RMG3@psuvm.psu.edu (09/28/90)
Having made some comments on another line about bad customer service, it seems appriate to mention good customer service. I don't expect things to always work perfectly, but I do expect the company I paid to help fix things. A recent (July 1990) Consumer Reports gave a very good definition of good customer service (and an example) "...The company apologized [for the problem], acknowledged that there had been a problem, promised it was working on the problem, invited further response via a toll-free phone number, and gave what amounted to a double refund." How often do computer companies reach this standard? The ones I've dealt with tend to say that there is no problem, if there is a problem it must be my fault, have no plans to investigate the problem, and are not about to give a refund. Perhaps I've just had bad luck. Bob Grumbine a.k.a. rmg3@psuvm.psu.edu
long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) (09/28/90)
In article <90270.143040RMG3@psuvm.psu.edu>, RMG3@psuvm.psu.edu writes... > How often do computer companies reach this standard? The ones I've >dealt with tend to say that there is no problem, if there is a problem it >must be my fault, have no plans to investigate the problem, and are >not about to give a refund. Perhaps I've just had bad luck. Well, I've had some good experiences (slightly disparate :-). The first was with Nestle over a package of Goobers. On the way to a movie, I grabbed a couple of packages at a convenience store (beats paying $1.50 each at the theatre!). When I got to the movie and started to munch, I discovered that one package had, by feel, about four Goobers in it! I didn't open the package, but sent it to Nestle with a letter. Shortly thereafter, I received a profuse apology and a double refund (in coupon form). I was happy! The other was with Microseeds over Redux. I had discovered a benign but irritating bug, and sent a letter. A profuse letter of apology followed along with a new version of the software and, as I remember, an offer of a refund. I still use Redux, and am quite satisfied with it and the company. Sometimes, the good guys win. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ /~~) /~~ / | long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com | Don't take life too /~~\ /__ /__ | ...!decwrl!mcntsh.enet.dec.com!long | seriously; you won't Richard C. Long | long%mcntsh.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com | get out alive anyway.
francis@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (RD Francis) (10/02/90)
In article <1948@mountn.dec.com> m_herodotus@coors.dec.com (Mario Herodotus - Digital Customer Support Center (800) 525-6570) writes: >In article <84049@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, francis@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (RD Francis) >This is a synopsis...the people here seem to think that the customer support >centers are responsible for getting a hold of a customer... > I have had many situations where I have tried to contact >customers and they were not available. The policy here at Digital >(for hardware calls) is to give the customer a callback within 10 >minutes (within one hour for software). There are times when it is >very busy here and we do not meet these goals, but we try. Put >yourself in our situation, I try to call you but you don't answer, >should I hold this call and keep trying because you may have gone to >take care of some other business or should I leave a message and get >on to the next call. I usually go on to the next call. My reasoning >is that if I hold onto this call, then everyone waits for you to get >to a phone. If I go on to the next call there are more people who get >a person to speak with. Thanks for your response; it's nice to hear from someone on the other side of things. From everything you've said, Digital is much better than some of the people that we've all dealt with, at some time or another. I can't say, as I've never had much in the way of dealings with your tech support folks. I believe, if my ever-weak memory isn't failing me, that the original poster indicated a certain amount of irritation because he or she could not get through to anyone in tech support, and had to leave a message. Leaving a message did this person no good whatsoever, as they were frequently away from their desk (part-time student employee), and callbacks would wind up invariably coming when they weren't there (a follow-up suggested a far blunter interpretation, which may be more correct than mine, but I digress). I certainly find no fault with tech support folk who attempt to call me when I am not there; they have no way of knowing when I'm available, as I can be called away from my desk at any time during the day. My objections are: 1) Tech support people who call back at a time when you have *expressly* indicated you will not be there. Example: I call a west coast company for tech support, and I live on the east coast. I tell them I'll be leaving at 5PM my time, 2PM their time, and to call the next day if they can't call be then. I come in the next morning to find a note that they called at 7PM my time. Please note: to the customer, it doesn't really matter whether the TS person failed to notice the time constraint when palcing the call, or the message center failed to note the time constraint when recording my message for the TS folks. Whoever is to blame should be told that this sort of data is important, and should not be ignored. 