6 ms·

Your story highlights why customer service is not as easy as we think because of the requirement for sustained performance being quite high. By your own admiss

Your story highlights why customer service is not as easy as we think because of the requirement for sustained performance being quite high. By your own admission, you went to this steak house for 10 years and had liked it so much you encouraged others. I'd imagine you would've visited multiple times per year? So, let's say 20~30 visits total? All that time you were happy and raved about it, but one bad visit and not only did it sour your opinion to the point you won't return, but you also mentioned that you will disparage them whenever you can. At around 30 visits, 97% of your experience there was positive to the point of rave reviews. I'm not having a go at you, I'm just using your story to highlight the difficulty in customer service and how fickle we all are as customers (myself included). I suppose that really just speaks more to our recency bias as humans as well.

JauntyHatAngle 7y ago
I see what you're saying and agree, but that didn't just sound bad, that sounded awful. The basics of customer service were not met. I wouldn't call that fickle as it went further than just a bad visit.
- catherd 7y ago
  Losing 30 minutes, eating in a noisy environment, and not being able to control how the restaurant manages a schedule the GP doesn't have insight into is awful? Getting pissed off over an experience like that is probably an appropriate response. Or bringing the 10 year history of being a loyal client to the management's attention. But going to war against them for a once in 10 years event sounds like first world entitlement. The overall point about the lengths needed to maintain an experience that keeps customers happy is real, though. You don't make money by trying to profit on every transaction or treating entitled people like you know they're acting like an ass.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - swagasaurus-rex 7y ago
    Right, it sounds like Thriptic blew up the problem and he had to make a scene to be heard. It's now pride that prevents him from going back even though he would lose his favorite dinner spot. In his defense, if a customer is paying and not asking for out of the ordinary, it's really bad business to not at least acknowledge the customer when they are generous enough to complain.
  - inferiorhuman 7y ago
    Getting pissed off over an experience like that is probably an appropriate response. Or bringing the 10 year history of being a loyal client to the management's attention. But going to war against them for a once in 10 years event sounds like first world entitlement. In general I'd be inclined to agree, but two things come to mind. One: if I had a reservation I'd expect it's for a table not a seat at the bar. Two: being deliberately singled out versus being an accident. If the staff had been more obvious (e.g. tables are for whites only), would you suggest giving them another chance? DOSA in SF (the one on Fillmore) deserves an honorable mention for not honoring reservations. We showed up early with a reservation and they continued to seat people before us, after like half an hour we all left because we were going to a show. I talked to the manager who claimed we arrived late, etc., etc. I wasn't a regular customer, I didn't make a scene, but you can bet your ass I'll badmouth DOSA every chance I get. If you're not going to honor reservations, why take them? You don't make money by trying to profit on every transaction or treating entitled people like you know they're acting like an ass. And what makes someone entitled? Wanting a table to go with the reservation? Or looking different than the typical customers?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - JauntyHatAngle 7y ago
    It's more that from how he described it they didn't apologise or treat him well as well. Do the exact same thing they did except simply present it better and apologise and now you're likely not going to piss off a loyal customer.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    People's reactions to how they are treated is emotional. The guy apparently received appalling service and was humiliated in front of his girlfriend on Valentine's day by a restaurant he trusted and was attached to. This was personal betrayal. This is why cause people to react so strongly. We don't see this as a simple business transaction, this is personal and emotional.
