3 ms·

Agreed. If I am looking at a company FAQ about how to open a ticket, then the emotional interaction here is that the company is putting in not only 0 effort, t

by ep103 4y ago

Agreed. If I am looking at a company FAQ about how to open a ticket, then the emotional interaction here is that the company is putting in not only 0 effort, they are asking me to put in more additional emotional labor to figure out how to get _them_ to address the problem that is causing _me_ harm. To then ask the user to do yet more labor to fill out a _good_ ticket for the company just adds insult to injury at that point, so it should be no surprise so many tickets have nothing worthwhile mentioned. At that point I'm frustrated, have been given the cold shoulder by your company, and have no desire to do your !@#%$ job for you, to help you fix your software, that should have been working already..... I understand that a company might not be able to dedicate a human phone call for every ticket, but I guarantee if they did so, the mere fact that the company would be putting in emotional labor on their end to address the harm their 'bug' has done so far, would cut the number of empty raised issues down massively. In lieu of doing a phone call for every ticket, perhaps try to figure out ways to interact with your customers when they have a problem, that isn't as emotionally barren and uncaring as an FAQ page and forced work to submit a ticket.

sokoloff 4y ago
If customers were, on average, willing to pay enough to companies to staff an employee per 100 customers (or whatever the ratio is to allow prompt, individual service to issues), I think you’d see some companies doing that. That’s more or less how AWS support works when you have a large enough account with them. I don’t directly see the bill for the team who works mostly on my account, but I do know that I’m paying for them (and am happy with that arrangement). A lot of customers (users?) with low or zero spend level want personalized hand-holding. I’m not surprised that they often end up disappointed.
bee_rider 4y ago
While it is annoying I can definitely see why some companies operate this way. I mean, if an individual customer is a large recurring revenue stream, then they should be strongly incentivized to keep them around. For the googles and amazons out there, they have enough customers who don't require manual service that they can afford to just let go of any customers who do. Of course most companies are somewhere between "little shop that needs your money" and "google."
throwoutway 4y ago
I think NovemberWhisky is talking about an internal support tool & lazy employees, not customers. maybe I’m reading it wrong

by ep103 4y ago

sokoloff 4y ago

If customers were, on average, willing to pay enough to companies to staff an employee per 100 customers (or whatever the ratio is to allow prompt, individual service to issues), I think you’d see some companies doing that. That’s more or less how AWS support works when you have a large enough account with them. I don’t directly see the bill for the team who works mostly on my account, but I do know that I’m paying for them (and am happy with that arrangement). A lot of customers (users?) with low or zero spend level want personalized hand-holding. I’m not surprised that they often end up disappointed.

bee_rider 4y ago

While it is annoying I can definitely see why some companies operate this way. I mean, if an individual customer is a large recurring revenue stream, then they should be strongly incentivized to keep them around. For the googles and amazons out there, they have enough customers who don't require manual service that they can afford to just let go of any customers who do. Of course most companies are somewhere between "little shop that needs your money" and "google."

throwoutway 4y ago

I think NovemberWhisky is talking about an internal support tool & lazy employees, not customers. maybe I’m reading it wrong