2) Having no idea how long before a call-back could be expected. Surely most TS people could, if asked, give a rough idea of the time it takes to process the average TS call. After all, at some point a company has to be able to recognize whether it has enough TS people or not. Example: Day 1: I call a company's TS line, and leave a message. Day 2: Since I have received no response yet, I call back (just in case they had called me while I was away from my desk) and leave a second message. Day 3: I wait. Nothing. Day 4: I call back and leave a third message, again just in case I had missed their call to me. Finally, a couple of hours later, I receive a call-back. I ask; it's on the first message, they're simply roughly three days behind on their (presumably non-emergency, since this wasn't) TS calls. They call me twice more over the next few days. Together, we each spent roughly three times what we needed to in long-distance fees. 3) Any attempt to contact you is considered to be a resolution to the problem. This is poorly worded, but it's the best I can do for a single sentence description. I don't mean that talking to me without resolving my problem; when this happens, it's usually because a) the TS person needs to look at the problem, and I'll send them more details; b) the TS person indicates the problem is bizarre enough that they'll have to look into it and get back to me, or c) the problem is unresolvable as far as they can tell. As far as I'm concerned, each of these is an answer, or at least an open question to which an answer will be found. What I'm referring to is the fact that, if I'm unavailable when the TS person calls, my request for assistance hits the circular file. With most TS groups I've seen, once an attempt to contact me has been made, it's up to me to call the TS people and ask for assistance again. As far as I'm concerned, this is the worst problem with TS (again, TS that I've dealt with). In particular, when combined with problem number 1 above, I can end up spending weeks trying to get a simple question answered. This policy is reasonable if and only if the TS people are relatively easy to get. If I will have to leave a message asking another TS person to call me again, then I have accomplished nothing, and neither has the TS person who originally called. What do I expect here? I expect that, unless a call to the TS department results in immediate access to a TS person more than 75% of the time (well, 50% at least), if a TS person tries to contact me and fails because I am unavailable, my call will be returned to the queue of calls waiting for a response. I certainly do not expect the TS person to wait around until I am available; that would be unreasonable, if not impossible. I do expect the TS person to recognize that I will still need someone from their TS department to call me. If they want to make a note to do so themselves later, fine. If they want to toss my message to the end of the queue of people waiting for callbacks, also fine (I'm no worse off than if I have to call and leave a second (third, twenty-eighth, whatever) message. The evident assumption that if I'm not waiting by the phone for them, I must have resolved that problem on my own (WARNING: the preceding statement contains hyperbole :-), is, more often than not, incorrect. Now, this is something that should probably not go on for too long; perhaps the tech support person should, after a second or third failed attempt to reach the customer, leave a message to the extent that they will attempt one more contact, at some specific time (a range of no more than one hour). I realize that there are limits on what TS folks can and should do; however, as they are there to serve the customer, I do not feel that leaving us hanging or making us waste a (or several) phone call(s) is good. A TS department truly interested in serving the customer would attempt to address each of the three above points. Final disclaimer: I do have a place or two in mind. However, I will not name them in this forum, as I do not believe they have net access. I feel that naming them in a forum where they have no chance to respond would be unfair. -- R David Francis francis@cis.ohio-state.edu
lcleland@maths.tcd.ie (Laura Cleland) (10/18/90)
In article <15701@shlump.nac.dec.com> long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) writes: >that one package had, by feel, about four Goobers in it! I didn't open the >package, but sent it to Nestle with a letter. Shortly thereafter, I received a >profuse apology and a double refund (in coupon form). I was happy! > >The other was with Microseeds over Redux. I had discovered a benign but >irritating bug, and sent a letter. A profuse letter of apology followed along >with a new version of the software and, as I remember, an offer of a refund. >I still use Redux, and am quite satisfied with it and the company. > >Sometimes, the good guys win. > Most companies prefer to keep their customers happy, it is cheaper than bad publicity. laura.