AMAZON: The Everything Store

[speakingtohe]

Amazon's customer service is pretty good overall in my experience. Far easier to deal with and understand than most other companies I have dealt with online and you generally get results far better than expected. It is almost scary that they are trying to make it better.

I sympathize with employees who are only doing what they are told to do, which is often to impede returns etc. and with those who haven't a clue what they should be doing. The company is at fault for providing inadequate wages and training or for hiring idiots.

Still I do not want to deal with poorly trained or incompetent customer service staff whatever the reason. Do you?

Helen

[ApK]

Originally Posted by BadBilly

Because they're following the guidelines the company has created to deliver the kind of the service the company has chosen to deliver and not gassing Jews.

It's not, for example, a crime against humanity to refuse to ship to an address that differs from the credit card billing address.
[...] We're told to do "A" even though we don't think it makes sense and annoys the customers. Nobody will listen to us. But if VP Joe decides we should be doing "B" instead of "A", it's an overnight change.

Focusing on the example: If the policy allows for the change of address, and rep doesn't accommodate the customer, then the rep SHOULD be asked about it. If the rep says they were told not to do it, then the 'escalation' should determine if that was true or if some retraining is needed.

If the policy DOESN'T allow for it, then do you really think, in the context of this quote, Bezos is bragging about sending emails to people who FOLLOWED policy? I see it far more likely (with equally little evidence except for context) that If such an in-policy complaint got the '?' treatment it would be directed to the manager who created the policy.

HA! You have obviously never worked in a customer-facing role in a large corporation.

Oh, how wrong you are, unless you don't consider AT&T and several national department store chains to be "large corporations."
(also the Navy, which is not a corporation, and my customers were all internal, but the same issues manifest, and the 'following orders' line carries a bit more weight when someone's request for a software update gets rejected...).

I'm not saying mismanagement and blame-shifting like you're describing doesn't happen, or even that it never happens at Amazon.
I'm saying there was NOTHING quoted here to suggest it in any way.

ApK

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Still I do not want to deal with poorly trained or incompetent customer service staff whatever the reason. Do you?

No. And that's the reason why I only worked in CS positions in which I always knew exactly what needed to be done to help a customer as adequatly as possible (which sadly enough, often entailed bending or even breaking policies).

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

or having a reliable employee test it.

THAT's different. "Show me anyone here who can do what you're asking" is much different (and more valid) than "show me you can do it yourself."

Except for the fact that someone receiving a "?" e-mail seems to freak out of his mind. That alone signals to me that there is a "it's never good enough"-culture at Amazon, at least at some levels.

It could just mean it's a culture of people who take complaints very seriously, and/or who know that management takes customer satisfaction seriously.
What's the flip side? An employee who gets upper-management notice of customer problem and doesn't bat an eye? That would seem to signal a culture of indifference.

ApK

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

No. And that's the reason why I only worked in CS positions in which I always knew exactly what needed to be done to help a customer as adequatly as possible (which sadly enough, often entailed bending or even breaking policies).

I was working help desks around the time that "empowerment" was just starting to become a buzzword. The idea being that supposedly front line employees were "empowered" to make policy exceptions. That they can and should 'take ownership' (also just coming into buzzword vogue then) of the issue and do what they could to resolve the problem.

I have worked in places where that was just lip service and you would get slapped down if you were so foolish as to think you knew better than the policy makers, and I have worked in places where the idea was really taken to heart and customer satisfaction became a more important metric than some of the other volume-based targets.

Nonetheless, the reality is -- and I say this as a member of the public who calls CSRs, not as CSR myself any longer -- all I really want in a CSR is someone who sounds like they understand what I'm asking, and who makes it seem like they are giving my issue due attention.
Even if the decision comes back against me...I can't return the item or whatever--I'll be happy with the CSR if they at least make me THINK they put some effort into helping me and are sorry that they couldn't do more.

(I still might escalate the issue if I truly think the decision was unfair, but the escalation will include praise for the CSR.)

ApK

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by ApK

I was working help desks around the time that "empowerment" was just starting to become a buzzword. The idea being that supposedly front line employees were "empowered" to make policy exceptions. That they can and should 'take ownership' (also just coming into buzzword vogue then) of the issue and do what they could to resolve the problem.

I have worked in places where that was just lip service and you would get slapped down if you were so foolish as to think you knew better than the policy makers, and I have worked in places where the idea was really taken to heart and customer satisfaction became a more important metric than some of the other volume-based targets.

