Posts Tagged ‘Customer Experience Ownership’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Prefer Chat? Phone? EMail? Customers want problems fixed, no matter what the technology is

January 11, 2010

I decided to do some non-scientific research this week on Facebook about the way people feel about customer service chats as opposed to speaking with a live agent or sending an email. I expected that a large majority of responses would have preferred a live person on the phone, but that was not the case. However, I did come to a conclusion based on the responses.

The conversation started plainly. Janet noted, “I would rather make a phone call. But then again, I’m a technophobe.” Yes, quite a few people out there are still afraid to talk through the computer. Fear noted. (The names have been changed to protect the annoyed)

Then Louise revealed something about why people might want to talk to a phone rep — “I usually prefer to make a call, but only so they can hear how angry and pissed off they are making me.” Hmm. There is always a group of customers who not only want something done, but also want to let you know how angry they are. The telephone is clearly the best way to express that. It’s easier to ignore something that’s written.

Email got a clear “thumbs down.” Andrew said, “I ignore emails all day long. I can only imagine most companies do too” and Sue came down on the side of live chat, dissing email in the process – “I agree they’ll get my money faster if they have Live Chat. If I have to wait for an email response or a person to call, my purchase greatly diminishes.” Even those who seemed to like the idea of email had no confidence in the medium. Robert said, “I would prefer to send an email for non-urgent problems … time management. However (and it’s a big, HOWEVER) (I’ve) never found a company that responds quickly and effectively to email.” This caused Veronica to add, “Robert, I’m with you. All I want is help with a minimum of interaction. Email does that for me. Of course, when I get put into an email queue with a message that I’ll hear back within five working days, I want to call to let them know how their customer service sucks eggs.”

Are you feeling the anger out there?

Only Linda gave an unqualified endorsement to chat. She said, “Totally agree with that one, Steve! LOVE the companies with online chats/agents.”

But it was Monica who really blew me away with her well-expressed analysis of the pros and cons (mostly cons) of all three:

“I like to chat with a live agent on the telephone. I never seem to have any luck getting the info I need while “chatting” and can tell from their tone of typing that they either don’t understand what I need, don’t know the correct solution or don’t really care.

“I have been trying to email the United States Postal Service regarding a recent order.  When I speak with the technical support on the phone, they forward me to the home page site, which doesn’t tell me how to cancel an order. And then when I explain everything in the email, send the email to the link they have on the page,  and then have the email come back to me as undeliverable…. I now have a six-month subscription for a book of stamps (although I’m getting six books every month). Thank goodness they are the ‘Forever’ stamps, because I’m going to have them forever…

“I can’t get through to them via email, can’t get the customer support I need via telephone technical support. Can’t cancel the order on my account history page, and I can’t for the life
of me remember my USPS user name and password. There is no more customer service at all.”

My conclusion?  Customers (except possibly the technophobes) are willing to try any form of interaction to have their problem resolved. But it’s not technology that creates a great customer experience. It’s the people – well-trained or not well-trained, customer-friendly or not customer-friendly, who make the difference. Millions of dollars of technology will do nothing unless the human being handling the interaction, designing the website, or writing the email or chat knows what he or she is doing.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Flyers hate TSA because of its policies; They hate companies for the same reason

January 5, 2010

Flyers are ticked-off at the Transportation Security Administration once again as the TSA institutes new travel restrictions in the wake of the attempted terrorist attack Christmas Day. The reason they’re upset is deeper than being inconvenienced during the last hour of an international flight. It’s the same reason people are angry at certain companies.

People accept inconveniences every day. We accept the idea of one-way streets and that we must accompany our children at the swimming pool and not just leave them there. We put out our recycling once or twice a week and think nothing of it. We also deal with TV networks that stop showing a particular TV show for a month or two before starting it up again.

Yet we get really annoyed when the TSA institutes new security rules in the face of a new terrorist attack. Actually, we were annoyed already, but now we’re even more annoyed than we were. Why do we pick on the poor TSA?

Flyers pick on the Transportation Security Administration because most of the inconvenient security measures they take make no sense to most people. We don’t understand why we have to take off our shoes, separate our liquids, and separate the computer and the jacket in separate trays. We don’t understand why we can take five 3 oz. bottles on the plane but not one 4 oz. bottle. We don’t understand because the TSA has failed to tell us why or the reason they give is not a good one.

