Internet giants, you’re no longer startups, get some customer service | Hacker News Reader

Internet giants, you’re no longer startups, get some customer service

glassbalcony.tumblr.com

237 points_csoz98 comments

I couldn't agree more with this article. I was banned from adsense yesterday for embedding advertisements on a mobile application or within a third-party toolbar (neither of which I have ever done, and have analytics to prove it). In the email they sent to inform me that I was banned, they including a link to an appeal form. This sounded reasonable, until after submitting my appeal I received an automatic reject ion within a minute of submission. No human could have possibly read, let alone reviewed the evidence I submitted.

There's simply no avenue for me to appeal now, and furthermore I cannot use the platform ever again.

Had a similar experience. In fact, due to large enough ad traffic, we were assigned to an actual contact in the past, who had repeatedly ensured us that our setup was valid. Then a few months ago all of a sudden our account was banned. After two appeals asking for what could possibly be causing "invalid activity" (if there was, it was certainly not coming from us), we were told not to contact them again.

This is sadly something that can be done by your competitors. Blackhats have tools to bomb you with ad clicks that follow obvious patterns. I've seen multiple cases of people complaining about this whilst research ways to appeal my ban last night.

Same, I was banned for invalid click activity a while back, appealed with an offer of turning over any data they needed to prove I was not involved in it. I never clicked one of my own ads intentionally and only accidentally did once (and something on their site at the time said not to worry about it if you accidentally did it once), and the appeal still got rejected shortly after. This not only locked me out of AdSense forever, it broke other Google products for me that had been tied into AdSense.

Feedburner, for example, didn't let you disable ads in your feed once you've been banned by AdSense. (I haven't checked since to see if this is still the case.) So unless you deleted the feed entirely and recreated it (losing all related settings statistics, etc.) you still had ads on all your feed items, but you weren't getting paid for them.

Curiously, they did this when I was finally only a few dollars away from my initial payout of $100.

Now, of course, I can never participate in YouTube's monetization program either.

Hey, is this Dean from vbulletin.org? I don't know if you remember me. Just thought I'd say "Hi."

'Tis I

If you think just adding people will solve the problem, you've never called Virgin Mobile's support line.

> One possible opportunity is to get the legal system and governments involved in this so as to require an adequate level of merchant support.

I wince every time someone proclaims the government should step in to regulate something that is obviously none of their business. That's the easy way out, and it hurts everyone in the long run.

This seems self contradictory. One of the government's jobs is consumer protection and regulation. If support is deemed to be a required thing, why shouldn't it fall under that scope?

This just seems like the normal knee jerk reaction from the right half of the political spectrum that says all regulation is bad.

You may disagree, but it's not self contradictory to think that it's not the government's role to regulate business in this way.

Look at MySQL as an example of regulation not being for support.

If you start asking for customer support as part of regulation, you massively raise the entrance costs for other companies.

x100. Plus, I'll believe the government can regulate good customer service into companies the day I don't dread going to the DMV.

This is an easy problem to avoid: just have the regulation only kick in when you bring in a certain amount of revenue.

PayPal did $1.5 billion in revenues in Q1 2013. So you could draw a line at $1bn/year, say, which would be more than high enough to leave out any reasonable definition of a "startup" while still covering established market leaders.

It's an easy problem to talk about avoiding, sure. We can see an obvious failure mode, so we just won't do that. But it won't be you doing it in the first place, you won't have that sort of authority. You've got to think what sort of person's going to be giving you what you ask for, what sort of terms they're likely to impose.

The person doing it won't always have an incentive to avoid the same things that you or I might think of as undesirable. The last thing you want to do is to ask for something, be one of a selection of competing viewpoints on it, and then get the Cthulhu version imposed on you.

Can you get rules that make sense out of a system? Sure. But the tendency is that you won't - at least not without a threat that forces a uniformity of interest upon the system.

You're assuming that "the system" is something that has no inputs to affect the behavior of "the person doing it". Which is wrong. There are plenty of points in the rulemaking process (see https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaki...) where those in the startup community could ask for a more targeted rule, if such a rule were being considered. And given how no politician wants to be tagged as being against job creation at the moment, I have to think it'd be an easy sell to convince them that a more narrowly targeted rule would be in everybody's best interest.