    - saiya-jin 7y ago
      Yes you can see that reaction and even description after some time passes is purely emotional. Nothing logical can pierce that. It doesn't matter that he gives his friends bad recommendation, as long as the restaurant which betrayed him is punished by lost customers. That's outsider's perspective, I can bet for him he feels this perfectly fine and good behavior and maybe even doing a service to his friends. The reality is, if 97% was a great experience and 3% awful, its still a great place when averaged. I for example would gladly try out such a place if it would be described objectively, without some stupid emotions overshadowing every single fact. Some would call the reaction appropriate, some overblown. Not judging, haven't been treated like that. But generally emotions are bad long-term advisor, unless decision also passes some basic logic check (which usually they don't).
      - pbourke 7y ago
        A Spock-like character always shows up in HN threads like these to claim perfect rationality, cite some figures, etc. You know what? People are emotional creatures. and sometimes, yes, a humiliating and excessive failure on the part of a restaurant is enough to warrant a strong and permanent reaction. This is a restaurant, after all. In the end, who gives a shit? You’re going there to have a good time. If you don’t have a good time, it’s perfectly valid to not go back. We need to listen to our emotions more, not less in some circumstances. I don’t mean to make a scene, but to take it as a sign that we shouldn’t eat at that restaurant, take that job, date that person, patronize that airline, etc.
      - Cpoll 7y ago
        Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/325/ https://xkcd.com/325/
  - nkrisc 7y ago
    It doesn't really matter if his reaction was justified or not, that's how people act. And it highlights why customer service is so important: because sometimes it really does just take one slip up to lose a loyal customer and to turn a promoter into a detractor. It makes no difference if it's rational or not if it's reality because if you're an expensive steak house, you have first world customers so their first world problems are your problems.
paggle 7y ago
It also speaks to the need to know your customer. The restaurant should have had discreet cameras with facial recognition software to alert management immediately that a high value customer was walking in the door, and to make sure he got treated right.
- cwkoss 7y ago
  I hope this is sarcasm
  - paggle 7y ago
    Isn’t it more fun to wonder?
    - the_other 7y ago
      Not really. Surveillance capitalism is pretty-much always ugly and awful. What surprises me is that the restaurant didn't have a loyalty scheme, or a front-of-house incentivised to recognise repeat customers. These systems are cheaper, more flexible, have fewer gross externalities than facial recognition and inherently promote human interaction.
      - scatters 7y ago
        If you have a system to recognise repeat customers, what difference does it make whether that system is implemented in silicon or carbon?
        cwkoss 7y ago
        Harder to spin up 1000 duplicate instances of the front-of-house staff or sell the capability to identify customers out-of-house as well.
    - stallmanite 7y ago
      On HN there’s always brilliant commentary and there’s always posters defending the undefendable. I’ll be wondering forever.
AdrianB1 7y ago
One expects flawless experience every time, not 97% of the time. A steak house is not that critical, but would you fly if the success rate of an airliner is 97%? Would you go to a steak house where you get a food poisoning every 3% of the time? Where do you draw the line?
- saiya-jin 7y ago
  Waiting in the line for 30 minutes can't be compared to dying, that's nonsense and I'm sure you realize that. Yes I would go to steakhouse which has 97% chance of being awesome, with 3% chance of waiting in the line 30+ minutes, even on valentine. But that's me (and my wife)

