are "mostly honest or dependable", do I count on you 70% or 90% of the time? IMHO the restaurant dropped the ball on customer service. I would have taken that personally as well. Suppose it were a customer meeting instead. You've arranged it all, refreshments, talk some business, eat and talk more, relax and enjoy your new customer/client/partner relationship. Oops... they want to put you at the bar?

Do you enjoy russian roulette? It has a lot of great experiences with the occasional awful experience.

It doesn't really matter if his reaction was justified or not, that's how people act. And it highlights why customer service is so important: because sometimes it really does just take one slip up to lose a loyal customer and to turn a promoter into a detractor.

It makes no difference if it's rational or not if it's reality because if you're an expensive steak house, you have first world customers so their first world problems are your problems.

It also speaks to the need to know your customer. The restaurant should have had discreet cameras with facial recognition software to alert management immediately that a high value customer was walking in the door, and to make sure he got treated right.

I hope this is sarcasm

Isn’t it more fun to wonder?

Not really. Surveillance capitalism is pretty-much always ugly and awful. What surprises me is that the restaurant didn't have a loyalty scheme, or a front-of-house incentivised to recognise repeat customers. These systems are cheaper, more flexible, have fewer gross externalities than facial recognition and inherently promote human interaction.

If you have a system to recognise repeat customers, what difference does it make whether that system is implemented in silicon or carbon?

Harder to spin up 1000 duplicate instances of the front-of-house staff or sell the capability to identify customers out-of-house as well.

On HN there’s always brilliant commentary and there’s always posters defending the undefendable. I’ll be wondering forever.

This certainly isn't unique to HN.

My favorite forum is Slashdot so I get that.

1. That would upset many customers if they found out. 2. It's redundant because he had a reservation.

As bizarre as your suggestion is, what makes you so sure Thriptic is "high-value"? A guy this volatile and so easy to annoy probably found reasons in the past to justify (in his own mind) 10% tips or lower. Perhaps the cameras (or just a wise restaurant manager) knew Thriptic was in fact a cheapskate that they had little interest in serving.

One expects flawless experience every time, not 97% of the time. A steak house is not that critical, but would you fly if the success rate of an airliner is 97%? Would you go to a steak house where you get a food poisoning every 3% of the time? Where do you draw the line?

Waiting in the line for 30 minutes can't be compared to dying, that's nonsense and I'm sure you realize that.

Yes I would go to steakhouse which has 97% chance of being awesome, with 3% chance of waiting in the line 30+ minutes, even on valentine. But that's me (and my wife)

Consider going back now that you have given them that scathing Yelp review. That way you'll be able to have better steaks and feel vindicated. Heck, dump on them on Google too, and write to the local newspaper just before V day (old people read those letters!). If you have any impact it will at least be to have fewer competitors for a table. Heck, pay money to have them given bad reviews, it's really cheap.

Yes I'm being tongue in cheek here, but try not to cut off your nose to spite your face.

V day and M day are the absolute worst times to go out for dinner, anywhere half decent is full and the kitchen is super stressed so they have reduced menus that are easier to cook (not possible with steak...). If you must go, you have to speak to the manager beforehand, tell them how important this is, remind them you come often, get a specific table, etc.

> V day and M day are the absolute worst times to go out for dinner, anywhere half decent is full and the kitchen is super stressed so they have reduced menus that are easier to cook (not possible with steak...).

Why is that, exactly? A whole bunch of tables with two people at them sounds like it should be a bit easier than a normal busy day. And you know far in advance that you need to be well-staffed. Are valentines couples very demanding? Are there other troubles?

I feel bad for your friends. They come to you often for good steakhouse recommendations and instead of pointing them to the restaurant with the best food and great service except on Valentine's Day, you send them down the block to the mediocre place in an effort to pay this place back. One of your friends might catch on and stop asking for recommendations, or worse, start giving you bad ones as well.

As for your second example, I don't find this to be good customer service. You paid for an upgrade and didn't get it. It's not just about the incremental upgrade. You could have booked elsewhere and the upgrade was part of that decision. The sum of the parts is greater than the whole sometimes. They could have done better than a refund on the delta and some booze.

The second example is the bare minimum I’d expect. A full refund perhaps.

> and now shit talk them at every opportunity

Credibility tends to take a hit when you do that. People interpret it not as the restaurant necessarily being bad as much as you having a bone to pick.

I bet he tells them what happened

Did the steak house change management?

If you were with me for the good times, then ditched me at the first problem and shit talked me and turned other people against me, then described yourself as “a loyal friend”, I think I’d raise an eyebrow.

