Maybe I'm being insensitive, but why would anyone burst in to tears for making a reasonable request that _indirectly_ causing somebody to have a crappy day at work? Furthermore, it's not even apparent that she really did ruin the day of these delivery folks. They probably got paid nicely to go through all that trouble. The fact that it took all day for the social media team to find somebody willing to go that extra mile implies to me that there were likely several people who turned down that sale/delivery.
Even if they were pressured in to that delivery by some contract or power-play, it's not her fault that she demanded quality service. Twitter et al are making companies accountable for their shortcomings. As a result, the treatment of customers is improving steadily across many industries. Like with anything, sometimes you need to break a few eggs to make an omelet.
Because she forced good people, people like her, to do a late-night delivery.
If it was some young guy (preferably with tattoos) on minimum wage, she'd probably have been a lot less upset.
Seeing people doing jobs that aren't stereotypical can trigger cognitive dissonance (is that the right term?). Some people justify "demeaning" jobs because only certain people (men, women, young people, old people, poor people, immigrants) do them. When someone who doesn't fit the stereotype does the job, it creates dissonance.
I'm not sure about Home Depot, but when I worked [generic retail job] and witnessed my manager drive to customers' houses after hours to help install components— even going with her on occasion— it was clear she wasn't getting "paid nicely to go through all that trouble." She did it because she knew if she did that extra bit, those people would be way more likely to come back and spend money at the store. But there was never a guarantee, and almost every time was additional stress she really didn't need.
What the author experienced is something a lot of the tech community seems to lack: empathy. She realized that an elderly couple went far out of their way to deliver a heavy AC unit to a person who might not ever come back to their store. She realized the only reason they were out there was because of her, because she didn't want to wait two weeks.
"They probably got paid nicely to go through all that trouble. "
If they really were in store management, they would be salaried workers, and therefore not paid for overtime. They would likely have been compensated for mileage and tolls during the delivery.
I agree completely. I don't understand why companies provide better support over Twitter (it is a bad idea as far as I can tell - they just have generally lousy customer service and for some reason change for Twitter, to some degree).
The foolish response of relying on non-sustainable heroic efforts by employees to provide customer service is feeble. But the customer is not responsible for stupid management actions. Now customers can be unreasonable and if you are doing that it makes sense to me to feel some culpability for the outcome of your bad behavior (even if others had to enable the bad outcome too). Just based on the post it does seem to me the request was unreasonable.
It is true, sadly, both customers and employees suffer from very bad systems management has put in place for customer support.
"Wait your turn, like everybody else, like we all learned in elementary school. It's much more satisfying in the end.
Unless the corporation you're going after is Time Warner Cable, in which case you should use every tool available to you to take those f-ing mobsters down."
Now for a reason why you shouldn't use it to respond to customer complaints: The second word gets out that using Twitter gets you better customer service, everyone will use Twitter. And unlike the occasional good PR that comes with Twitter, you now have a reputation for not doing things right in the first place. Availability bias is a bitch.
Nitpicking but... I'd say responding to complaints on Twitter is a great idea, but just to show you're listening and then as an arrow pointing to the correct channel for resolving an issue
This is self indulgent crap. Where's the bit where she tweeted back to Home Depot saying that she thought it was terrible to make their employees do that? Is she afraid that doing that would cause someone in the chain to get fired for having upset her?
Agreed. The crying bit was particularly bad. For an article that could have focused on how far some individuals will go to respond to their customers, she some how managed to turn the focus onto her "plight" for actually getting what she damn well intended in the first place (albeit not from the stereotyped deliverers she'd expected).
This whole article says more about her than anything else.
Who else is going to respond to a Home Depot customer service issue but the employees?
It seems the company is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Damned if they don't respond to her tweet. Damned if they do, because then they'd be slave drivers pushing themselves or their employees to provide great service without taking into account work-life balance, etc.
Do you agree those two things are opposed? Why can't she just be grateful these people (in this case unnecessarily) pushed to go the extra mile for her, rather than encouraging her to attack them again for doing so?
She should get their names and encourage people to buy Home Depot if she really felt bad for them.