"The system" doesn't need to have "uniformity of interest" in order to make sensible things come out of it; you just need to be willing to make your voice heard within it, and to accept that you may have to compromise a bit from your ideal outcome in order to get other interests to come along.

I don't see much about consumer protection in the Constitution, the definitive document of the "government's jobs".

It doesn't mean that there isn't some authority there, but it's silly to act like there is a mandate so explicit that we can legislate things like "make your customers happy within 48 hours of initial contact or the American people will exert physical force against you", which is essentially what people ask for when they say that Google doesn't offer "adequate" service. The proposed laws may not say that verbatim, but that's the idea they'll attempt to convey in typically myopic, broken, unworkable legalese, and to which all companies in the U.S. will have to adhere.

I believe there is a reasonable case for governmental standards and penalties relative to things like food or building safety, but "you must have X customer service agents per customer accessible by phone at least 12 hours per day once you reach $100k in revenue", or whatever, is really pushing it. Why do we believe it's reasonable to get the government involved in such minor, everyday living things? We like what Google gives us, but don't like something about the way it's implemented, so instead of working within the market we go whine to our legislators and ask them to force Google to do what we want? The fact that anyone even considers that does not bode well for the future of capitalism.

Look at how well government intervention helped airlines improve support.

Over the past 50 years, the government has significantly deregulated the airline industry.

Is my sarcasmometer broken?

Would have let the banks and oil industries not be regulated?

Are you really trying to say that "commerce" is none of the government's business?

> Internet giants, you’re no longer startups, get some customer service

That's like demanding that a slaughterhouse provides customer service for cows. You're not the customer, you are a peasant. Google's business is not providing infrastructure, it's aggregating and selling information, no matter what outwards appearance they like to give themselves.

Actually the post mentions the business customers (for Adsense) not individual consumers - users, who (as you've brilliantly illustrated) are in fact just a part of Google's product.

Not really.

One might say that you cannot demand "free services" to provide customer service, but I would not consider Google's services as "free". This is because you are paying with your personal information, it's just another currency.

There are a lot of Google services where customer service is indeed relevant, for example Gmail, Google+, Google docs, etc.

For the record, this is not just Google. Facebook, twitter and others need to step up as well.

> This is because you are paying with your personal information, it's just another currency.

That doesn't seem accurate. You are "paying" by allowing yourself to be exposed to advertisements. Your personal information helps target those ads.

> You are "paying" by allowing yourself to be exposed to advertisements

No, many of us are literally paying. You know, with dollars. For (really tiny amounts of) storage space. And other things.

That makes sense. Paying with personal information was the statement that I was responding to. The personal information is worthless without the exposure to advertisements.

We clearly have different views. I believe that a transaction of value (i.e. a payment) is not limited to money, it does include indirect values as well. I.e. if I send my personal data to a advertising corporation - that is a transaction of an indirect value. The direct value of that transaction is of course when receiving money from the one buying the advertisement which is exposed to me. Yet without my personal information, they could possible not have sold it for as much.

I agree that one can pay for something without exchanging money. What I took issue with was your emphasis on paying with personal information, while not mentioning that the personal information was being used in service of the advertisement exposures.

As far as I know, the reason they want my information is to make the actual revenue-generating thing work better. The advertisements would still make Google (far less, but still significant) money without my personal information. My personal information presumably wouldn't generate much significant revenue at all were it not being used in service of advertisements. That's why it seemed odd to me to say that I'm paying with my personal information, and not mention advertising exposures. Perhaps I'm quibbling though!

Anyway, I'm starting to feel like a modern jackass[1]; sorry if this wasn't very clear.

1. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=modern%20jack...

> For the record, this is not just Google. Facebook, twitter and others need to step up as well. Or else what? To what benefit? Do they need to step up or would you just prefer if they provided customer service?

Oh sorry! English is not my native language, I did not realize "need to step up" was considered such a strong expression. I stand corrected: Not just Google, I would prefer if many other corporations were able to provide customer service as well, please.