If you were with me for the good times, then ditched me at the first problem and shit talked me and turned other people against me, then described yourself as “a loyal friend”, I think I’d raise an eyebrow.

Intent matters. Let's say your partner is trying to toss a coke bottle into the garbage bin. Let's say your partner misses and bonks you on the nose with the bottle instead. Do you leave? What if your partner, instead, had been trying to throw the bottle at you in anger?

I think all of the above should be the expected experiences, including expecting poor customer service and shopping at stores on Black Friday and subpar dining on Valentines. Businesses are human and every business has their most stressful periods, knowing that can help you time your interactions (especially when you need perfection or complicated requirements).

> I see the opposite happen all the time in software development.

The software development world is plagued with the idea that developer productivity and happiness comes before all other considerations. Can you imagine a car manufacturer building something that get's 2 mpg but excusing it with "but it was quicker to build"? Yet we have electron.

If it's 2 mpg but despite this gets wildly used it means it was right decision.

Crack gets wildly used. There are other considerations to be made.

Crack is a very good product from the perspective of the producer/vendor.

SV in a nutshell, folks.

“Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black.” — Henry Ford

Meet the customers basic requirements and you compete on price first 9 times out of ten. Look at the airline industry, prices have steadily declined since deregulation and creature comforts right along with them. If Americans could buy standing room only tickets they would in droves.

Things are more complex than that. People will pay for a standing room only flight because the cost is so high. If I could fly standing room for $5 instead of $150 I'd be more interested in paying $20 a seat.

> Can you imagine a car manufacturer building something that get's 2 mpg but excusing it with "but it was quicker to build"? Yet we have electron.

Bad example, ever try fixing your own car and wondering why they made it so hard to access some parts? And then you try to replace some bit and break some smaller bit, like a plastic clip or something. And you can't buy the smaller bit anywhere. Most cars are built for ease of assembly, not ease of repair for example.

And yet everyone cites Amazon as the gold standard. Have you tried to use their disconnected, inconsistent, terrible user interfaces? It's like you're talking to a completely different company switching between departments of the same store.

The thing is that Amazon is emphatically not a small business. Amazon's customers are a pretty captive audience, and have to put up with what they got.

Same with other giants / monopolies; this is why monopolies are bad for customers.

You'd say that, but the competition is worse. I put up with Amazon's issues because the competition, well, they don't quite compete.

"Get this item tomorrow and without shipping costs when you join Prime! Free for 1 year! Click this big button to join Prime! Or click this tiny link to go to the 'Are you sure you don't want Prime?' page interrupting your checkout process!"

A while ago I started getting advertisements for Prime for Students interrupting every checkout. I graduated nearly a decade ago. Though I did recently start grad school and I did in fact sign up for Prime so maybe Amazon knew before I did.

True, but they're miles ahead of the "competition", thus they are the gold standard.

I've never heard anyone cite Amazon as the gold standard of user interfaces.

Point well taken.

However, don't underestimate that the majority of people will often gravitate towards the most marketed thing, not the best designed (usable) thing.

I'm amazed at people's tolerance threshold nowadays for software that's mind-bogglingly difficult to use.

I find that technology has overall become less usable, less well-designed, more bloated, and more stuffed with eye-candy.

You are correct. And the cause is that it costs money to design good interfaces. Most people don't understand the value of craftsmanship, and are not willing to pay for it.

You don't get what you don't pay for.

Exactly, how do you remove impediments for the customer along their journey. Ideally once they have made their decision, they should have a front park, have the car door opened for them, and be carried at speed towards the counter for pickup whilst their order is being taken. Every moment for pause is a opportunity for them to leave the path.

Your example isn't even the worst. How about proprietary web services which can import your data, but not export it?

> Lots of comments seem to miss the point of this article. The point being made is to put the concerns of the customer first before yours.

Why didn't they just say so.

It does say so: "he told me the experience his customers have while visiting him was very important to him and it started when they pulled into the parking lot".

They did - explicitly in the section that starts "Obsessing with Customer’s Experience is a Win."

That being said, when writing engaging content, it's usually better to show, rather than just tell. That's also what they did here.

Last thing - they wanted to convey the message to as many people as possible. If the article was entitled "Put the concerns of the customer first before yours," virtually no one would read it (and no one on a site like HN, Twitter, or Facebook would click through to it).

Great point! I title was something I considered. I wanted something provocative. (without being click bait)

That title might even kill it in general as we'd read it, agree, then move on instead of clicking through to read the story.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com