Funny thing is, I originally joined Twitter to try to get customer support when it looked like the company I was trying to contact (Vonage, if I remember right) was replying in minutes on Twitter when their email support never got answered (and phone support kept getting rerouted to people who didn't know any answers). Then, I used to do tech support for Metalab's Flow, and we used Twitter for customer support via Desk.com daily. It works good for rapid response to simple questions in my experience, and I'd recommend companies take advantage of it. There's no reason Tweeting for customer support is more entitled or demanding than seeking customer support via any other means.
Proactively communicating incidents and outages on Twitter is an excellent use of the service.
Handling individual contacts is a practice only marketing guys like I think. You can create temporary appearance of good service that way (if you are lucky), but not build a solid reputation for good service - you run into the problems others have pointed out below, selection bias, neglecting your more effective support channels etc.
This looks like a company misunderstanding how to use social media to me - someone created a social media team and gave them free reign to "solve problems via social media".
It reminds me of a time I attended a sales presentation of a CRM with the sales guy bragging how a company used their twitter contact routing to identify the guy as a top influencer (via Klout or something) and had the chairman of their multi-billion company call back some celebrity who was complaining about the service he received with about some standard problem he was having with their service (it was something very commoditized, broadband I think). The customer service guys attending the presentation didn't understand why they thought it was a good use of technology or time - that isnt the way to build customer trust, making sure the problem was fixed by the first guy the celebrity contacted is how you build trust.
Personally, I've found twitter to be hugely useful for getting responses from companies and because of this I don't plan to stop using it. Often I've found the response time I get on twitter is far far better than what I would get if I phoned in (few mins - hour) or emailed (never) the customer support department.
It's one of the few ways that new social media is actually providing value for me.
Some specific examples where I can recall using it:
(1) Engaging the Microsoft developer team to fix up an issue with my account
(2) Engaging Air Canada to ask about using my Aeroplan points
(3) Engaging Commonwealth Bank to say thanks for great customer service and recommending someone I did deal with in person at a branch (to which they replied they would pass along the commendation).
All times I had a faster and more satisfactory engagement than if I had used phone, email, etc (as I'm reminded when I have to revert to these methods)...
I've had similar experiences. Recently my internet provider discontinued this service, and I'm not sure why. Luckily, the Social Media team were able to be transferred to other departments (and not completely laid off).
My guess is that they were losing a lot of money doing this. (Back story) I've had an on-going problem for about 2 years about slow speeds and contacted the BBB because nothing was being done after numerous complaints over the phone. They did a fix and the problem still continued. I've posted on DSLReports and my ISP's Social Media team helped me out so I continued to use them. I've received numerous credits to my account by just complaining to the SM team, which I think is more than fair--even though I didn't specifically ask for credits.
Not what I was expecting at all! I was expecting an article about customer service fragmentation by giving disproportionate emphasis on social media rather than brand-specific infrastructure - something I have seen and experienced often.
That said, while I understand her emotional perspective, I tentatively disagree with the sentiment. If the use of social media does produce efficiency gains that would otherwise have been difficult or impossible to attain, then everyone benefits, including the company gaining a competitive advantage, perhaps ala Theory of Constraints.
Of course, there is more than one way to use social media. The company could have used it only for information broadcasts. I presume if they set it up to actively seek to improve their customer service, then they are happy to accept all the consequences for it too.
I don't think this situation is unique to twitter. Any person with a sufficiently large public following will instantly receive special treatment and pandering behavior (like Home Depot in this case). Joe Average won't get his backordered AC by 11pm on the same day if he complains on twitter.
From the comment section: "Oh my god, New York is going to eat this nice lady alive."
It's not a problem with twitter, it's a problem with the store you're buying from. Next time buy your ac unit from a place that treats their employees right. If you want to take an even longer view of this, you'll probably run smack into the economy at large and the desperate situation that minimum wage big box stores can force upon their employees as a result of the unemployment rate. They treat you like dirt and hold you responsible for failing to meet goals that were never possible in the first place.
An alternate view TFA could take would be that since you've discovered that public complaining via irascible tweet seems to be effective--tweet again about your horror regarding their treatment of their employees. There's no reason they shouldn't have some sort of infrastructure in place to deal with this sort of thing if they are going to attempt immediate reparations brought to their attention via twitter.
