Posts Tagged ‘bad processes’

Warranty or the Customer? Who wins? It had better be the Customer

January 12, 2011

My friend Bart just spent some time in warrantee hell. His Dell laptop battery died after 12-and-a-half months on a 12-month warranty. As you can imagine, Dell refused to replace the battery because the warrantee was only 12 months. And rules are rules.

Bart is a sales rep for a medical practice software company. He uses a particular IT vendor for his own computer equipment and refers his clients to the same vendor for theirs.  Bart estimates that in the past year, he referred about $500,000 worth of Dell business to this vendor.

When Bart didn’t get anywhere with trying to get Dell to replace the battery (a battery which replaced another one which died after 16 months), he went to Chris, the IT vendor. He figured perhaps they would be more willing to push the rules for him, since he does quite a bit of business with them each year. No such luck. So Bart decided that Dell didn’t deserve his loyalty anymore. He called Chris again and had the following conversation:

Bart:      Chris, do you still sell, support and install HP servers and equipment?

Chris:     Yep.

Bart:       I would like you to quote HP equipment instead of Dell on all future deals I bring.

Chris:     Really? Over a battery?

Bart:      Yes. It’s not the battery; it’s the principle. I vote with my wallet. Please understand I am not mad at you. Feel free to share my emails with your Dell rep as well so he understands.

Chris:     I will share it with him now.

 

15 minutes pass and Bart gets an email from Chris.

 

Chris:     Your new battery will ship to us and you should have it by Friday or early next week. Oh, he asked me to ask you to please bring my next deal to Dell.

 

Amazing how that works.

Should Bart have expected that Dell would honor the warranty even though it had expired? My feeling is “yes,” and not just because he referenced over $500,000 worth of business to them each year. It should be “yes” even if he bought one or two pieces of equipment every few years, as I do. Why? Because it’s the right thing to do.

It’s the right thing to do because life doesn’t happen by the calendar or the clock. Cars break down, batteries die, and stuff happens. The warranty period is really just an arbitrary number. When Dell (or any other company) warranties a battery for 12 months, it’s not saying that they expect the battery to last for 12 months and that everything else is gravy. It’s a way to say that the battery shouldn’t break down in the first 12 months. It could be 13 months or 15 months. But most companies tend to use years for a warranty period. It’s easy.

I think this is a case of it being a blue rule. I’ve mentioned in a previous blog that there are two types of rules: Red rules and Blue rules. Red rules can’t be broken under any circumstance. They usually deal with health, safety, legal, ethics, and BIG financial. Blue rules can be bent for the customer. This is a blue rule. I don’t know the figures, but I’m sure there aren’t that many laptop batteries that die between 12 and 13 months. Allowing the occasional customer to stretch the warranty to 12 ½ months isn’t going to result in a BIG financial hit for Dell or any major computer company. Never mind that losing Bart would also mean losing a half-a-million dollars in business per year.

TD Bank (formerly Commerce Bank) opens its offices at 7:30 AM and closes at 8 PM, which is already a larger spread than most banks. But if you arrive at 7:20 AM or 8:10 PM, they’ll let you in – they just don’t advertise it. We’ve all had the frustrating experience of arriving at a store two minutes after closing and not being able to make a quick purchase.

Why does TD Bank do this when other banks don’t? It’s because they decided that their customers, big or small, were worth an extra 20 minutes a day of service. It’s because it knows that nothing always works the way we want it to work. And people sometimes show up a couple of minutes late.

If you owned a restaurant, would you refuse to accept a coupon and sacrifice a customer because it expired the day before? It would be a pretty stupid thing to do. It’s the same with warranties.

Don’t let your rules get in the way or customer experience. You’ll lose more than you know.

Don’t make employees deal with stupid rules

September 8, 2009

People in my customer service classes always ask me, “What makes customers so angry?” Here’s an example.

According to the New York Times, flyers on some recent flights have been told they cannot place any items in the seatback facing their seat. When asked why, flight attendants have blamed the FAA for the rule, which seemed strange since nobody had ever run into this rule before, especially on the same airline.  After numerous inquiries, the FAA admitted that when an airline enforces such a rule, it is following FAA guidelines from a 2007 directive on cabin safety.  Most airlines contacted by the Times said they weren’t aware of the ban, with one United Airlines spokesperson saying, “The seatbacks are absolutely there to be used for personal items.”

Why would this bother customers? One, because the rule doesn’t make any sense.  Frequent flyers had never heard of such a thing and had been using the seatback to hold books, newspapers, and other items forever. To our knowledge, no item ever went flying out of a seatback, hit a pilot in the back of the head and caused the plane to crash. And a hijacker isn’t going to grab my copy of Newsweek and threaten a flight attendant with it.  Two, because flyers already are feeling more and more helpless being told they have to pay to check items, having no overhead room to store items they want to take on board, and being asked to take off their shoes when they go through security.  Now they can’t use the seatbacks. Third, and last, the FAA admitted it has such a directive, but didn’t say why.

It’s enough to make you scream – at the next airline employee you see.  I feel for the airline employee who has to take the brunt of a stupid rule.

