3 ms·

My first large employer was Best Buy, and at the time (and I believe still?) a large majority of their phone customer service operation was outsourced. I will

My first large employer was Best Buy, and at the time (and I believe still?) a large majority of their phone customer service operation was outsourced. I will still never understand why companies do this. Your quite literal last line of defense (and sometimes first) with a customer is people that aren't directly accountable other than a corporate contract? Never made sense to me. Also, the fact that they are generally the lowest paid is also bizzare.

olalonde 5y ago
> I will still never understand why companies do this. Specialization and economies of scale. Best Buy's core competence isn't phone customer service. A phone customer service can specialize and develop tools and processes that Best Buy couldn't. They can also serve multiple companies with a smaller workforce due to increased utilisation rate (a bit similar to why cloud hosting has become so popular). > Also, the fact that they are generally the lowest paid is also bizzare. It doesn't require skills or training, almost anyone who can talk is qualified to do phone customer service. I had many friends in high school whose first job was phone customer service.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > A phone customer service can specialize So then outsourced CS should be better than in-house. But it doesn't seem to work like that. > almost anyone who can talk is qualified to do phone customer service That's not consistent with my own experience; for example, many third-world telephone CS outfits employ staff with accents so thick that I can't understand them. I mean they may be able to talk in some language; but they're not that good at talking English. Outsourced CS reps are much more likely to just hang up on the caller if it looks like it might be a difficult call. Also, "qualified" is doing quite a lot of work there. Anyone that can talk (the customer's language) is qualified to pick up the phone and follow a script. But good customer service means reps that know the product, and don't need a script.
- supergeek133 5y ago
  Having worked there, the sheer volume of phone interactions was crazy, and I haven't worked there in almost 10 years. Regardless of the volume, it was very shocking to me how many situations that ended up being escalated to even the executive level were caused simply by the interaction with the phone customer care channel. These situations "cost" the company quite a bit in highly paid people time to solve. Granted that cost is never quantified, but it is real. You also see this pattern replicated in the ISP industry quite heavily.
- hakfoo 5y ago
  I have to wonder if they're identifying the right core competencies here. A general-purpose call centre operator who supports 20 different firms knows how to set up phone systems and churn bodies, but they will, by nature, be unable to optimize around your specific customer needs and internal platforms. The customer-service experience will inherently be worse-- worse answers, more escalations required to get to an outcome, and potentially some resolutions simply not available to a siloed third party. On the other hand, I suspect that's part of the way they've priced customer service. Getting customers ravingly satisfied with their experience isn't the goal, it's "just enough so they don't litigate or start leaving negative external press." The fact you moved down from "first-choice default go-to store" to "I'll also check Newegg and Amazon before my next purchase" doesn't really show up in this quarter's financials.
Jenk 5y ago
> I will still never understand why companies do this Literally cost. That's it. An example from my own experience: UK Cost center, salaries started at £18k. They moved this operation to the Philipines. Starting salaries of PHP350k - the equivalent of just under £5k. Cutting the cost of salaries is much more easily quantified than the cost of a damaging customer service.
- supergeek133 5y ago
  It could be a confirmation bias problem on my end, I agree. I just know how much time some highly paid corporate support people dealt with "escalations" that could have not become that had the person answering the call either had more resources to help OR just knew how to better de-escalate a situation. Of course that time is not really quantified officially, it's just a salary.

olalonde 5y ago

> I will still never understand why companies do this. Specialization and economies of scale. Best Buy's core competence isn't phone customer service. A phone customer service can specialize and develop tools and processes that Best Buy couldn't. They can also serve multiple companies with a smaller workforce due to increased utilisation rate (a bit similar to why cloud hosting has become so popular). > Also, the fact that they are generally the lowest paid is also bizzare. It doesn't require skills or training, almost anyone who can talk is qualified to do phone customer service. I had many friends in high school whose first job was phone customer service.

denton-scratch 5y ago
> A phone customer service can specialize So then outsourced CS should be better than in-house. But it doesn't seem to work like that. > almost anyone who can talk is qualified to do phone customer service That's not consistent with my own experience; for example, many third-world telephone CS outfits employ staff with accents so thick that I can't understand them. I mean they may be able to talk in some language; but they're not that good at talking English. Outsourced CS reps are much more likely to just hang up on the caller if it looks like it might be a difficult call. Also, "qualified" is doing quite a lot of work there. Anyone that can talk (the customer's language) is qualified to pick up the phone and follow a script. But good customer service means reps that know the product, and don't need a script.
supergeek133 5y ago
Having worked there, the sheer volume of phone interactions was crazy, and I haven't worked there in almost 10 years. Regardless of the volume, it was very shocking to me how many situations that ended up being escalated to even the executive level were caused simply by the interaction with the phone customer care channel. These situations "cost" the company quite a bit in highly paid people time to solve. Granted that cost is never quantified, but it is real. You also see this pattern replicated in the ISP industry quite heavily.
hakfoo 5y ago
I have to wonder if they're identifying the right core competencies here. A general-purpose call centre operator who supports 20 different firms knows how to set up phone systems and churn bodies, but they will, by nature, be unable to optimize around your specific customer needs and internal platforms. The customer-service experience will inherently be worse-- worse answers, more escalations required to get to an outcome, and potentially some resolutions simply not available to a siloed third party. On the other hand, I suspect that's part of the way they've priced customer service. Getting customers ravingly satisfied with their experience isn't the goal, it's "just enough so they don't litigate or start leaving negative external press." The fact you moved down from "first-choice default go-to store" to "I'll also check Newegg and Amazon before my next purchase" doesn't really show up in this quarter's financials.

Jenk 5y ago

> I will still never understand why companies do this Literally cost. That's it. An example from my own experience: UK Cost center, salaries started at £18k. They moved this operation to the Philipines. Starting salaries of PHP350k - the equivalent of just under £5k. Cutting the cost of salaries is much more easily quantified than the cost of a damaging customer service.

supergeek133 5y ago
It could be a confirmation bias problem on my end, I agree. I just know how much time some highly paid corporate support people dealt with "escalations" that could have not become that had the person answering the call either had more resources to help OR just knew how to better de-escalate a situation. Of course that time is not really quantified officially, it's just a salary.