Hacker News Reader

Comment by andy99 | Hacker News Reader

That's intentional, not really a technology limitation. Just like bad in person service is not really a limitation of the agents, it's company policy.

The goal of customer service is usually to avoid helping customers. "AI" is better at that than people because it doesn't have feelings. So people give up trying to get a resolution, metrics go up, and the world gets a little worse.

It's not an AI issue, it's a neo-feudal post capitalism issue.

View on HN

Indeed, Klarna is one of those companies that do want customers to not be helped, and then do wrong, so that Klarna can charge them when they do. As exemplified by this answer from their co-founder at a fin-tech conference:

"The best customer is the one that doesn't pay directly but get a reminder and then also a debt collection letter, because we are able to add the legal fees" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDdVSM1UBDo)

They used to be #1 cause of complaints to the Swedish National Board for Consumer Disputes before their dark patterns were forbidden by a law created especially against them.

Absolutely horrible company IMHO. I have their domains blocked in my web browser so that I don't accidentally use them on a merchant's site that hasn't advertised that they do.

How is the goal of customer service to avoid helping customers? If specifically you mean crediting their accounts or cancelling services or replacing devices under warranty, perhaps in some cases an argument can be made.

Otherwise the goal is to resolve issues as quickly as possible presuming the company isn't absolute garbage.

> Otherwise the goal is to resolve issues as quickly as possible presuming the company isn't absolute garbage.

That's the key assumption here…

The op was too glib but you’re still not assembling all the goals a company has for cs.

Yes, resolve issues as quickly as possible. Also avoid incurring any additional expense (which can mean having the cuatomer give up on their issue). Also maintaining NPS. These goals conflict and management can choose to prioritize either at any point.

> to resolve issues as quickly

That's only a target if it increases the bottom-line (or some column in some excel sheet). No investor-held company will ever (be able to) choose to decrease a bottom line.

Providing good customer service improves the bottom line in the long run. Management that is unwilling to do that is either focused only on short-term gains or is totally incompetent.

Resolving issues quickly also reduces the amount of money the company needs to spend on support.

Is you refuse chargebacks and the revenue loss from doing the chargeback and / or your cut of the reversed transaction is, as a sum, lower than the chance that a user leaves your service, then it is better for the bottom line not to allow it.

That type of "churn and burn" doesn't work long-term. Acquiring new customers has a cost, and that cost will increase the more customers you've burned. The more customers you burn, the more likely it is that potential customers will have heard something negative about your service.

this usually isn’t actual policy at a company, much of the time they really are failing rather than intentionally sabotaging

Sorry you might have had those experiences but in my experience that is not true. Those terrible chat bots usually come forth by management that has zero experience on the technical side that implement a cost savings via a consultant. It is still a mess but not "neo-feudal post capitalism".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com