JauntyHatAngle 7y ago

I see what you're saying and agree, but that didn't just sound bad, that sounded awful. The basics of customer service were not met. I wouldn't call that fickle as it went further than just a bad visit.

catherd 7y ago
Losing 30 minutes, eating in a noisy environment, and not being able to control how the restaurant manages a schedule the GP doesn't have insight into is awful? Getting pissed off over an experience like that is probably an appropriate response. Or bringing the 10 year history of being a loyal client to the management's attention. But going to war against them for a once in 10 years event sounds like first world entitlement. The overall point about the lengths needed to maintain an experience that keeps customers happy is real, though. You don't make money by trying to profit on every transaction or treating entitled people like you know they're acting like an ass.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- swagasaurus-rex 7y ago
  Right, it sounds like Thriptic blew up the problem and he had to make a scene to be heard. It's now pride that prevents him from going back even though he would lose his favorite dinner spot. In his defense, if a customer is paying and not asking for out of the ordinary, it's really bad business to not at least acknowledge the customer when they are generous enough to complain.
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  Getting pissed off over an experience like that is probably an appropriate response. Or bringing the 10 year history of being a loyal client to the management's attention. But going to war against them for a once in 10 years event sounds like first world entitlement. In general I'd be inclined to agree, but two things come to mind. One: if I had a reservation I'd expect it's for a table not a seat at the bar. Two: being deliberately singled out versus being an accident. If the staff had been more obvious (e.g. tables are for whites only), would you suggest giving them another chance? DOSA in SF (the one on Fillmore) deserves an honorable mention for not honoring reservations. We showed up early with a reservation and they continued to seat people before us, after like half an hour we all left because we were going to a show. I talked to the manager who claimed we arrived late, etc., etc. I wasn't a regular customer, I didn't make a scene, but you can bet your ass I'll badmouth DOSA every chance I get. If you're not going to honor reservations, why take them? You don't make money by trying to profit on every transaction or treating entitled people like you know they're acting like an ass. And what makes someone entitled? Wanting a table to go with the reservation? Or looking different than the typical customers?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- JauntyHatAngle 7y ago
  It's more that from how he described it they didn't apologise or treat him well as well. Do the exact same thing they did except simply present it better and apologise and now you're likely not going to piss off a loyal customer.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  People's reactions to how they are treated is emotional. The guy apparently received appalling service and was humiliated in front of his girlfriend on Valentine's day by a restaurant he trusted and was attached to. This was personal betrayal. This is why cause people to react so strongly. We don't see this as a simple business transaction, this is personal and emotional.
  - saiya-jin 7y ago
    Yes you can see that reaction and even description after some time passes is purely emotional. Nothing logical can pierce that. It doesn't matter that he gives his friends bad recommendation, as long as the restaurant which betrayed him is punished by lost customers. That's outsider's perspective, I can bet for him he feels this perfectly fine and good behavior and maybe even doing a service to his friends. The reality is, if 97% was a great experience and 3% awful, its still a great place when averaged. I for example would gladly try out such a place if it would be described objectively, without some stupid emotions overshadowing every single fact. Some would call the reaction appropriate, some overblown. Not judging, haven't been treated like that. But generally emotions are bad long-term advisor, unless decision also passes some basic logic check (which usually they don't).
    - pbourke 7y ago
      A Spock-like character always shows up in HN threads like these to claim perfect rationality, cite some figures, etc. You know what? People are emotional creatures. and sometimes, yes, a humiliating and excessive failure on the part of a restaurant is enough to warrant a strong and permanent reaction. This is a restaurant, after all. In the end, who gives a shit? You’re going there to have a good time. If you don’t have a good time, it’s perfectly valid to not go back. We need to listen to our emotions more, not less in some circumstances. I don’t mean to make a scene, but to take it as a sign that we shouldn’t eat at that restaurant, take that job, date that person, patronize that airline, etc.
    - Cpoll 7y ago
      Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/325/ https://xkcd.com/325/
- nkrisc 7y ago
  It doesn't really matter if his reaction was justified or not, that's how people act. And it highlights why customer service is so important: because sometimes it really does just take one slip up to lose a loyal customer and to turn a promoter into a detractor. It makes no difference if it's rational or not if it's reality because if you're an expensive steak house, you have first world customers so their first world problems are your problems.

paggle 7y ago

It also speaks to the need to know your customer. The restaurant should have had discreet cameras with facial recognition software to alert management immediately that a high value customer was walking in the door, and to make sure he got treated right.

cwkoss 7y ago
I hope this is sarcasm
- paggle 7y ago
  Isn’t it more fun to wonder?
  - the_other 7y ago
    Not really. Surveillance capitalism is pretty-much always ugly and awful. What surprises me is that the restaurant didn't have a loyalty scheme, or a front-of-house incentivised to recognise repeat customers. These systems are cheaper, more flexible, have fewer gross externalities than facial recognition and inherently promote human interaction.
    - scatters 7y ago
      If you have a system to recognise repeat customers, what difference does it make whether that system is implemented in silicon or carbon?
      - cwkoss 7y ago
        Harder to spin up 1000 duplicate instances of the front-of-house staff or sell the capability to identify customers out-of-house as well.
  - stallmanite 7y ago
    On HN there’s always brilliant commentary and there’s always posters defending the undefendable. I’ll be wondering forever.

AdrianB1 7y ago

One expects flawless experience every time, not 97% of the time. A steak house is not that critical, but would you fly if the success rate of an airliner is 97%? Would you go to a steak house where you get a food poisoning every 3% of the time? Where do you draw the line?

saiya-jin 7y ago
Waiting in the line for 30 minutes can't be compared to dying, that's nonsense and I'm sure you realize that. Yes I would go to steakhouse which has 97% chance of being awesome, with 3% chance of waiting in the line 30+ minutes, even on valentine. But that's me (and my wife)