Hacker News Reader

Comment by TylerE | Hacker News Reader

Because that isn't a useful allocation of resources.

Support that powerful are going to basically be devs. With dev salary expectations.

I think it's useful and it's very much worth it to give support a salary where they are enthusiastic to be employed.

If someone uses your product or service and has an issue, the first contact they have with your company is through support.

A crappy support experience could easily be the difference between having a life time customer valued at thousands of dollars, or your customer feeling frustrated and going to another company, netting you $0. That has a butterfly effect too because having 100 happy customers who are praising your support could lead to many new sales from organic recommendations. Having a bunch of customers who felt neglected by your support could yield a situation where your company is now on the front page of HN for having bad support or worse.

For whatever reasons, bigger companies focus more on measurable metrics like "tickets closed per hour", where the emphasis is on things that aren't important because measuring customer happiness is pretty subjective and doesn't translate well to employee evaluation scores.

I know if I ever got the point where I would need to delegate support assistance to someone, you can be sure I would pay them amazingly well, at least equal to a developer's salary because I never want anyone to ever feel like they get ignored or have a low quality experience with my products.

I think this happens because it's very very difficult for a manager's manager to know if the frontline employee is spending their time solving real problems or slacking off with no actual regard for the customer.

"Metrics" are an unhappy middleground for everyone.

Airbnb is a great example of both. If you call tech support and get India, hang up. If you're lucky they're useless. If you're unlucky, they're going against your direct command and contacting the drug dealers in your house about a complaint. Contrast that to reaching one of the many on-shore agents who do their jobs well. One call, one or two people max and the issue is mostly resolved.

I've got no idea what the cause is. It's probably a mix of poor management, ineffective metrics, low salaries and a work culture in India which isn't synonymous with quality. The bottom line is, even the same company can be doing support wonderfully and terribly at the same time.

Yeah AirBnB support in India was awful and I wrote the company off after dealing with them for 20 minutes. Their onshore team actually cared about the huge cockroach infestation in our unit but the Indian guy I first talked to did not give a damn. And that’s who you’re most likely to get at 4 in the afternoon on your first day.

Part of "Wear the Customer's Shoes" at Twilio (when I was there) was that each quarter every developer and product manager was expected to spend a full day doing front line support for free(-ish) tier customers and however long it took to fully resolve the tickets they got during that time. Really let you understand the type of problems people had, how to have empathy, and basically how to make a better product.

In my experience companies use not only "tickets closed per hour", but combine those with "average score" of 1-5 stars.

Yeah but at a large company the ratings don't matter too much in the end because it ends up being a spreadsheet game focused on hiring for the lowest cost while maintaining a level of support that's barely 1 notch above "horrible support".

So if you end up hiring someone who produces a bunch of 1-2 star ratings, you just fire them and try again with someone else until you get someone who produces mostly 3s+.

In the end you would think this would result in better support but it never does. You just end up turning over a lot of support employees, and the user experience for the customer is still bad because you need to first get through a robot menu, then talk to an entry level support who will happily let you pour your soul out on the details of the problem for 5 minutes, and then at the end they are like "oh, I can't do that, but I can forward you to someone who can".

And now you get to be put on hold again, anticipating by coincidence you'll probably lose the connection, and if you're lucky now you get someone who is capable of understanding the problem and you get to re-tell the whole situation again.

Before you know it, with wait times included you're 20 minutes into this and you just barely got to the point where you might get help for the issue. Businesses could solve this problem, but they don't. Instead of hiring better support folks for more money, they put the burden on the customer to have to wade through a bunch of BS and essentially train their entry level support for free -- and it's worse than free too because you're paying that company money for their service and you're trading time from your life to do it.

Yeah, even russian social network (200m users) have a bunch of very smart people supporting users from password recovery to psychological help. No way big startup can't afford something like this. You just have to do so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com