“We’re keeping you safe” is not a good reason when you realize you’ve left your computer back at the Quiznos right after walking past the security gate to leave the basically empty airport and the three (count ‘em, three) TSA employees refuse to let you go back to retrieve it. One of those employees could have escorted me back to the Quiznos (about 500 feet away) but policy is policy.

So what does this have to do with customer service? Everything. As the airline’s customer, I am also the airport’s customer and therefore, the TSA’s customer. My customer experience comes from the combined efforts of all three, plus the various stores and restaurants in the airport, including Quiznos (who found the computer and put it behind the counter so nobody would steal it). And when I, or any other customer isn’t given a good reason for rules and policies, we become angry, frustrated and capable of doing irrational things we wouldn’t normally do, including yell and scream at customer service reps and managers of retail stores.

What policies do you have and how are you explaining them to customers? Does each of your policies and rules have a good reason for being a policy? If they do, explain the reason to your customers when they protest the rule – but it had better be a good reason. “We’ll lose money if the coupon is turned in a day late” is not anything the customer cares about. The customer only knows she couldn’t get there yesterday because there were six inches of snow on the ground.

People understand we need  rules, even those which are inconvenient.  They also understand that the customer/provider relationship is a two-way conversation: I will abide by your rule and accept the inconvenience if you tell me why it’s important and especially, why it benefits me. Keep that in mind when you’re telling a customer he has to wait or can’t have something because you have your rules.

I’ve yet to find anybody who understands how taking away our blankets for the last hour of a flight will make me any safer than I was the day before this incompetent would-be terrorist set his pants on fire. Until they explain that and all the other rules they have, people will continue to use the TSA as their favorite conversational punching bag.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

It’s never about you even if the customer’s an idiot

December 22, 2009

One of the sad facts of business most people choose to ignore (or never learned) is it is never about you. Interactions with customers are never about what you want, what you need, what you care about, or anything else having to do with you. If you want to matter to your customers, what you care about doesn’t matter. This is especially true when customers are upset – which is why you’re there.

If your customer is angry, deal with it. It’s not about you.

If your customer wants you to go the extra mile, do it. It’s not about you.

If your customer wants you to do something faster, do what you can to get it done fast. It’s not about you.

If your customer has had a bad day and is taking it out on you, it’s too bad. It’s not about you.

If your customer has his or her own way of doing things that is effective for him or her, try to work within that system. It’s not about you.

If your customer is a horse’s you-know-what, even then, it’s not about you (this doesn’t include abusive customers.

It’s always about your customers. They’re your best friends.

I had just finished speaking at a conference when a member of the audience walked up to me and handed me a pay stub from a recent paycheck. I wasn’t quite sure why this woman wanted me to see her pay stub unless it was to show me that she made more money than I did.

I looked at her quizzically, and before I could say anything, she said, “Look what it says on the bottom of the pay stub.” I glanced down and there it was: a revelation that told me this company “gets it.”

“This paycheck is brought to you by your customers.”

My eyes grew wide and so did my smile. This company reminded its people every other week just who was responsible for the company’s success and that without that success, there would be no company. And there would be no job.

They could have communicated this by putting a huge poster on the wall, but that wouldn’t have made the impact that seeing this statement associated with the employee’s pay had made. In other words, the food you put on your table, the car you just bought, the college education you’re paying for, the ability to pay for the mortgage, the vacation in the Bahamas, and that new videogame system are all brought to you by your customers. What nice people they are to give you this money!

Now, we know that you worked very hard and you’re very good at what you do, but in the end, if the customer doesn’t pay the bills, there’s no place for you to do this work.

Customers are your best friends. They make sure your salary is paid. Or, if you’re in your own business, they make sure you make a profit – and remain in business. That’s why it’s never about you.

Think about how you treat your best friends. If they’ve been good friends for a long time, you’re clearly doing something right. You’re probably putting their needs before yours, giving them the benefit of the doubt and sharing the responsibilities for whatever you decide to do together. In other words, when you’re best friends, you make it about them and they make it about you. Now think about a time when you got into a fight with your best friend. Odds are that something happened where you made it about you (or vice versa).