Whether the service is free or not has nothing to do with the amount of support they provide. If they charged $0.01 per year, would that then change any argument in any way? What about $0.01 for life?

Google is monetizing the interaction in some way, either directly or indirectly (possibly even as a loss leader), otherwise they would not offer it. That is all that matters.

Once we can all get past the "free" concept, it turns into a rather mundane comparisons of price vs features, but price may not entirely consist of currency.

I agree.

The point of my above statement was that one might argue that it's not reasonable to for example call Linus Torvalds and demand customer service for free.

Except cows don't pay the slaughterhouse like I pay Google.

They pay with their flesh.

Well I pay with money, so...

Shylock might quibble about semantics.

Shylock might, but I don't. I actively give them money, there's no extra work on their end to monetize me. Giving them information means they need to monetize that information by selling it. I'm offering liquidity (cash). Tech support doesn't seem like too much to ask.

A pound of flesh is not liquid (actually, it's punitive on Antonio).

I've been reading Jaron Lanier's new Book: http://www.amazon.com/Who-Owns-Future-Jaron-Lanier/dp/145165...

Definitely worth a read for its input on this subject.

So, with respect to the idea of cash, I agree that Google should provide service, but from their perspective that would break their margins on this product.

That's some pretty extreme language. Google has never cut me open and turned me into steaks and sausages. Google has never indicated that i'm somehow lower status than it. Google in fact seems to treat everyone but a few large enterprise customers equally indifferently.

Google is in the search business, I believe 90+% of revenue comes from adwords and adsense, not selling user information to intelligence agencies, as your hyperbole would suggest.

Of course we all know all that, so I'm assuming you've had some kind of account issue with them in the past.

"I believe 90+% of revenue comes from adwords and adsense, not selling user information to intelligence agencies,..."

Err... what exactly do you think AdWords and AdSense are? Think about what it means to target ads... they advertisers are not paying to know what browser you're using. They're paying to get their ads targeted on whatever Google knows about you. Even if the knowledge doesn't transfer directly, the advertisers don't really care, they've got what they want.

They don't sell the information though, they sell placement.

What about the other side of the adsense equation: site owners placing Google ads who sometimes get hosed off the service with little room for recourse or support?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

Disagree.

Here's a current problem I'm working on. I subscribed to some app service on the internet for $1.99/m through google wallet. After a month, I cancelled the subscription via my google wallet subscriptions. To my surprise, the next month I received another $1.99 charge. So I cancelled it, and sent a message to the app maker through Google Wallet -- no reply. The next month, another charge. I cancelled it, this time, went looking on the app makers website, found an unsubscribe form, thought, "ahh, here we go," never heard from them. Next month, $1.99 charge. I cancel it and after 5 minutes of intense clicking, find a number to google wallet customer service!!! I called, explained my situation, reconfirmed my credit cards, addresses, email, name, etc, to be told to fill out a form, wait 3-5 business days to receive an email from someone that should be able to fix my problems. At this point I feel an email won't help me, so I ask, "Are you sure there isn't a phone number? I would really like to get this resolved today" politely. I was then informed that the specialists are not yet reachable by phone. So, I'm waiting now for a reply from a specialist who will hopefully solve my problem.

Imagine you're at the store register with your kids and your credit card is declined wrongly. Embarrassed, you leave your cart, call the bank, explain your situation, and they say, "We're sorry to hear that, we are emailing you a form, please fill it out. You can expect a reply via email in 3-5 business days from someone who might help." That simply wouldn't be acceptable.

I believe that you want to change the world, Google, but sometimes you need to focus more resources on the world you've already changed.

> That simply wouldn't be acceptable.

Indeed, and a reasonable person would take their business elsewhere instead of attempting to impose their opinion on banks by force (aka law). If you don't think Google offers a fair deal, you should stop using their services. I'm not seeing how this is a problem.

I had a similar problem with an app service and Google Wallet. I didn't get the satisfaction I wanted from the service nor Google Wallet. So I cancelled the both of them.

I expect limited customer service for a free service; I expect something entirely different for paid service. Even more so when it is a recurring charge, whether $2 or $50/mo I've basically opened my bank account to you so respect it.

