> These days? There are no phone numbers to be found. No email. Only the chatbot, which does not yield the desired results. Yep. A friend worked at a customer

> These days? There are no phone numbers to be found. No email. Only the chatbot, which does not yield the desired results. Yep. A friend worked at a customer care automation company and apparently they got the best feedback when they limited the effort required to speak to a human. They literally had direct evidence suggesting that the fewer the steps to reach a human, the happier the customer. The problem is, the <big names> wanted to use the service to reduce the number of humans in the call centre, not to improve the quality of the customer care. They were entirely motivated by reducing costs and therefore instructed the customer care automation company to make it as _difficult_ as possible to reach a human. Tip: If you ever hear a robot voice on the phone, mash all the keys tonnes of times. They'll likely put you through to a human as a "confused customer". > edit: I think it's fine to have a chatbot on the website, but not at the expense of all other methods. Right. It should be an 'aid', not a replacement. Also: TWITTER IS NOT CUSTOMER CARE. Only a _very small_ number of your customers use both Twitter and your platform. A large percentage of your hipster engineers are on Twitter - but they are in a bubble. Your grandparents are likely not Tweeting about their tech issues, they are the people stuck in a chat with a robot that forgets every 5 minutes what was being discussed. An example of this is trying to reach Youtube. Why can humans at Youtube only be reached via Twitter? Why do you have to get a certain number of retweets before your issue is taken seriously? It's actually madness.