Nonetheless, the reality is -- and I say this as a member of the public who calls CSRs, not as CSR myself any longer -- all I really want in a CSR is someone who sounds like they understand what I'm asking, and who makes it seem like they are giving my issue due attention.
Even if the decision comes back against me...I can't return the item or whatever--I'll be happy with the CSR if they at least make me THINK they put some effort into helping me and are sorry that they couldn't do more.

(I still might escalate the issue if I truly think the decision was unfair, but the escalation will include praise for the CSR.)

ApK

I remember about dealing with HP 4 years ago and everyone was taking ownership. First line in every email. Followed by a lot of irrelevant cut and paste of poorly translated Asian documents. After 38 emails and 12 phone calls I just said ***k it. I have already wasted too much time on this. I spent the $50 and fixed it myself. Haven't bought from HP since but I will probably in future as they are not as bad as some.

I am not as easily mollified as you it seems. I actually get annoyed when the CSR pretends to fix my problem and they don't. But in the rare cases a CSR actually is effective, I will do my best to see they get credit.

Again I don't blame the CSR. If they don't know what they are doing, it is not generally their fault. They are just doing the best they can and following company policy.

And their are many companies, non tech mainly, with excellent CS policies. Most of the things I buy work, which is the best customer service one can expect. Eventually I may throw them out or give them away for a better model but they are still good.

I don't want to see people fired because they can't or won't do their jobs. I also don't want to see them be afraid. Still the self-centred side of me does not want to have to deal with them either. Caught between a rock and a crazy place.

Helen

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by ApK

It could just mean it's a culture of people who take complaints very seriously, and/or who know that management takes customer satisfaction seriously.
What's the flip side? An employee who gets upper-management notice of customer problem and doesn't bat an eye? That would seem to signal a culture of indifference.

ApK

Amazon is far from the only company that takes customer complaints seriously. And in all the ones that do, having the regional or national HQ get involved always turns into a fire drill.
Rule number one: never embarrass the boss.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I don't want to see people fired because they can't or won't do their jobs.

You don't? What better reason to fire someone?
Wouldn't it be better for people who can't or won't do their jobs to try to find different jobs that they can and will do?
Don't you think there are unemployed people out there who can and will do the job who would be much more deserving of it?
Did I misunderstand? Or is this getting too political...

I had very a similar experience with HP, by the way. I swore their consumer products off years ago for the same reasons.
Are you saying HP has gotten better recently, or just that everyone else has sunk to their level?

[Andrew H.]

This does not really seem to be about CSRs at all. It isn't about Bezos yelling at some low level worker because John Smith's Kindle still hasn't arrived; it seems to be more about Bezos dealing with company-wide policy on matters that deal with consumers. In the specific example, Bezos wasn't concerned someone who accidentally sent out a targeted e-mail based on that person's purchase of, well, sensitive products; he was concerned that it was Amazon's policy to do so. The person he was yelling at was the person responsible for the policy, a senior manager who reports to Bezos (and is worth several million dollars in his own right).

[crich70]

At heart any company that isn't in the business of making $$ is going to go broke. Casinos aren't in the business of making people rich, they are in the business of making $$ for the casino. Sometimes the customer wins but the odds are far better that they will lose and the casino will make $$ as a result. All big businesses are that way I think. The common man may or may not benefit in every case, but the company has to make $ in order to stay in business. And the policies of a given company I'm guessing reflect that reality.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by ApK

You don't? What better reason to fire someone?
Wouldn't it be better for people who can't or won't do their jobs to try to find different jobs that they can and will do?
Don't you think there are unemployed people out there who can and will do the job who would be much more deserving of it?
Did I misunderstand? Or is this getting too political...

I agree. If I were an employer paying wages to someone in exchange for work they were supposed to do and found out that they were drawing a paycheck while not doing the work I would be more than a bit annoyed. It's just the other side of the coin from doing work for which you expect to get paid only to find out that the employer refuses to pay you for it. Neither one is a fair situation, and if an employee expects to be paid for the work they do then doesn't it stand to reason that the employer expects the employee to actually do the work that they are hired to perform?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by crich70

I agree. If I were an employer paying wages to someone in exchange for work they were supposed to do and found out that they were drawing a paycheck while not doing the work I would be more than a bit annoyed. It's just the other side of the coin from doing work for which you expect to get paid only to find out that the employer refuses to pay you for it. Neither one is a fair situation, and if an employee expects to be paid for the work they do then doesn't it stand to reason that the employer expects the employee to actually do the work that they are hired to perform?

