5 ms·

With regard to “automated customer handling” (I.e. intentionally wasting customers’ time and energy in the hope they give up) - I can’t help but feel that socie

by wyager 5y ago

With regard to “automated customer handling” (I.e. intentionally wasting customers’ time and energy in the hope they give up) - I can’t help but feel that society has lost a critical social regulatory mechanism, in the form of being able to physically beat up people who repeatedly exhibit scummy behavior. If some airline or bank puts you on hold for 4 hours, there’s no way to throw a few punches or whatever at the people who are responsible. For most of human evolution, there was always someone you could hold personally and physically accountable. Now that this check no longer exists, it’s no surprise that kafkaesque bureaucratic bullshit has exploded in popularity with customer-facing megacorps. I don’t really have a solution to propose here - maybe encourage people to vandalize corporate HQs if they’re egregiously wronged? It doesn’t feel like a very good solution.

gruez 5y ago
>I can’t help but feel that society has lost a critical social regulatory mechanism, in the form of being able to physically beat up people who repeatedly exhibit scummy behavior. If some airline or bank puts you on hold for 4 hours, there’s no way to throw a few punches or whatever at the people who are responsible. Yes, beating up the low level, minimum wage employee who has zero power over your circumstances is definitely the right way to resolve disputes with a corporation. edit: /s
- wyager 5y ago
  My comment is precisely that the people who are actually responsible for your problems are shielded from repercussions by either minimum wage support reps or automated phone systems.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - gruez 5y ago
    What are you suggesting, that without telephones, you can beat the front line worker up, in hopes that he'll get mad and beat his boss up, and the violence will continue up the chain until it reaches the person responsible?
    - wyager 5y ago
      No, not at all. I’m suggesting that the level of structural abstraction is a problem precisely because it prevents people from directing their rage where it actually matters.
      - gruez 5y ago
        Suppose your hypothetical was true, and whenever you had a grievance you would speak directly to an c-suite officer. What makes you think the corporate officer in question wouldn't take preventive measures to protect themselves from violence? Business in sketchy neighborhoods place their employees/cash register behind bulletproof glass to prevent this exact issue. If a small business can afford that kind of stuff to protect their minimum wage employee, I'm sure c-suite officers of multinational corporations can afford something equal or better.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        wyager 5y ago
        If they had to bear the cost in any way, they would be incentivized to reduce the amount of pain they're inflicting on customers. And of course I'm not literally proposing that people go and beat up execs; I'm just pointing out that for basically however long human civilization has existed, the scale was such that you always knew who, specifically, was causing you problems. Now it's all hidden behind a bunch of bullshit.
        gruez 5y ago
        >If they had to bear the cost in any way, they would be incentivized to reduce the amount of pain they're inflicting on customers Maybe? That might nudge execs into providing better customer service experience, but if I were an exec I sure as hell am not going to let my well-being depend on good customer experience alone. Eventually you're going to get a crazed lunatic that good customer service can't defuse, and for that reason I'm going to still require physical barriers and/or armed bodyguards.
ericlewis 5y ago
to be fair, this was never the intention of "automated customer handling" the system I built while working there though got ruined -- the actual low level employees at Chime do not in anyway agree with this automated bullshit.
ipython 5y ago
Back in the banking crisis days, I applied for a mortgage modification. I’m on top of paperwork and fax like a boss, so I made sure all of our documentation was in order and submitted ahead of schedule. Regardless, the bank tried to use every trick in the book to delay. I ended up war dialing all the extensions around my contact to find someone who worked there with access to my files to push it along. Ended up succeeding and receiving my modification. Imagine trying that with google or Facebook or chime. I don’t agree with the need for physical violence. Historically, we have had decent regulatory protections for customers. I feel like those protections are rapidly being eroded. The threat of reporting to the bank/insurance/etc regulator was real and triggered a response even in the most dense bureaucracies in my experience. Best story ever along these lines is when an angry homeowner who was wrongfully foreclosed upon ended up suing the bank, winning, then foreclosing on her local branch when they neglected to pay: https://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-florida-foreclosed-angry-homeowner-bofa/story?id=13775638 https://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-florida-foreclo...