The customer isn’t always right. The customer isn’t always nice. But it’s always about the customer. So next time you begin to think, “Who does this guy think he is?” keep repeating “It’s not about me … it’s not about me … it’s not about me.” Then, make it a positive experience for the customer.

When you make it about them, they’ll make it about you.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Tiger falls; Will your product be next?

December 14, 2009

Tiger Woods fools around. Okay … apparently, he fools around a lot. But ask any 10 people on the street if they think the super-golfer fools around any more often than many other male celebrities, and they’ll probably say, “no.” Then why is Tiger getting pilloried not just by the media, but by the very public that held him so highly just a few weeks ago? And why is he being criticized for actions that we know other celebrities do and that we ignore or look away from?

It’s really very simple. Our expectations of Tiger were incredibly high, and not without reason. Every message the Tiger publicity machine and the media that followed him sent to the public was that this celebrity was of a different breed – focused, clean-living, determined, clear-eyed, and a role model any mother could hold up for her children. He has a stunningly beautiful wife and a beautiful child and best of all, all of the kudos and acclaim were actually based on a level of accomplishment higher than most people reach in their lifetime. So we put Tiger on a pedestal and filled him with our greatest expectations.

Then he turned out to be human. Not only was he human, but capable of betrayal on a tremendously high level.  And so he has fallen … down, down, down.

Yet we know that there are celebrities who take part in such activities every day. We hear tales of entertainers who engage in sexual debauchery on a level far beyond the average male teenager’s fantasies and we just shrug our shoulders. After all, how many boys pick up a guitar because they heard it was a great way to meet girls? Why the difference?

The difference is we kind of expect our rock stars and rap stars to play the role the world created for them. We expect them to be that way and don’t think much of it when it happens. But Tiger was a different story. Our expectations were extremely high and those expectations caused the public to believe Tiger wasn’t capable of such things. So the public quickly pulled back its faith in Tiger when he turned out to perform far short of our expectations.

Is it fair? Yes, it’s very fair. Tiger has built a financial empire on the persona that created these expectations. Because our expectations of the product that was Tiger were so high, we rewarded him handsomely for living up to those expectations. And when the product (Tiger) didn’t live up to expectations, we became very angry and told the world. In turn, the companies that provided Tiger with celebrity are now deciding to go somewhere else.

Expectations drive the way we determine how we feel about celebrities but also how we feel about the products we buy and the services we use. Customers have certain expectations when it comes to the products they buy. And if you don’t live up to those expectations, no matter what they are, they will penalize you greatly. But if you do live up to those expectations, or exceed them, they will reward you handsomely.

Companies who charge a high price create high expectations just because customers are parting with large sums of money. Should a Lexus be held to a higher standard than Chevrolet? Considering I would be spending $85,000 for a car, I’m holding Lexus to a very high bar. If Lexus performs like Chevrolet, I’m going to be very angry and Lexus will experience my wrath. But if Chevrolet performs like Lexus is supposed to, I’m going to be beyond thrilled. If the Chevrolet performs like a Chevrolet, well, I have nothing to be disappointed about.

Tiger didn’t perform like Tiger was supposed to. In today’s commercialized world of celebrity endorsements, Tiger was bought like any product would be. The product Accenture, Gatorade, Gillette and others bought included the way he looked, the way he acted, the way he carried himself, the way he played golf, whether he won or lost and also, how closely he adhered to the standards – moral or otherwise – we attached to him. Your customers attach certain standards to your product and service too. They expect you to live up to a certain standard.

If you don’t, you’ll find yourself free-falling with Tiger.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

You can’t make all customers happy all the time … but try

December 8, 2009

One of things I teach is customers are more apt accept your answer or your policy if you explain why. But what happens if the customer decides not to accept your reason?

Shirley (not her real name) called me one day to tell me she had done exactly what I had told her, avoiding saying “policy” and instead explaining the reason. This particular customer refused to accept the reason and was very angry after Shirley said there was nothing more she could do.

The watch company Shirley works for accepts repairs in two ways: through the jewelry stores that sell the watch or directly from the customer. Both repairs end up in the company’s repair center, but the company doesn’t accept credit cards for repairs while the stores do. However, the stores also charge more than the company does for the same repair.

For this customer, Shirley explained that the number of direct repairs they get doesn’t justify the money the credit card company charges them. In other words, she was telling the customer he wasn’t worth the extra cost. Not only didn’t he buy her reason, he promised never to buy one of their watches again.