The store could have offered over time pay to stronger employees willing to volunteer the next day, perhaps; the salaried managers likely didn't receive any compensation for their after hours efforts. I'm sure the AC unit could have waited another 24-48 hours.
I've had a fair few experiences with various companies where normal channels fail and the only way to get prompt action is to use twitter, or a similar public channel.
It's a pretty sorry state where the only way to be taken seriously is to make a public fuss rather than just having a quiet chat like two grown up human beings. Every time I'm forced to do it I feel like the kid throwing a tantrum in the snack aisle.
Hell, it gets results, but it degrades all involved.
First of all, the title of this post is pretty misleading. From reading it, I assumed some privacy nightmare story.
But the point the author makes is great: Think about the price of the customer service you receive. You're getting that service for free, so someone else has to pay for it.
I used Twitter in my previous job to answer questions that customers or potential customers may have. It was a quick and easy solution, especially where more than the intended recipient can see it.
[+] [-] snprbob86|13 years ago|reply
Even if they were pressured in to that delivery by some contract or power-play, it's not her fault that she demanded quality service. Twitter et al are making companies accountable for their shortcomings. As a result, the treatment of customers is improving steadily across many industries. Like with anything, sometimes you need to break a few eggs to make an omelet.
[+] [-] wisty|13 years ago|reply
If it was some young guy (preferably with tattoos) on minimum wage, she'd probably have been a lot less upset.
Seeing people doing jobs that aren't stereotypical can trigger cognitive dissonance (is that the right term?). Some people justify "demeaning" jobs because only certain people (men, women, young people, old people, poor people, immigrants) do them. When someone who doesn't fit the stereotype does the job, it creates dissonance.
[+] [-] ceol|13 years ago|reply
What the author experienced is something a lot of the tech community seems to lack: empathy. She realized that an elderly couple went far out of their way to deliver a heavy AC unit to a person who might not ever come back to their store. She realized the only reason they were out there was because of her, because she didn't want to wait two weeks.
Any normal person would feel like crap.
[+] [-] ricardobeat|13 years ago|reply
I'd guess that late-night delivery is not part of the standard service, and they only did for the fear of upheaval on twitter.
Anyway, the blame is not on the customer, the company could have scheduled delivery for early next morning and that would be absolutely reasonable.
[+] [-] mturmon|13 years ago|reply
If they really were in store management, they would be salaried workers, and therefore not paid for overtime. They would likely have been compensated for mileage and tolls during the delivery.
[+] [-] curiouscats|13 years ago|reply
The foolish response of relying on non-sustainable heroic efforts by employees to provide customer service is feeble. But the customer is not responsible for stupid management actions. Now customers can be unreasonable and if you are doing that it makes sense to me to feel some culpability for the outcome of your bad behavior (even if others had to enable the bad outcome too). Just based on the post it does seem to me the request was unreasonable.
It is true, sadly, both customers and employees suffer from very bad systems management has put in place for customer support.
[+] [-] cowholio4|13 years ago|reply
"Wait your turn, like everybody else, like we all learned in elementary school. It's much more satisfying in the end.
Unless the corporation you're going after is Time Warner Cable, in which case you should use every tool available to you to take those f-ing mobsters down."
[+] [-] saosebastiao|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sharkweek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacalata|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] laumars|13 years ago|reply
Agreed. The crying bit was particularly bad. For an article that could have focused on how far some individuals will go to respond to their customers, she some how managed to turn the focus onto her "plight" for actually getting what she damn well intended in the first place (albeit not from the stereotyped deliverers she'd expected).
This whole article says more about her than anything else.
[+] [-] daurnimator|13 years ago|reply
Not everything can fit in 140 characters; and you can bet this gets wider readership than a tweet.
[+] [-] temphn|13 years ago|reply
It seems the company is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Damned if they don't respond to her tweet. Damned if they do, because then they'd be slave drivers pushing themselves or their employees to provide great service without taking into account work-life balance, etc.
Do you agree those two things are opposed? Why can't she just be grateful these people (in this case unnecessarily) pushed to go the extra mile for her, rather than encouraging her to attack them again for doing so?
She should get their names and encourage people to buy Home Depot if she really felt bad for them.
