At no point did the presenter offer any research indicating what customers actually like about voice messaging systems. As a matter of fact, she offered no research at all - it was all opinion and observation, which has its place (namely, in a blog) and some value in that it conveys the wisdom of experience to an audience who has less than the speaker. But more importantly, it was clear to me that the presentation was geared not to doing anything for the express purpose of making a caller happy, but avoiding common practices that make the experience more unpleasant.
I'd meant to preserve the list itself here in my notebook, but it seems to me that there is a more significant consideration on a broader level: that much of what is done to improve customer service is in addressing the worst aspects of something that the company who provides it knows to be bad for the customer, but refuses to abandon.
Voice systems are just one example, and an acutely terrible one. They were rotten from the start, and while the companies that use them seek to make them less rotten, nobody has ever come up with a good one.
I'd go so far as to say that no customer is every happy to hear a synthesized or recorded voice on the telephone - but there are exceptions. For example, when I call my bank to check my balance (on the rare occasion I don't just do it online), I am happy to get a recording because it is brief, direct, and doesn't try to sell me other products. But I think that's likely not because the automated system is "good" but that live phone reps from the same company have become so clumsy at providing a quick answer to a simple question and so pushy in selling other products, that I'm actually relieved to not have to deal with them.
And my sense is that they are just as happy not to deal with me. Aside of making an explicit statement that "you are a nuisance to us and we wish you would just go away," I can think of no better way for a company to communicate to a caller that he is so unimportant to them that they can't be bothered to answer his call personally than to make them talk to an automated system.
But back to the point: I would be highly dubious of any assertion that a company had put in place an automated messaging system because the did research and testing that led to the conclusion that customers would prefer an automated system to a live operator. They did it to save money. Period.
Voice messaging systems have been around for decades, and the fact that no-one has gotten them "right" is a sign of an inherent flaw that cannot be overcome. And all the pretense of providing better service is a clear acknowledgement that they are doing something that is bad for the customer, and are trying to ameliorate, but have no intention whatsoever to stop doing it.
The problem is not specific to voice messaging, but is evident throughout customer service and customer interaction in general: in many instances, companies inflict an uncomfortable process upon the customer to make their own operations more efficient - and when they discover that the revenue they lose by offending and mishandling the customer is greater than the cost they are saving, they attempt to mitigate the damage. But they don't stop to consider more effective ways to address the problem, and will not admit that the cost-saving idea they implemented is ineffective and awful.
The situation is altogether absurd. Imagine a project kick-off meeting based in the premise that the company is going to just punch customers in the face, and the team's task is to figure out how to make customers like it. Do we aim for the cheek rather than the mouth, nose, and eyes? Do we put on a cushioned glove? Do we make the glove a pleasant color? Do we say something clever to them after doing it?
Doubtless, everyone knows that people don't like being punched in the face, and if you were really intent on making the customers happy, you would not punch them in the face at all. But this is not something the company is willing to consider.
Anyone who makes the suggestion of not punching the customer in the face is "not a team player" and "doesn't have much of a future around here." A consultant has convinced a C-level officer that we need to punch customers in the face, a flock of sycophants agree it's a great idea, the accountants say it will save us a lot of money, and all out competitors are already doing it. So we're going to do it, and all we need to do is figure out how to go about it
And as exaggerated and ludicrous as it seems, is this not exactly what is going on when a firm seeks to improve something that is inherently flawed? Does it not perfectly describe the nature of trying to "improve" a voice messaging system, an application process, a refund policy, a technical support operation, or any of the other industry-standard practices and policies that are inherently offensive to the customer?
No comments:
Post a Comment