5 ms·

Does anyone have any data about how often [Amazon] ignores or fixes customer service issues despite a lack of high-visibility blogging? My 10th grade world his

by jmilloy 14y ago

Does anyone have any data about how often [Amazon] ignores or fixes customer service issues despite a lack of high-visibility blogging? My 10th grade world history teacher had a small segment on the rainmaking rituals of some group of people. When rain was needed, they would continue the rituals until it rained. From their view, the rituals worked. I don't think clouds drift around waiting for the rituals to build up, and I don't think customer service departments sit around waiting for blog entries about their company. I'm not suggesting that large companies are blind to signal from the public, or that they ignore it. But why do we think that without such signal from the public these fixes wouldn't have happened, other than a cultural aversion to large companies and their PR departments?

TillE 14y ago
> I don't think customer service departments sit around browsing the internet for blog entries about their company This story bubbled up through HN, BoingBoing, and many other tech news outlets. Someone at Amazon inevitably saw it. Nobody's claiming they randomly stumbled across the original blog entry.
- csixty4 14y ago
  Specifically, Computer World UK and Jeff Jarvis (currently of Buzz Machine but formerly of People, Entertainment Weekly, and the SF Examiner) got in touch with Amazon PR directly for a statement. There were likely more big publications contacting them for a statement that I didn't see. You can't write it off as "just some blogger" at that point. Someone needed to rectify it ASAP.
- jmilloy 14y ago
  I'll reply to just this comment, although each response I've gotten is similar. I'm not claiming that no one at Amazon was aware that the issue had public visibility. I'm not even claiming that the public visibility in this case didn't contribute to the swift, clear, and visible resolution we've seen. Instead, I'm asking for evidence that high visibility correlates strongly with a resolution. Honestly, I will not be surprised if it exists. But no number of highly visible stories that are resolved will provide that evidence on their own. Certainly, the way in which a large company discovers that an issue has become highly visible is completely irrelevant. The question is whether, if an issue doesn't become highly visible, do they still try to resolve it or do they ignore it?
  - tsotha 14y ago
    The only possible evidence for this would be either an internal email or an admission from Amazon. Based on the email she got I'd say from Amazon's point of view the matter was closed. There had to be some prod to get them to take another look. If not the publicity, what was it?
    - jmilloy 14y ago
      Again, it's not about this instance, which is one data point on the side of "publicity -> resolution". And there are many more data points on the side of "publicity -> resolution". Instead, the evidence required is data points on the side of "no publicity -> no resolution". The fact that Amazon didn't solve the issue until the publicity exists doesn't count as a "no publicity -> no resolution" data point. Somehow, this is less clear to others than it is to me. I'll break it out into some cases. If the data points are mostly - a mix of "publicity -> resolution" and "no publicity -> resolution", then publicity is irrelevant. - a mix of "publicity -> resolution" and "no publicity -> no resolution", then truly the moral of the story is to have publicity if you want a resolution. - a bunch of "publicity -> resolution", then we cannot make any conclusions! We hear about the issues with publicity because, well... they have publicity. We make up the other half because it fits our preconceived bias.
      - tsotha 14y ago
        I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is, as a practical matter, there's no reason to believe her case would have been reopened without publicity. The Amazon rep said quite clearly from Amazon's perspective the matter was closed.
      - makomk 14y ago
        > Instead, the evidence required is data points on the side of "no publicity -> no resolution". Which by definition we don't hear about. In fact, that's why - if Amazon are rational - they'd give special treatment to issues that get publicity, so it seems like they handle customer issues better. There is essentially no downside for them in doing this; it's not like they'll be hurt by the publicity backlash from incidents that went unresolved because they got no publicity.
jiggy2011 14y ago
I would be surprised if amazon didn't have at least one person full time looking at blogs/forums etc trying to gauge public reaction and put out fires. It's a shame that things like this aren't used as an opportunity to clarify things or affect changes in policy for everyone. It seems more common that a company will just come out and basically say (not in so many words) "oh , we made an exception for this person because we got bad PR".
- ericts8 14y ago
  You mean PR people?
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    I suppose so, even in small companies it's not uncommon for someone to have at least set up google alerts.
- prodigal_erik 14y ago
  Even if not full-time PR, I'd be astonished if Amazon had zero developers who happen to read HN and would notice what's written about their workplace.
mikeash 14y ago
It is as ridiculous to think that a company full of intelligent people is not influenced by tech news as it is to think that clouds are influenced by dancing.
pasbesoin 14y ago
Because "the process" had already made its determination and sent the Kindle owner its final "kiss off" email.
wtallis 14y ago
You don't think a company like Amazon would have software crawling social media doing sentiment analysis? Amazon's going up against Google and Apple, so they have to care about their image. I would be shocked if the social media outcry over this issue hadn't triggered an automated alert in Amazon's PR department.