[+] [-] maguay|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jib|13 years ago|reply
Handling individual contacts is a practice only marketing guys like I think. You can create temporary appearance of good service that way (if you are lucky), but not build a solid reputation for good service - you run into the problems others have pointed out below, selection bias, neglecting your more effective support channels etc.
This looks like a company misunderstanding how to use social media to me - someone created a social media team and gave them free reign to "solve problems via social media".
It reminds me of a time I attended a sales presentation of a CRM with the sales guy bragging how a company used their twitter contact routing to identify the guy as a top influencer (via Klout or something) and had the chairman of their multi-billion company call back some celebrity who was complaining about the service he received with about some standard problem he was having with their service (it was something very commoditized, broadband I think). The customer service guys attending the presentation didn't understand why they thought it was a good use of technology or time - that isnt the way to build customer trust, making sure the problem was fixed by the first guy the celebrity contacted is how you build trust.
[+] [-] zainny|13 years ago|reply
It's one of the few ways that new social media is actually providing value for me.
Some specific examples where I can recall using it: (1) Engaging the Microsoft developer team to fix up an issue with my account (2) Engaging Air Canada to ask about using my Aeroplan points (3) Engaging Commonwealth Bank to say thanks for great customer service and recommending someone I did deal with in person at a branch (to which they replied they would pass along the commendation).
All times I had a faster and more satisfactory engagement than if I had used phone, email, etc (as I'm reminded when I have to revert to these methods)...
[+] [-] mastofact|13 years ago|reply
My guess is that they were losing a lot of money doing this. (Back story) I've had an on-going problem for about 2 years about slow speeds and contacted the BBB because nothing was being done after numerous complaints over the phone. They did a fix and the problem still continued. I've posted on DSLReports and my ISP's Social Media team helped me out so I continued to use them. I've received numerous credits to my account by just complaining to the SM team, which I think is more than fair--even though I didn't specifically ask for credits.
[+] [-] daurnimator|13 years ago|reply
Nearly every time I tweet at a company they either don't reply, or ask that I call them instead.... WHY YOU DO YOU EVEN HAVE A TWITTER ACCOUNT?
[+] [-] drucken|13 years ago|reply
That said, while I understand her emotional perspective, I tentatively disagree with the sentiment. If the use of social media does produce efficiency gains that would otherwise have been difficult or impossible to attain, then everyone benefits, including the company gaining a competitive advantage, perhaps ala Theory of Constraints.
Of course, there is more than one way to use social media. The company could have used it only for information broadcasts. I presume if they set it up to actively seek to improve their customer service, then they are happy to accept all the consequences for it too.
[+] [-] hayksaakian|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Crake|13 years ago|reply
It's not a problem with twitter, it's a problem with the store you're buying from. Next time buy your ac unit from a place that treats their employees right. If you want to take an even longer view of this, you'll probably run smack into the economy at large and the desperate situation that minimum wage big box stores can force upon their employees as a result of the unemployment rate. They treat you like dirt and hold you responsible for failing to meet goals that were never possible in the first place.
An alternate view TFA could take would be that since you've discovered that public complaining via irascible tweet seems to be effective--tweet again about your horror regarding their treatment of their employees. There's no reason they shouldn't have some sort of infrastructure in place to deal with this sort of thing if they are going to attempt immediate reparations brought to their attention via twitter.
The store could have offered over time pay to stronger employees willing to volunteer the next day, perhaps; the salaried managers likely didn't receive any compensation for their after hours efforts. I'm sure the AC unit could have waited another 24-48 hours.
[+] [-] marcuspovey|13 years ago|reply
It's a pretty sorry state where the only way to be taken seriously is to make a public fuss rather than just having a quiet chat like two grown up human beings. Every time I'm forced to do it I feel like the kid throwing a tantrum in the snack aisle.
Hell, it gets results, but it degrades all involved.
[+] [-] sebastianmarr|13 years ago|reply
But the point the author makes is great: Think about the price of the customer service you receive. You're getting that service for free, so someone else has to pay for it.
[+] [-] jbrooksuk|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] treskot|13 years ago|reply
Why didn't they wait for delivering it next (early) morning? Would that make a huge difference?
[+] [-] loyals|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] aaroncray|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patdennis|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wmf|13 years ago|reply