- wyager 5y ago
  I think this is illustrative of my point; only the most well-equipped people (lawyers, people who know how to wardial, etc.) have any chance of grappling with the kafkaesque bullshit of modern corporate bureaucracy. If amazon wrongs you, you're fucked. If a shopkeeper wrongs you, you can go yell at the shopkeeper. I don't know if there's any legal framework that can fix this. I even have to admit that it might not be socially optimal to fix this.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    >If a shopkeeper wrongs you, you can go yell at the shopkeeper So, go buy your appliances from a local store, not Amazon or Lowe's or Home Depot. Do you, or do you not do that? Because you can totally do that.
    - wyager 5y ago
      When I can. Not for this reason, though - just because I don’t trust Amazon not to send me something used or a fake or something.
quesera 5y ago
> society has lost a critical social regulatory mechanism, in the form of being able to physically beat up people who repeatedly exhibit scummy behavior Wow, that's the most poorly-thought out idea I've read in recent memory. A few more seconds of consideration should be enough to come up with all the reasons this is such a terrible idea. But one that I can contribute from a slightly unusual perspective (working adjacent to financial fraud detection): The aggrieved customer is very often completely wrong about whom to blame for a problem. They are working with incomplete information (we all are), they're in a heightened state of stress (money is at risk), they're grappling with bad models of confusing systems (finance is complicated), and at least half of them are less smart than average (by definition). I would say that about 10% of customer service requests start out hostile and accusatory. Some are literally threatening violence. And about 99% of the time, the aggressive customer is wrong. So how many innocent noses do you think should be improperly punched, for your social regulatory mechanism instincts to be satisfied?
- wyager 5y ago
  I'm obviously not proposing it as a solution - just pointing out that this used to be part of the social regulatory calculus and now it's gone.
  - quesera 5y ago
    It's gone because it worked so poorly for society. Most obvious consequence: the physically-strong can get more justice than the weak. Which leads inevitably to: the physically-strong make the rules. And social regulation has failed.
    - Nextgrid 5y ago
      I wouldn't say that it's gone because it worked so poorly. It's gone for other reasons such as technological advances shifting so much business online where this behavior is no longer possible. I don't think it worked poorly. While we didn't have a constant epidemic of customers fighting with customer service people, the possibility of it served as an effective deterrent for overly scummy behavior (from both sides actually) and the system self-regulated. You can compare this to the amount of verbal abuse and harassment being published on the internet. Before the internet and social media people weren't constantly punching each other in the face, because the possibility of it successfully deterred abusive behavior that would prompt such reactions. With that possibility gone, abuse increased significantly given the lack of consequences. It's kind of like mutually-assured destruction. Nobody uses it, but the possibility of it being used keeps everyone in check.
nn3 5y ago
Seems to still exist in India https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-18/riot-broke-as-india-iphone-maker-hired-more-than-it-could-handle https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-18/riot-brok...
- wyager 5y ago
  Good for them!
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
I think getting rid of arbitration and allowing at least small claims court, coupled with an effective small claims court system and encouraging people to use it, could be very effective. This is particularly true in cases where the actual issue is obvious and just stuck in a bog of internal bureaucracy. Now a company lawyer, who has a strong incentive to resolve the issue, access to said bureaucracy, and a certain extent of power to say "we're now doing X because The Law demands it, even if the stupid process says otherwise, make it happen" is dealing with it. In most cases, I'd expect the lawyer to resolve it before he has to coach and send an employee to represent the company at the court, costing hundreds to thousands. It also scales really poorly, effectively motivating companies to resolve issues before they get to that stage.
frankbreetz 5y ago
Anecdotally, I recently got stuck in one of these automated loops for an airline and they said there was going to be a wait time of like 10 hours. After fiddling around I eventually found the call back option and they called me at 2 AM, so I missed the call. So, I drove to the nearest airport and went to the service desk. I got my problem fixed in about 5 minutes. I do agree something needs to be done about these customer service loops, if I didn't get my problem resolved I wouldn't have been able to go on my family trip, that we had been talking about with the kids for months. It is beyond ridiculous, in a fair and sensible some government agency would be able to prevent these things, but here we are.