One of the things I’m always sharing with my audiences is how companies (and government agencies) make rules that affect employees and customers and don’t explain why they came up with the rule. First, companies come up with the rule without asking whether it makes any sense at all or asking what impact it will have on the customer experience. The rule is not vetted to any great extent before it is foisted upon the employees who have to enforce it.  The managers have to tell employees about the new rule without having a good explanation, so they take an attitude of “Hey, they told me we have to (or can’t) do this. I’m just telling you what they said.”

The person who the rule affects most is the customer. And the person with whom the customer has most contact is the customer-facing employee. The customer-facing employee is given the responsibility to enforce the new rule, not knowing what to say to the customer who asks “why?” Then the customer gets upset, screams at the employee, who feels betrayed by her boss who didn’t give her the tools to make the customer happy.  The employee has lost any connection to the company she works for, argues with the customer and drives him away.

Who doesn’t feel the effect of this problem? The person, department, or agency that made the rule. They just go on their merry way thinking of new rules that make customers angry and drive customer-facing employees to treat customers poorly, go through the motions, or quit, both figuratively and literally. And who can blame them?

On the phone for 2 hours for an obvious mistake. Why?

August 6, 2009

This is a fascinating story from the Associated Press:

“A New Hampshire man says he swiped his debit card at a gas station to buy a pack of cigarettes and was charged over 23 quadrillion dollars. Josh Muszynski checked his account online a few hours later and saw the 17-digit number — a stunning $23,148,855,308,184,500 (twenty-three quadrillion, one hundred forty-eight trillion, eight hundred fifty-five billion, three hundred eight million, one hundred eighty-four thousand, five hundred dollars).”

This story has been all over the web. Most people talked about the bank’s incredible mistake – “Can you believe it? 23 quadrillion dollars?” The mistake is too silly to make a big deal over.

Or is it? In reading the story, it wasn’t the ridiculously large number that caught my eye. It was this passage:

“Muszynski says he spent two hours on the phone with Bank of America trying to sort out the string of numbers and the $15 overdraft fee.”

TWO HOURS? What could have been happening on that call for two hours? Did the representative(s) have to follow every procedure the right way in order to figure out that he didn’t spend that kind of money? In a TV interview, Muszynski said the CSR didn’t quite know what to do with it.

Here’s what should have happened: Muszynski sees the number on his statement. After going back to the gas station, he calls Bank of America. A representative answers the phone and says,

“How may I help you today?”

Muszynski says, “There’s a charge on my debit card for $23,148,855,308,184,500.”

The rep says, “Hmm … Let me call up your account … I have it here, Mr. Muszynski. Oh, wow, I do see that number. That is clearly a mistake. Let me check into it and remove it from your account. I’ll call you when it’s done. What is the best number to reach you?”

And that would be that. No two hours on the phone, no holding for help, no confused representatives making him wait.

It should have been this way because the mistake was so obvious, so ridiculous that anybody could see that it was a mistake. There was no way the bank was not going to remove the charge or blame him for charging that much (Muszynski said he thought his identity was compromised and somebody used his card to buy Europe). The customer did not have to wait or explain while the bank figured out what happened, how it happened, and whose fault it was (It turned out to be Visa’s fault – 13,000 other customers had the same mistake). Why did it take so long?

The bank should have removed the charge and the service fee immediately because it was so obviously a mistake. If the systems didn’t allow that quick a change, then they should have done what I recommended. The customer should not be penalized because somebody on the provider side made a mistake.

“Nice” Isn’t Enough

June 3, 2009

I’ve led more than 300 customer service seminars over the years and have watched as the participants excitedly learned the skills to help customers and create a great experience. The problem is, sometimes the only great experience the customer has is when he or she is on the phone with the representative. The rest of the experience is rotten.

This is the second blog based on my ongoing experience with AT&T. The next blog will detail how Dan Nelson’s (see previous blog) efforts were almost for naught because the rest of the process was rotten. After working with Dan on Thursday and Friday, everything seemed to be okay until my email suddenly went out on Sunday night. The amount of internal areas that couldn’t seem to fix the problem until one of Dan’s colleagues took the bull by the horns and got it fixed, was incredible. So this leads to a major question: What good is customer service training for call center reps (CSR) if the rest of the company can’t get the job done?

Nice isn’t enough.

I can be as nice as an angel, empathize, explain to you what’s going on and estimate how long it will take to be fixed, but if the people doing the fixing are not getting it done or are taking an inordinate amount of time to fix it, the customer experience scores are going to be lousy. If you’re bringing customer service training into your organization, it should be for the entire organization, not just your customer-facing people. When a technician nonchalantly tells a service rep that the problem with the internet or the cable TV cannot be fixed for three-to-five days, it doesn’t matter if the CSR explains it clearly, the customer is going to be very angry because he won’t have email for three-to-five days. This is an unacceptable amount of time to be without internet. The technician and the people who put the system together that requires that long a period should be cognizant of this fact and work accordingly.

Nice isn’t enough.

The most remarkable thing I see in companies is how some people feel that managers don’t need this kind of training. I don’t know about other customer service courses, but ours describes what’s going on in the customer’s mind, what causes him or her to become upset, and what the customer’s expectations are.  Just because you’re the manager of the loading dock or IT doesn’t mean you don’t need to know those things. It’ll help you do your job better because you’ll be seeing the world through the eyes of your customer.

Nice isn’t enough.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.