My experiences only:

Google Adwords technical support isn't so bad now that they have a call center. They can't actually resolve anything but do write a message on your behalf to the 2nd tier support. Having used it about 4-5 times now it takes about between 3 to 7 days to solve a problem... longer if they are confused.

Before having used Google's email support for years it is all outsourced to India who just send out faq responses to your intial emails. The email support does seem to have some power to fix problems but first you have to learn how to describe your problem in as few words as possible. Never be verbose. Emails get responded to during India daylight hours.

Google Adwords work so well that if Google Ad-bot goes crazy and nukes your campaign/adgroup etc other companies have bought your url as an ad so your customers end up in the wrong place, people can't tell the difference between the ads/organic so they often never make it down to the organic links, etc. You can loose thousands and have higher technical support while Adwords is getting around to looking into what happened this time with the ad.

Of course it makes sense they would offer support for Adwords -- a product with which they draw in revenue. This article, however, talks about their Adsense product, with which they pay customers.

And obviously, they have to have ad sellers to have ad buyers, but I still find it curious that they offer support for one and not the other.

but I still find it curious that they offer support for one and not the other

It's pretty simple. Without AdWords, Google would not exist. They could drop AdSense and nobody would really notice. I'm exaggerating, but AdWords really is Google, and AdSense isn't necessary.

5 years Adwords support was awful. I was told by a rep that they wouldn't assign an account manager to you unless you spent $10k/month. If you didn't, you were pretty much up the creek. Now days, it doesn't seem nearly that bad. They're always pestering even my small accounts to try to "help".

Back when google first listed my families business they had mined the data and logged the business address as my moms address. The problem with this was that the family business was a ghetto auto parts junk yard. Not only have we had murders there, but they place has also been robbed, attempted to be put on fire etc.

When I went to change the address of the business it took google over 2 weeks to process. On top of that trying to reach them to get them on the phone to explain the situation and why it was dangerous was a whole other hassle. They really had a lack of understanding in this situation and it was frustrating. Overall, the issue did get fixed, but nobody felt comfortable about it then and it still ticks us off now.

In getting to my grandparents house, Google Maps for years listed as part of the directions a two-track that doesn't actually go through all the way (it ends in the middle at a junk yard). My grandma runs a business from her house, and customers were being routed down this two track road. Not great for business.

As we couldn't contact Google about it, she had to print new business cards that told people when to stop following Google's directions and which road to take instead. MapQuest didn't have this problem.

I'm pretty sure that alternatives exist for every "necessary" service/product Google and PayPal provide. If you are absolutely _so_ fed up with a service, prove it. Switch to an alternative. The sense of entitlement exhibited by people when they feel they've been slighted by a service/company (such as Google or PayPal) in the fashion alluded to by the author boggles me. Doubly so when those same people don't do anything to change their reliance on or stop using said services/companies.

These are public companies with shareholders that demand that they maximize revenue and earnings. As a user (and maybe even as a customer), they _will_ disappoint you. Act accordingly.

"As more and more businesses rely on google’s commercial services..." As a business, you should be very careful/skeptical of on whom the success of your livelihood relies.

This is an opportunity for foundering companies like Microsoft and Yahoo to differentiate themselves in a positive way and raise the bar for everyone.

Apple already did this with their stores and Genius Bars. Buying an Apple device comes with the extra peace-of-mind of knowing that you can call someone or take your device to a nearby store if you're having trouble.

Another similar story is the domain registrar Hover. They specifically set themselves up as the anti-GoDaddy and it seems to be a winning strategy.

When I had a Google Adsense account blocked it took a call to a Google VP that I know. But even then the first call was not enough and he had to escalate internally a second time.

This definitely sounds like something for the EU consumer champion Neelie Kroes to take on.

Oh yes at least Paypal has some real competition and other payment vendors like Braintree, Stripe, Square are growing like crazy at Paypal's expense.

Sorry to hear about your experience. I'm currently going through exactly the same. Would you mind sharing any tips about how to escalate the issue?

Other than "be friends with a VP at Google"?

Just by change I had to contact Google Support for a Gmail problem in Google Apps for Business. The initial time to response was more than 24 hours. But after that the support was super proactive and helpful. The agent even phoned me after I emailed to say the ticket could be closed. He explained that the initial 24 hour delay was not normal, and he would flag that.

Overall it seems they are really taking some concrete steps to improve things. It seems from the thread to be patchy depending on what business unit. For example Google Apps has more competition so they cannot afford to be slack.

While I understand the point the author is trying to make - the larger companies have the resources to provide quality service - I disagree with the notion that poor customer service is excusable for startups.

In fact, the article doesn't even compare startups and "Internet giants", but I suppose the heading of "Paypal doesn't have good customer service" (no surprises there) would be less interesting.

You are mostly correct.

The real question is, when there are hundreds of horror-stories out there about Facebook and Google et al terminating access without notice or review and the devastating effects upon people's digital lives, why do the media and Gov do NOTHING despite thousands of complaints?

What should the media and government do? It is a civil issue and you have agreed to the companies terms of service, so in essence, you have given them consent to terminate your account if they see fit and then when it happens you kick and scream for the government to fix it?

The fix is if you don't agree with the terms of service, you don't use the service just like if you don't agree with a contract, you don't sign a contract.

IANAL but I don't think that any company can enforce a ToS that's against the law. OP stated that there should be some kind of law to regulate this and I agree. There are many laws (at least in the EU) that regulate some ridiculous things (e.g. shape of the fruit) so why not regulate this area if the end user will benefit from that?

Because not everything in life needs to be tailor suited to your needs by using the coercive power of the state. You aren't entitled to Google's products and services anymore than I am entitled to you creating a free search engine for me and allowing me to use it.

I wish that the government tailor suits the laws for my needs... I'm not talking about the right to use something. I'm talking about right to receive the support when you're paying for a service / product (and I'm not counting FAQ as support).

The right to use something is the same as the right to tech support. You want the right to use tech support.

Furthermore, what Google product/service are you PAYING for that you aren't getting support for? What Google service/product are you using that has no competitor?

You're talking out your ass.

"You're talking out your ass." I'm not going to continue the discussion with you in this type of manner...

You were the one who started by advocating violence against people not providing you customer service.

Please stop using the shape of fruit anti-EU attack. The shape of fruit is regulated in the EU because it was demanded by the producers of said fruit and the manufacturers of the machinery they use.

You probably misunderstood me - this wasn't an anti-EU attack. The fruit law was just an example that a law can be made when it's necessary.

Government's role in part is to enact laws to prevent one party from harming another. There are all kinds of laws on the books, from ones that govern unfair trade practices to keeping medical records private. It's not a stretch to imagine a law enacted to prevent online companies from killing off someone's digital life for giggles without any recourse.

Its probably already covered under "natural justice" setting up a better appeals process is far better than the EU eventually noticing and regulating you.

I have worked for heavily regulated companies and it sucks not even knowing that you will be allowed to launch a product you have spent years developing and to have that nice MR Murdoch get favored son treatment and be allowed to cross subsidise his products where you are not

That's not how contract law works. There are lots of laws relating to contracts that are, at least ostensibly, there to stop abuses of power from one party over another.

Unfortunately the reality is that customer support will only be justified if the increase in cost is accompanied by a greater increase in revenue (thereby increasing profits). Alternately it can be justified by "the other side of the coin", which is to stave off a decline in revenues (say, because you are so pissed off at the lack of support & service that you're willing to go to a competitor: ex United Airlines)

There are many costs that simply do not get reflected on the balance sheet. It's important to consider costs from every avenue in order to accurately reflect what a company is paying. Technical debt, corporate politics, etc all slip by the accounting radar.

Ironically In my experience startups got better customer service 90% of the time.

Yeah also let's EU to dictate everything, since they have been doing such as a good job(!). While we were in there they can also pass couple of more stupid cookie laws.

I have never tried to deal with google customer support, but I have had terrible experiences with both yahoo and paypal support.

Around 5 years ago, I made a typo on a balance transfer from my bank to paypal. I did not have enough money to cover the balance transfer in my account, or in any other account (I was a starving college student at the time.) When I called paypal, they informed me that there was nothing at all that they could do for me. I called multiple times and asked for supervisors, but they refused to do anything. Paypal attempted the transfer twice a day for the better part of a week, racking up massive overdraft fees on my account.