by wyager 5y ago

gruez 5y ago

>I can’t help but feel that society has lost a critical social regulatory mechanism, in the form of being able to physically beat up people who repeatedly exhibit scummy behavior. If some airline or bank puts you on hold for 4 hours, there’s no way to throw a few punches or whatever at the people who are responsible. Yes, beating up the low level, minimum wage employee who has zero power over your circumstances is definitely the right way to resolve disputes with a corporation. edit: /s

wyager 5y ago
My comment is precisely that the people who are actually responsible for your problems are shielded from repercussions by either minimum wage support reps or automated phone systems.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- gruez 5y ago
  What are you suggesting, that without telephones, you can beat the front line worker up, in hopes that he'll get mad and beat his boss up, and the violence will continue up the chain until it reaches the person responsible?
  - wyager 5y ago
    No, not at all. I’m suggesting that the level of structural abstraction is a problem precisely because it prevents people from directing their rage where it actually matters.
    - gruez 5y ago
      Suppose your hypothetical was true, and whenever you had a grievance you would speak directly to an c-suite officer. What makes you think the corporate officer in question wouldn't take preventive measures to protect themselves from violence? Business in sketchy neighborhoods place their employees/cash register behind bulletproof glass to prevent this exact issue. If a small business can afford that kind of stuff to protect their minimum wage employee, I'm sure c-suite officers of multinational corporations can afford something equal or better.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - wyager 5y ago
        If they had to bear the cost in any way, they would be incentivized to reduce the amount of pain they're inflicting on customers. And of course I'm not literally proposing that people go and beat up execs; I'm just pointing out that for basically however long human civilization has existed, the scale was such that you always knew who, specifically, was causing you problems. Now it's all hidden behind a bunch of bullshit.
        gruez 5y ago
        >If they had to bear the cost in any way, they would be incentivized to reduce the amount of pain they're inflicting on customers Maybe? That might nudge execs into providing better customer service experience, but if I were an exec I sure as hell am not going to let my well-being depend on good customer experience alone. Eventually you're going to get a crazed lunatic that good customer service can't defuse, and for that reason I'm going to still require physical barriers and/or armed bodyguards.

ericlewis 5y ago

to be fair, this was never the intention of "automated customer handling" the system I built while working there though got ruined -- the actual low level employees at Chime do not in anyway agree with this automated bullshit.

ipython 5y ago

Back in the banking crisis days, I applied for a mortgage modification. I’m on top of paperwork and fax like a boss, so I made sure all of our documentation was in order and submitted ahead of schedule. Regardless, the bank tried to use every trick in the book to delay. I ended up war dialing all the extensions around my contact to find someone who worked there with access to my files to push it along. Ended up succeeding and receiving my modification. Imagine trying that with google or Facebook or chime. I don’t agree with the need for physical violence. Historically, we have had decent regulatory protections for customers. I feel like those protections are rapidly being eroded. The threat of reporting to the bank/insurance/etc regulator was real and triggered a response even in the most dense bureaucracies in my experience. Best story ever along these lines is when an angry homeowner who was wrongfully foreclosed upon ended up suing the bank, winning, then foreclosing on her local branch when they neglected to pay: https://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-florida-foreclosed-angry-homeowner-bofa/story?id=13775638 https://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-florida-foreclo...

