Angry CustomersAngry Customers

Let's not depend on self-service websites too much. People to people still works best.

This is an argument for the call center agent/live chat vs. the Internet. I want to suggest that if there were more opportunity to talk to a live person or to live-chat with a customer service agent or any other person who could participate in a dialogue, this could reduce the anger and frustration that otherwise comes up in customer service situations.

I recently placed two orders for pet food online and pet medications with a call center agent. The ordering processes worked fine for both. One of the medications was not available online at any website, so I spoke to an agent who informed me that the product was not currently being manufactured and would not be available for some months .We discussed the alternatives. She had me call my vet who recommended an alternative and I ordered it. The websites did not provide any such information.

I never received my pet food. I could not find any shipping information. When I complained by e-mail, the ordering site sent off my e-mail to the product provider. Then I received an e-mail that the product provider’s e-mail server was not accepting e-mails. I waited and eventually I was informed days later that the provider never had the pet food in the first place. You may say that a better online site design would have reduced my frustration. My experience says no.

An article, "Why Explaining to Others Helps Us Understand" points out that it helps to verbally explain to another person what you want. It helps you to better grasp what needs to be explained, according to psychologists at the University of California at Berkeley. We all have an intuitive sense of what makes a good explanation but may not be able to articulate it. Speaking to another person can stimulate your thinking, leading to a better presentation of the problem and thus its resolution.

This is an argument to increase the number of agents and depend less on the website. The frustration of the caller can be reduced with a well-trained agent. The back and forth dialogue can help the caller explain their problem without resorting to rude, rage-filled behavior. The end result is a less unhappy, maybe even a happy caller. This can also retain customer loyalty. Losing a customer and trying to regain them is expensive. It may be cheaper to use live agents in the long run.

I have seen some service company advertisements that promise a caller will reach a person and not an IVR. I see that as a plus because some IVR trees are too long; others do not provide the options I need. What is worse is that many do not allow me to speak to an agent, and I keep getting a rejection when I press "O" for the operator.

I have some recent experience with live chat. I like it. First of all it makes me think before I type. Secondly, I can understand the response, no unfamiliar accent, as is sometimes the case with call centers. Third, I would not want to type in rude remarks because I will see them on the screen. Fourth, what I like most is that I can receive a printable record of the live chat for my retention. I also see how well I presented my problem and how well my issue was resolved.

For all the benefits of Internet access to a galaxy of websites, I still find speaking or chatting with a person to generally more satisfactory than interacting with a server. I know that some will argue that websites can be better designed. Certainly many need to be redesigned. Communicating live with a person by voice or chat most often feels more satisfying. Let's not depend on the interactive software on a website too much. People to people still works best.