I finally got my bank to block all paypal transactions and they were kind enough to waive the fees, but I will never again deal with paypal.

Similarly frustrating was my experience with yahoo mail support. Last year, a yahoo mail account that I created around 2002 and forgot about had been hacked. It was sending rather embarrasing spam email to all my contacts, and I was unable to reset the password for the account because I had not provided real answers to the security questions.

I emailed their customer support and told them that I understood that they could not give me access to the account without the answers to the security questions, but I would like them to close the account as it was clearly in violation to their TOS.

They responded asking me the answers to the security questions. I tried to explain in several emails that I simply wanted the account CLOSED, but every response from yahoo support was "We can give you access to the account if you please provide the answers to the security questions." I got no indication whatsoever that they even understood what I was asking.

I understand that providing support is expensive and that you receive lots of stupid questions, but any company that treats me like paypal and yahoo will never recieve any business from me again.

> I have never tried to deal with google customer support,

See, there is an advantage in having no support at all!

We've tried to deal with Google support (AdWords), we can safely say that there is none, even the sales people at Google cannot get any internally (or so they say).

Yes! especially if you sell hardware to customers and then make a mistake...

I've bought a nexus 4 with 16G and received one with 8G and google hasn't responded to any of my emails.

And if you take the next obvious step (chargeback on credit card, item received was not as described) some automated system will kill off your entire Google Play account. Effectively holding all the apps you've purchased as hostages.

If you want customer support, go to a company that provides it. Don't go using a service, knowing full well that it doesn't provide support, then go screaming about how they don't provide you support.

You knew that going in. You just fooled yourself into thinking it would be different this time.

Anecdotal, but my Neuxs 7 broke the other day and I was pleasantly surprised with the Google Play customer support. They solved my problem very quickly.

I have been a customer of the Google Search Appliance for about 5 years now and their customer support has only improved. 5 years ago it was honestly terrible but now I find it relatively fine.

We're accepting it with our wallets. If the pain wasn't worth the cost they wouldn't be able to do this

It is possible though, that by putting off and alienating good-faith customers (due to lack of proper support), Google is actually losing money here.

With our wallets, _and_ our time, _and_ our attention, _and_ our lifestyle choices.

I only partially agree. For things like hangout gmail android and reader giving support would cost so much they couldn't continue to roll out new products (given that they would have to support them).

However where significant money is concerned I agree they should have real support. Only offering support for some products could get really confusing for users unfortunately.

It's one thing to use a free service, but it's different when you make them your business partner. Not offering support for Adsense for example is unacceptable.

"Not offering support for Adsense for example is unacceptable."

Evidence suggests otherwise. There are many many people and companies who use/rely on Adwords - either out of ignorance of the lack-of-support-dangers, or in full knowledge and accepting the risks. It is, arguably, the least-worst alternative: who _else_ are you going to use? Bidvertiser? Chikita? Skimlinks? Yeah… No…

I think that's exactly the problem - they are a monopoly and can get away with anything.

Unfortunately too true. Google owns search, maps, google play/android, adwords/adsense, video sharing.

At this point they are competing with Facebook and apple the most, since they don't have a monopoly in those industries. I find it hilarious how many of the googlers love their retina MBPs and iPhones though. Can't wait to see that showdown.

I'll take godaddys tech support any day over Google, hell even Comcast has a support number.

I fully agree!

Google does have good customer server in a few places. I've been quite happy with the AppEngine Premier support -- but considering that the support package alone is $400/month it certainly better be amazing.

Why don't startups need to provide customer service? The title sounds suspiciously like you don't need to provide customer service until you have some cash in the bank to pay for it.

But if you can't figure out how to provide customer service for a small number of clients, I don't think you can just throw money at the problem down the line and magically have great customer service. May as well with good practices start early.

This guy is right on the ball.

I've spent most of my career doing customer care, and to put it bluntly, real companies have some kind of support, even if it costs money.

I think this might touch on a larger point. If a startup grows with poor customer service then how incentivized are they to add it later on?

Why I'll never trust Google with my data or files

Reply on news.ycombinator.com