wyager 5y ago
I think this is illustrative of my point; only the most well-equipped people (lawyers, people who know how to wardial, etc.) have any chance of grappling with the kafkaesque bullshit of modern corporate bureaucracy. If amazon wrongs you, you're fucked. If a shopkeeper wrongs you, you can go yell at the shopkeeper. I don't know if there's any legal framework that can fix this. I even have to admit that it might not be socially optimal to fix this.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >If a shopkeeper wrongs you, you can go yell at the shopkeeper So, go buy your appliances from a local store, not Amazon or Lowe's or Home Depot. Do you, or do you not do that? Because you can totally do that.
  - wyager 5y ago
    When I can. Not for this reason, though - just because I don’t trust Amazon not to send me something used or a fake or something.

quesera 5y ago

> society has lost a critical social regulatory mechanism, in the form of being able to physically beat up people who repeatedly exhibit scummy behavior Wow, that's the most poorly-thought out idea I've read in recent memory. A few more seconds of consideration should be enough to come up with all the reasons this is such a terrible idea. But one that I can contribute from a slightly unusual perspective (working adjacent to financial fraud detection): The aggrieved customer is very often completely wrong about whom to blame for a problem. They are working with incomplete information (we all are), they're in a heightened state of stress (money is at risk), they're grappling with bad models of confusing systems (finance is complicated), and at least half of them are less smart than average (by definition). I would say that about 10% of customer service requests start out hostile and accusatory. Some are literally threatening violence. And about 99% of the time, the aggressive customer is wrong. So how many innocent noses do you think should be improperly punched, for your social regulatory mechanism instincts to be satisfied?

wyager 5y ago
I'm obviously not proposing it as a solution - just pointing out that this used to be part of the social regulatory calculus and now it's gone.
- quesera 5y ago
  It's gone because it worked so poorly for society. Most obvious consequence: the physically-strong can get more justice than the weak. Which leads inevitably to: the physically-strong make the rules. And social regulation has failed.
  - Nextgrid 5y ago
    I wouldn't say that it's gone because it worked so poorly. It's gone for other reasons such as technological advances shifting so much business online where this behavior is no longer possible. I don't think it worked poorly. While we didn't have a constant epidemic of customers fighting with customer service people, the possibility of it served as an effective deterrent for overly scummy behavior (from both sides actually) and the system self-regulated. You can compare this to the amount of verbal abuse and harassment being published on the internet. Before the internet and social media people weren't constantly punching each other in the face, because the possibility of it successfully deterred abusive behavior that would prompt such reactions. With that possibility gone, abuse increased significantly given the lack of consequences. It's kind of like mutually-assured destruction. Nobody uses it, but the possibility of it being used keeps everyone in check.

nn3 5y ago

Seems to still exist in India https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-18/riot-broke-as-india-iphone-maker-hired-more-than-it-could-handle https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-18/riot-brok...

wyager 5y ago
Good for them!

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago

I think getting rid of arbitration and allowing at least small claims court, coupled with an effective small claims court system and encouraging people to use it, could be very effective. This is particularly true in cases where the actual issue is obvious and just stuck in a bog of internal bureaucracy. Now a company lawyer, who has a strong incentive to resolve the issue, access to said bureaucracy, and a certain extent of power to say "we're now doing X because The Law demands it, even if the stupid process says otherwise, make it happen" is dealing with it. In most cases, I'd expect the lawyer to resolve it before he has to coach and send an employee to represent the company at the court, costing hundreds to thousands. It also scales really poorly, effectively motivating companies to resolve issues before they get to that stage.

frankbreetz 5y ago

Anecdotally, I recently got stuck in one of these automated loops for an airline and they said there was going to be a wait time of like 10 hours. After fiddling around I eventually found the call back option and they called me at 2 AM, so I missed the call. So, I drove to the nearest airport and went to the service desk. I got my problem fixed in about 5 minutes. I do agree something needs to be done about these customer service loops, if I didn't get my problem resolved I wouldn't have been able to go on my family trip, that we had been talking about with the kids for months. It is beyond ridiculous, in a fair and sensible some government agency would be able to prevent these things, but here we are.