Not to mention that, as customers, we are paying for these unproductive employees.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by ApK

You don't? What better reason to fire someone?
Wouldn't it be better for people who can't or won't do their jobs to try to find different jobs that they can and will do?
Don't you think there are unemployed people out there who can and will do the job who would be much more deserving of it?
Did I misunderstand? Or is this getting too political...

I had very a similar experience with HP, by the way. I swore their consumer products off years ago for the same reasons.
Are you saying HP has gotten better recently, or just that everyone else has sunk to their level?

I am not saying that they shouldn't be fired. Lots of people should. I don't like firing people or causing them to be fired but.... Probably I was more than a little vague. I was thinking of people who are inexperienced and poorly trained and often in a different country from the people they work for and service. If you deal with 10 or so different people all taking ownership as it were and get no results, kind of hard for me to blame it on each and every one of them.

As for unemployed people being much more deserving, well some of them are of course, but do they really want a jobs we are discussing? and without proper training would they be a lot better. My opinion is that an extremely capable self starter kind of person could often do much better.

As for HP, no I don't think that their customer service has improved. But I have owned many HP products over the last 30+ years and only one of them actually needed service. Most of them have been in use and a few still are long past the point of obsolescence. I have had far worse quality products and abysmal customer service from others, so I haven't sworn of HP for life.

Helen

Originally Posted by Katsunami

So in the end, it's always the fault of the normal employee if something is amiss; never the fault of management or their targets. Nice to know, if you work at Amazon in a non-management position.

Is Bezos claiming that the employee is at fault, or is he simply confronting problems in a very adversarial way. There is a huge difference, at least in my opinion. Claiming that an employee is at fault creates a culture of fear. Claiming that there is a problem that needs to be justified or fixed immediately is a way of ensuring that the business operates properly. (Granted, I would hate to be an employee at Amazon encountering this approach for the first time.)

[caleb72]

I'm with most here in saying I don't think what's being referred to here is the case of bashing a CSR or front-line employee.

However, as a side issue, I understand what Katsunami is talking about. It's actually quite a challenge getting customer service and/or helpdesk departments running both cost-effectively/efficiently and delivering the right amount of service to the customer. I've been somewhat involved in that side of things from an IT operations point of view and you try to promote a balance without becoming a wooden automaton giving no real help to customers at all but filling the numbers, and someone who over-services meaning great service to one customer possibly at the expense of others.

I firmly believe that adding value should only be named 'over servicing' once the practice leads to an overall deterioration in service. But that's easier said than identified, both to the individual and quite often, to the supervisor, manager and even beyond. You can come across as totally hypocritical to the poor bugger answering the phones and sometimes, that person might be right. A lot depends on the quality of metrics being collected on the service and the skill behind the data analysis.

And this is not just a problem to customer facing staff in L1 support. It extends to L2 and L3 as well - and to other areas of organisations equally. It's one of the reasons I'm not overly fond of outsourcing - especially offshore outsourcing. It's difficult for an organisation to inherit all the ideals of a company they provide a service for enough to understand that company's customers. Separate the two groups by a country or six, or a an ocean or a cultural divide and it surely becomes more of a challenge. How do these organisations walk the tightrope between alienating and over-servicing customers? Usually they don't. They pick the side of efficiency because it's repeatable and cost-effective to maintain. It nicely ties in with SLAs they've negotiated with their customer (where customer satisfaction is often tied in with calls answered etc..), so they're relatively protected from criticism and they run their show with ruthless effectiveness, but are complained about often. I don't really envy these organisations either.

It's easy to blame CSRs, it's easy to blame managers, it's easy to blame policies. Basically, it's really easy to throw blame. It's much harder to actually solve problems - which is possibly why playing the blame game has such a strong appeal.

One of the things I like about the "?" approach (and I've received a few emails like that in my time) is that it's very non-specific. If you take it positively from the start, it's an opportunity to explore an issue you might not be aware of, find the appropriate pieces of data required to quantify and qualify it and then get to its root cause and a possible solution. It's smart from the point of view of the person who sends the "?" as well because it's not a pre-supposition of what the problem or solution is. You're allowing your team to use its expertise to advise you, rather than narrowing the parameters of their activities too much and perhaps limiting the value of the answer you receive. You can only really afford to do that if you can confidently claim that your knowledge and wisdom is infallible - and who can really say that?

I'm waxing philosophical a bit, but strangely enough, I do think about these kinds of things quite often.