The Customer Service Survey
VocaLabs' weblog providing news and commentary on the challenges of providing good customer service.
What "GetHuman" is Really Telling Us
Tuesday - April 11, 2006 03:04 PM in
When the current issue of Customer Interaction Solutions magazine arrives each month, I always turn to the back page where my favorite industry writer, and editor Tracey Schelmetic authors the "Last Call" column. Besides writing well, she is both funny and a keen observer of the customer care industry. The March issue was no exception. www.cismag.com (Aside, I think it a shame that the magazine's parent company delays posting an online version of the magazine.)
This issue has Tracey discussing the rise of Paul English's web site www.GetHuman.com which posts ways callers can beat IVR jail and get to a human in order to conduct business.
Coincidental to the arrival of the magazine, I had been trading e-mails with Mr. English, and I'd like to add to Tracey's take. Her messages were that it is entirely possible that unless IVR vendors get their collective act together and provide user friendly applications, not only will anti-automation sentiment rise as Paul's web site exemplifies, but that history has taught us some politicos could well jump on the band wagon as happened in the telemarketing space and grandstand with legislation forcing human answer of customer service calls.
Having discussed real world issues with Paul, I can also agree with Tracey's assessment that ranting at Paul and his IVR cheat sheet is self delusion. I for one can't entirely accept insider comments that blame for poorly designed applications should reside with the system buyer and not the vendor.
"We gave them what they asked for" is a weak excuse when one realizes that consumer backlash hurts the IVR industry.
Come on vendors. The purpose of automation may be superficially stated as a way for the host company to control customer care costs. But it is not difficult to educate the buyer that a system designed to save money over serving the caller will do neither. Don't create designs that just "satisfy" the caller, delight them. The key is ease of use and saving time. It costs no more to design such a system, and serving the caller as first priority is what will really save money for your clients.
Posted by Rick Rappe
Coincidental to the arrival of the magazine, I had been trading e-mails with Mr. English, and I'd like to add to Tracey's take. Her messages were that it is entirely possible that unless IVR vendors get their collective act together and provide user friendly applications, not only will anti-automation sentiment rise as Paul's web site exemplifies, but that history has taught us some politicos could well jump on the band wagon as happened in the telemarketing space and grandstand with legislation forcing human answer of customer service calls.
Having discussed real world issues with Paul, I can also agree with Tracey's assessment that ranting at Paul and his IVR cheat sheet is self delusion. I for one can't entirely accept insider comments that blame for poorly designed applications should reside with the system buyer and not the vendor.
"We gave them what they asked for" is a weak excuse when one realizes that consumer backlash hurts the IVR industry.
Come on vendors. The purpose of automation may be superficially stated as a way for the host company to control customer care costs. But it is not difficult to educate the buyer that a system designed to save money over serving the caller will do neither. Don't create designs that just "satisfy" the caller, delight them. The key is ease of use and saving time. It costs no more to design such a system, and serving the caller as first priority is what will really save money for your clients.
Posted by Rick Rappe
Posted at 03:04 PM by | | | |