I understood her reasoning but asked her, “How do most people pay for things these days, especially when it involves sending something or ordering something through the mail?”

She agreed that most people pay with credit cards. She also agreed that they had a right to expect the watch company to accept the cards for repairs. But then she reiterated the reason.

The company didn’t encourage owners to send the watches directly because it wanted the jewelry stores to get the repair business – the direct repair was just a courtesy. So, the company made a conscious decision to accept repairs, but not to accept credit cards for the repairs, despite most people charging such things on their cards.

“I believe your reason is a good one,” I said. “But that doesn’t change the fact that most people expect to pay for repairs with their credit cards. The customer’s expectations are everything. People will decide whether they want to continue to do business with you based on whether you met, exceeded or didn’t meet their expectations.

In the end, every decision a company makes regarding policies and procedures has a consequence. You may be perfectly right in your reason but the customer didn’t think so. In the customer’s view, you weren’t being very customer-centric. Your reason said you cared more about the company’s bottom line than making it convenient for the customer.”

When faced with these types of situations, you’ve got to make a decision: Will I lose more money by disappointing a certain amount of customers than I will by doing what the customer wants? This company apparently decided they would lose more money if they did the latter. That’s perfectly okay, but the customer will still be unhappy.

Every organization has to strike a balance between making the customer happy and not giving away the store. Sometimes, the reason for the policy is valid and will hurt the company if you don’t enforce it. Other times, it’s worth giving up something to make the customer happy. You can’t make every customer happy all the time. But you do have to measure the consequences of not doing so.

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

ComcastCares fixes only some of the problem

November 23, 2009

Back in the late 1980s, I read a story about how Chrysler was offering the longest and most thorough warrantee in the automobile business. It was an attempt to compete with the Japanese who had a better reputation for quality than did American cars.

The reporter who wrote the story took the initiative to call the CEO of a leading Japanese automaker and asked if they would match the warrantee. The CEO said, “No.” When asked why, he replied, “Our cars don’t break.”

The CEO was really saying, “If your car is in the shop all the time, who cares how good the warrantee is?” It’s not that the Toyotas or Hondas at the time were unbreakable; they just didn’t have as many problems as the American cars did. And if your product has problems, it doesn’t matter how many miles the warrantee covers or how polite or nice your customer service representatives are. And if you start a new customer service initiative based on talking to people on Twitter or other social media, it’s never going to be enough if your product is lousy or if the bulk of your customer service inquiries go to a place where problems aren’t solved.

Comcast has been getting a lot of great publicity because of its Twitter program, ComcastCares, with which it keeps in touch with its customers who have problems. It’s a great initiative, but it doesn’t solve its service problems. I recently called Comcast about a situation. I got the IVR, punched the right prompt, was told (by the recording) that they were transferring me, and immediately got a busy signal. Tried five minutes later, five minutes after that, ten minutes after that and got the same busy signal. Finally, I tweeted about my situation.

About 15 minutes later, I went out to eat, shutting down my computer. When I came home, we tried Comcast again and this time, spoke to somebody who fixed the issue. When I went back online, there was a message from ComcastCares saying, “I’m so sorry you’re having trouble. How can I help?”

That’s very nice. And I’m happy Comcast is trying.  Sadly, Comcast (and sadly, other cable companies) have a reputation for lousy service that is well-deserved. As I travel from city to city giving customer service seminars, I continually hear horror stories about technicians who arrive with the wrong service order, incorrect bills, refunds that are never issued, installers who have to come back because they had two boxes when they needed three, and a plethora of problems with CSRs who don’t know what they’re doing. Personally, I had one experience with a CSR who couldn’t figure out the problem and wanted to send in a technician when I had already figured out the problem was on their end. I spent 10 minutes trying to convince her that they could fix the problem through the signal box but she wasn’t buying it. Eventually, she sent me to a supervisor, who agreed with my diagnosis and fixed the issue.

It’s not just Comcast, but all Cable companies. What is it about that industry that facilitates this kind of anger and frustration? Clearly, there is a remnant of a time when Cable TV companies had no competition or perhaps they don’t see the satellite companies as competition. Or maybe they just don’t care.

In my customer experience seminars, I teach that there are two types of problems in customer service: people issues and system issues. Bravo to Comcast for doing something with social media to connect with customers. That works on the people issues. Now, they (and other Cable companies) should reconnect internally to figure out how to how to fix the system issues that are the main cause of its poor reputation for service.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Facebook Violates the Basic Rules of Serving Customers

October 26, 2009

Facebook users were surprised this weekend to find that their Facebook news feed had changed. It wasn’t just a cosmetic change, it was a complete change in the way Facebook users get their information from their “friends.”

The change left users completely confused and baffled about why Facebook made this overwhelming change. In short, Facebook took the old “News Feed,” which is where Facebook users got their information, and split it in two – a “Live Feed” and a “News Feed”.

The Live Feed now details every post your “friends” put on Facebook, including some information that was never on the News Feed before, like who your “friends” are “friending.” The News Feed, according to Facebook “Aggregates the most interesting content that your friends are posting” Facebook decides what’s most interesting through an “algorithm (that) bases this on a few factors: how many friends are commenting on a certain piece of content, who posted the content, and what type of content it is (e.g. photo, video, or status update).” In this case, algorithm means “technical stuff you’ll never understand so trust us.” Some of your friends’ posts are on both, some are on only one with no rhyme or reason why.

So Facebook users spent the weekend into Monday trying to figure out how to manipulate the home page so that they can get something close to what they used to get from Facebook (Facebook said they changed everything due to “user input.” Really?). And by the end of Monday, many of us had found a way to get around the changes.

Facebook violated several rules of outstanding customer service and relationships:

1)      It didn’t tell users the change was coming. People like to be prepared for change, and Facebook ignored that. Oh yes, I now know that in the techie community it was known Facebook was making a change, but most users didn’t know.

2)      They didn’t clearly explain the reason for the change. The page just changed in the middle of the day leaving users saying, “Huh? What is this?”

3)      They confused their customers. As a writer once said, “If the reader doesn’t understand what you’re writing, it’s not the reader’s fault, it’s yours.” We are still confused.

4)      They didn’t know their audience. They did not take into consideration that the fastest growing part of their audience are people over the age of 40. We don’t have time to figure Facebook out. It’s fun. It’s enjoyable. We like connecting. I’m just trying to imagine how my 80-year-old mother, who just goes on Facebook to keep up with her children and grandchildren, is going to figure this out. What if they decide my comments aren’t important enough to land on her “News Feed?”

5)      They didn’t keep it simple. Which feed should I read, the News Feed or the Live Feed? Where are my kids’ pictures? Oh, they’re on the News Feed. Wait, no they’re not. They’re on the Live Feed. No, they’re on both.

6)      They made their customers work unnecessarily. As I teach in my customer service seminar, customers sometimes have to help, but most times, try not to make the customer do any work they don’t need to do. I shouldn’t have to feel triumphant because my niece told me how to get around the new system and I even improved on her instructions.

As companies grow, there is a tendency towards arrogance. Facebook is growing in leaps and bounds and its leadership is already saying it’s going to change the way we all communicate. Making changes that are confusing is no way to communicate.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Study says customers feel “duty bound” to tell others about their bad experiences

October 21, 2009

A new survey by RightNow Technologies has some very disturbing news for those who think they can give poor service and get away with it.  The survey studied online shoppers’ attitudes toward the technology used for customer care, but it has application for anybody dealing with customers.

There were several striking statistics from the survey, especially when it comes to spreading word about a particular company through social networking.  Half of online shoppers said they felt “duty-bound” to warn others about a particular retailer, 16% tell about their negative experiences specifically to stop other people from dealing with that company, and 30% want to vent their disappointment about the experience.  Many, if not most of these people will use Twitter, YouTube, and other social media to spread the word, as United Airlines learned from the video “United Breaks Guitars.”

Survey respondents had some good and bad news for companies using multi-channels to provide customer care – chat, email, phone and web. While, respondents said they were generally happy with the interaction channels, more than half felt that the channels showed a lack of consistency when providing information. In other words, one hand doesn’t know what the other is doing. Also, 78% of online shoppers said that organizations should take steps to listen to what customers are saying about their products on social networking sites and to follow up with those people.  And 60% said it was acceptable for retailers to monitor their comments and suggest relevant products, services or uses, even when dealing with a customer problem.