by jmilloy 14y ago

TillE 14y ago

> I don't think customer service departments sit around browsing the internet for blog entries about their company This story bubbled up through HN, BoingBoing, and many other tech news outlets. Someone at Amazon inevitably saw it. Nobody's claiming they randomly stumbled across the original blog entry.

csixty4 14y ago
Specifically, Computer World UK and Jeff Jarvis (currently of Buzz Machine but formerly of People, Entertainment Weekly, and the SF Examiner) got in touch with Amazon PR directly for a statement. There were likely more big publications contacting them for a statement that I didn't see. You can't write it off as "just some blogger" at that point. Someone needed to rectify it ASAP.
jmilloy 14y ago
I'll reply to just this comment, although each response I've gotten is similar. I'm not claiming that no one at Amazon was aware that the issue had public visibility. I'm not even claiming that the public visibility in this case didn't contribute to the swift, clear, and visible resolution we've seen. Instead, I'm asking for evidence that high visibility correlates strongly with a resolution. Honestly, I will not be surprised if it exists. But no number of highly visible stories that are resolved will provide that evidence on their own. Certainly, the way in which a large company discovers that an issue has become highly visible is completely irrelevant. The question is whether, if an issue doesn't become highly visible, do they still try to resolve it or do they ignore it?
- tsotha 14y ago
  The only possible evidence for this would be either an internal email or an admission from Amazon. Based on the email she got I'd say from Amazon's point of view the matter was closed. There had to be some prod to get them to take another look. If not the publicity, what was it?
  - jmilloy 14y ago
    Again, it's not about this instance, which is one data point on the side of "publicity -> resolution". And there are many more data points on the side of "publicity -> resolution". Instead, the evidence required is data points on the side of "no publicity -> no resolution". The fact that Amazon didn't solve the issue until the publicity exists doesn't count as a "no publicity -> no resolution" data point. Somehow, this is less clear to others than it is to me. I'll break it out into some cases. If the data points are mostly - a mix of "publicity -> resolution" and "no publicity -> resolution", then publicity is irrelevant. - a mix of "publicity -> resolution" and "no publicity -> no resolution", then truly the moral of the story is to have publicity if you want a resolution. - a bunch of "publicity -> resolution", then we cannot make any conclusions! We hear about the issues with publicity because, well... they have publicity. We make up the other half because it fits our preconceived bias.
    - tsotha 14y ago
      I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is, as a practical matter, there's no reason to believe her case would have been reopened without publicity. The Amazon rep said quite clearly from Amazon's perspective the matter was closed.
    - makomk 14y ago
      > Instead, the evidence required is data points on the side of "no publicity -> no resolution". Which by definition we don't hear about. In fact, that's why - if Amazon are rational - they'd give special treatment to issues that get publicity, so it seems like they handle customer issues better. There is essentially no downside for them in doing this; it's not like they'll be hurt by the publicity backlash from incidents that went unresolved because they got no publicity.

jiggy2011 14y ago

I would be surprised if amazon didn't have at least one person full time looking at blogs/forums etc trying to gauge public reaction and put out fires. It's a shame that things like this aren't used as an opportunity to clarify things or affect changes in policy for everyone. It seems more common that a company will just come out and basically say (not in so many words) "oh , we made an exception for this person because we got bad PR".

ericts8 14y ago
You mean PR people?
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  I suppose so, even in small companies it's not uncommon for someone to have at least set up google alerts.
prodigal_erik 14y ago
Even if not full-time PR, I'd be astonished if Amazon had zero developers who happen to read HN and would notice what's written about their workplace.

mikeash 14y ago

It is as ridiculous to think that a company full of intelligent people is not influenced by tech news as it is to think that clouds are influenced by dancing.

pasbesoin 14y ago

Because "the process" had already made its determination and sent the Kindle owner its final "kiss off" email.

wtallis 14y ago

You don't think a company like Amazon would have software crawling social media doing sentiment analysis? Amazon's going up against Google and Apple, so they have to care about their image. I would be shocked if the social media outcry over this issue hadn't triggered an automated alert in Amazon's PR department.