Who Comes First?

Ethical dilemmas are often posed in the scenario of a crisis situation.  If there are only so many seats on a lifeboat, or so much space in a bomb shelter, whom do you take in and whom do you turn away?  It is presumed that the choices people make in a difficult situation reveal their true values.

The same is said of companies who face a crisis, and people watch to see “who comes first?” as a way of gauging the company’s ethical values.  Propaganda aside, whose interests does a company seek to protect when a crisis arises? Do the managers set up golden parachutes from themselves?  Do they seek to protect profits?  Or do they take care of their customers and employees?

There is a strong distaste for firms that put profits first, and the widespread perception that when companies are faced with a product recall, this is an opportunity for the firm to show their true colors and demonstrate whether they care about customers.  Particularly in industries where human life is at stake, people expect firms to put profits aside and do the right thing – as almost every firm will claim it does when there is no crisis at hand.

Unfortunately, the traditional approach of companies is first to attempt to cover up the incident so that no-one will ever realize that a mistake was made.   If it cannot be hidden, to maintain a stiff upper lip and show no sign of panic so that people think that they are well in control of the situation.   This sort of cold reserve that gives battlefield commanders the mien of valor comes off as being cold and unconcerned, or even ignorant or in denial, in non-emergency situations.

There is some merit to the notion that people will recall companies that have to issue defects as being incompetent, but survey results do not bear that out.  No-one expects perfection, and the majority of people recognize that even the best-run companies can make mistakes.

And if this bears out, then it is correspondingly true that very few people will assume that a company that makes a mistake is entirely incompetent.   Accidents will happen, and the true competence of the firm is not in producing perfection, but in responding competently when mistakes occur.

Chewy: Pooching Customer Recovery

Recently, a colleague of mine had an issue with an online pet store – which would be one of those unremarkable “yeah, these things happen” incidents except for how poorly the company handled the attempted service recovery.  

A bit of background: the colleague in question adopted a shelter dog that had a number of serious health issues – it’s an ongoing saga – and she ordered some medications from Chewy, an online pet supply store that has only recently opened its pharmacy business.   And here’s how they attempted to recover after bungling the order:

The lame humor in the message, bad puns that elicit more of a groan than a laugh, might be understandable and perhaps mildly amusing in the course of routine correspondence.    In the wake of a botched order, being cheeky with the customer is probably not a good choice.   And when the botched order prolongs the suffering of someone’s pet because it was a pharmacy order, it’s definitely not a good idea to kid around.

The second problem is that what is being described in the message, an inability to merge orders, has nothing to do with what Chewy had done wrong.   They had mishandled a prescription, initiating a game of phone-tag with themselves and the veterinarian to straighten things out, and causing further confusion as to whether the problem had been addressed.

The third problem is that the offer of a refund, which generally a nice gesture, is not something that helps recover from the problem: it is not that they caused the customer a loss of money, but a loss of time by mishandling the order.   A more appropriate action would be to expedite processing and provide free overnight delivery to help minimize further delay.

And the fourth problem is the missing fourth step of the basic apology model: to provide some reassurance that the problem will not recur in the future, so that the customer won’t be as hesitant to engage with the brand again.   To omit that step seems either arrogant (believing future business can be taken for granted in spite of the problem) or dismissive (not really caring if the customer does business with the brand in future).

In all, none of these things constitutes an egregious error – but it is the combined effect of a lot of small problems that makes this a model for poor customer service in a critical situation.

Proactive Service Recovery

I got an interesting e-mail from Netflix:

Yesterday, you may have had trouble instantly watching TV episodes or movies due to technical issues.

We are sorry for the inconvenience this may have caused. If you attempted and were unable to instantly watch TV episodes or movies yesterday, click on this account specific link in the next 7 days to apply your 2% credit to your next billing statement.

... we apologize for any inconvenience, and thank you for your understanding. If you need further assistance, please call us ...

That's very close to a perfect service recovery - the "very close" is on account of the minor inconvenience of having to click a link to claim the credit. I expect anyone who overlooks the message until it's too late to claim the credit will have quite a different impression - and even though I claimed the credit in time, it's left me with the distinct impression that there was at least one weasel in the meeting who didn't feel the customer was owed anything at all and wanted to minimize cost rather than maximize customer service.

That minor flaw aside, their prompt reaction demonstrates a level customer service and responsibility that many companies are unwilling to provide, and seem incapable even of conceiving.

It also calls to mind the significantly lower level of concern shown by other companies that offer a 24/7 service: electricity, water, internet access, cable television, cell phone service. In general, they offer a high level of service availability, and outages are very rare - but when an outage occurs, they demonstrate a complete lack of concern and make every attempt to dodge responsibility. The cable company has never bothered to apologize for a power outage, have certainly never sent me a refund, and when I've had to call them to report a problem, they offer up some lame excuse in an irritated tone.

Netflix's example in this instance is one for the books - specifically, the "customer service" textbooks: when even a minor problem arises with your service...

1. Be proactive: don't make the customer call you to report a problem you already know about.
2. Accept responsibility: apologize and don't offer lame excuses or try to shift the blame
3. Provide concession: preferably, without putting the burden on the customer to claim it

Do these things, and the customer will likely be more impressed by your reaction than disappointed by the problem. It's really not that hard, and doesn't cost that much, to not only salvage the relationship, but leave the customer with a long-term impression that your company is genuinely concerned about customer satisfaction (how many advertising and social media dollars would you have to spend to build that much positive sentiment?)

Fail to do them, and you can save the embarrassment of having to admit the problem occurred, and the cost of any concession - but you'll disappoint the customer. While you may not lose their business, don't kid yourself: the reason they remain "loyal" to your company is only their own apathy, coupled with the failure of your competitors to do any better, and it lasts only as long as no-one else does any better.