But the most interesting thing I found was that 64% of consumers who used the “chat” function said they would rather “chat” with an agent than speak with the agent on the phone and 69% said they would prefer chat to email. This has major consequences for those who have set up their customer care departments around telephone or email service and have neglected to put in a chat option.

So, what to do?

  • Go to your own customers and ask them what their preferences are when it comes to customer care.
  • If you are serving customers in any way through your website, make sure you have a chat option or begin to plan for one.
  • Start training your people on using chat and email functions as well as telephone and in person customer service.
  • Have at least one person from your customer care area actively monitor social networking sites for mentions of your company or store. Give them the authority to make decisions to make complaining customers happy.
  • Create an area on your own website where customers can leave comments on service, good and bad. Monitor those comments and respond to customers as quickly as possible.

When my grandfather ran his men’s store, the worst thing he had to worry about was whether his customers would complain about him or his store while drinking at the many bars in the neighborhood.  Being able to leave comments to a faceless website or a faceless chat has the same release of inhibitions as the drinks the bar patrons were using to loosen their lips back then.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Customer Service Hero: Lori Ray, Olympus America, Ltd

October 14, 2009

Lori Ray, customer service representative for Olympus America saved my day. For that, I have named her a Customer Service Hero.

I had just finished recording a client’s words for a writing project I’m working on and went to transfer the remarks from my Olympus VN-4100PC digital voice recorder to my PC. The Olympus Digital Wave Player showed it recognized the recorder but was being very stubborn about transferring the files.

I checked out the recorder’s manual and found nothing. I even looked under “troubleshooting” because I was in trouble, though when I didn’t find my answer, I thought of shooting something else other than trouble. When a telephone number for customer service was not immediately findable on the Olympus website, I began to feel like someone dropped in the middle of a strange city without knowing how to get out. As the sweat began to appear on my brow, I found a number and called it. The voice recording indicated I had called Olympus Imaging products (Cameras) and I hung up. I rechecked the number and though it was the same, I tried it again. This time I stayed on long enough to hear the prompt for voice recorders.

Lori answered the phone and demonstrated everything I teach in my customer service course. She answered with a pleasant greeting and expressed a desire to help me. She asked me what the situation was and when I told her about the frustration of seeing that the software recognized my device but refused to transfer the files, she replied with an attitude of “Well, let’s see what we can do about that.”

Though I thought I must be missing something myself, she never made me feel like I was technically ignorant. She asked me several questions and had me repeat the various steps I had taken before I called her. The way she asked made me feel as if she was feeling the same frustration as I was, but she was going to figure it out no matter what. Her voice never showed the frustration but did show empathy. It probably helped that I remained calm, but I think she would have remained calm in any case.

Lori stayed on the phone with me for an hour (or so it seemed), tried this, tried that, and then, unlike so many others, she actually asked me if she could put me on hold and went to check with someone else. She made the conversation totally about me. She had asked what version of the software I had and apparently, there had been an update to solve the problem.

While she was telling me about the update, she was writing an email with links to the software and the update. She could have had me go to the Olympus website, navigate through the pages and find it myself. But no, she sent me the link while she was explaining so that when she got finished, the link was there for me to use.

I uninstalled the old software as she said and downloaded the new software and the patch. When my computer took a long time to shut down and reboot, I apologized and she assured me it was no problem (twice). After I rebooted, she had me reconnect my recorder, which opened the new software. Then she told me to try to transfer the files again and it worked.

Then she again exceeded my expectations while the files transferred. Apparently, I still had quite a few files on the recorder from previous uses and it was taking quite a while to transfer. Suddenly, I realized there was probably no reason for her to stay on the phone with me and offered to allow her to call me back after the transfer. She commented, “I probably won’t be here.” I looked at the clock and saw it was just after 5:00, but she had given me no indication that she wouldn’t have stayed with me for the duration. Finally, we agreed that I would email her when I saw it was alright. And it was.

In my customer service class, we show a video with a character, Maria, who does everything right. Some of the people in the class tell me Maria is “too perfect.” I ask, “Are there people who do what she does?” and they sheepishly say yes. After working with Lori Ray, our Customer Service Hero, I can honestly say I have met Maria in real life.  She is a customer service hero.

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

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?

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.