Service failure is not unique to the online experience, but when it occurs in other channels (voice or brick-and-mortar) there is generally a service provider who can help the customer overcome the problem and successfully complete a transaction. "Generally" reflects that there are instances in which the problem cannot be overcome (in which case the service provider can apologize and ameliorate in some way) or when process/procedure/rules constrain them from doing so (which is a much worse problem).
The excuse might be offered that the problem is a technical one, that computer systems are rigid and rules-based and cannot react adaptively - but that's not entirely true. The system was programmed by a person, who was given instructions and requirements by another person, who together wrote the "rules" by which the system behaves and decided exactly how it would react in any situation. They just didn't bother to consider or plan for contingencies.
In terms of behavior, perhaps they imagine that a visitor who encounters an error on a Web site will simply try again and somehow manage to get it right. It's actually a common behavior when it comes to computer software - users struggle with a word processor and go through a trial-and-error process to get a task completed. But this is likely because installing a different word processor is difficult and costly. Switching from one Web site to another to purchase a product is rather simple.
The problem is compounded by the fact that some users will try again, get it right, and continue doing business with us - and that leads us to be complacent and ever more expectant that every customer who encounters a problem will struggle to do business with us rather than walk away to competitor. And if they'll tolerate one problem, they'll tolerate another, and another.
And again, this is not unique to the online channel. Brick-and-mortar retail is truly awful in this regard because of the time that would be required to travel from one shop to another, so you really have to treat a customer roughly for them to abandon their cart, leave the store, and drive to another one. Online merchants cannot count on the same level of tolerance and patience, as the competition is a click away.
It's likely easier to accept it as an issue that deserves attention if it's framed as "some do try again, but most don't," and there likely isn't an effective way to determine how many people will run away (to the competition) when they encounter an error message. If there is no clear solution to the problem, and they can't figure out on their own, it's highly unlikely they will call tech support (which is infamously unsatisfactory) or be willing to try again later to see if the problem might have been fixed.
The best solution is to consider every possible outcome of every possible action and deliver an error-free experience. I think everyone would agree with that, but many would argue that it is impossible to do so. Strictly speaking, they are wrong - but from a practical perspective, it's likely an unreasonable expectation. No matter how much effort you put into developing a system, there will inevitably be a contingency that you didn't account for, and the marginal return of handling increasingly improbable scenarios becomes unprofitable.
So it's likely the best practical solution, after safeguarding against any reasonable contingency, is to give the user clear instructions as to how to overcome the problem. Any error message that fails to give the user a clear path to success discourages them from continuing to use the system - and when "the system" provides a product or a value-add, it discourages them from continuing to use the business.
There are no shortage of sources that provide advice and suggestions for handling errors - but before any such resource will do any good, a site operator will have to want to do so. My sense is that is the root of the problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment