Maybe I'm being insensitive, but why would anyone burst in to tears for making a reasonable request that _indirectly_ causing somebody to have a crappy day at work? Furthermore, it's not even apparent that she really did ruin the day of these delivery folks. They probably got paid nicely to go through all that trouble. The fact that it took all day for the social media team to find somebody willing to go that extra mile implies to me that there were likely several people who turned down that sale/delivery.
Even if they were pressured in to that delivery by some contract or power-play, it's not her fault that she demanded quality service. Twitter et al are making companies accountable for their shortcomings. As a result, the treatment of customers is improving steadily across many industries. Like with anything, sometimes you need to break a few eggs to make an omelet.
Because she forced good people, people like her, to do a late-night delivery.
If it was some young guy (preferably with tattoos) on minimum wage, she'd probably have been a lot less upset.
Seeing people doing jobs that aren't stereotypical can trigger cognitive dissonance (is that the right term?). Some people justify "demeaning" jobs because only certain people (men, women, young people, old people, poor people, immigrants) do them. When someone who doesn't fit the stereotype does the job, it creates dissonance.
Resources management is a company problem. They could have proposed another time for her that wouldn't imply extra hours
They (the company) chose to go the extra mile and should be commanded. That extra mile between employers and the company should be settled between themselves.
Well, if my employer makes me do night deliveries without compensation of any sort I start to look at other options.
> They (the company) chose to go the extra mile and should be commanded.
No, it didn't, and it shouldn't. The company chose to have cheap but shitty service and give unsustainable special treatment to irate customers who might create PR problems, while service for those without a Twitter account and entitlement issues remains shitty.
Actually everytime I hear a story like this, my opinion of the company in question goes down a lot. Good customer service doesn't mean having a separate department that can order around the peons to work overtime handling special cases. It means fixing processes so that those special cases don't occur.
I'm not sure about Home Depot, but when I worked [generic retail job] and witnessed my manager drive to customers' houses after hours to help install components— even going with her on occasion— it was clear she wasn't getting "paid nicely to go through all that trouble." She did it because she knew if she did that extra bit, those people would be way more likely to come back and spend money at the store. But there was never a guarantee, and almost every time was additional stress she really didn't need.
What the author experienced is something a lot of the tech community seems to lack: empathy. She realized that an elderly couple went far out of their way to deliver a heavy AC unit to a person who might not ever come back to their store. She realized the only reason they were out there was because of her, because she didn't want to wait two weeks.
"She did it because she knew if she did that extra bit, those people would be way more likely to come back and spend money at the store. But there was never a guarantee, and almost every time was additional stress she really didn't need."
It doesn't sound like her job was at risk if she said "no", so if it wasn't worth it: she shouldn't have done it.
I'd consider myself a normal person. Hell, I think I have more sympathy, if not empathy, than the average patron. However, if you choose to do something shitty, you have no one to blame but yourself. If you're forced to do something shitty, then that's a different matter. In this case, it sounds like the people who made the delivery were either A) not all that inconvenienced B) inconvenienced by their own inability to say "no" or C) inconvenienced by an ignorant parent company who chose to chase after a social-media "WOW" story at the expense of their personel.
At most, the author of this post should have said "Oh, if I had realized it was this much trouble, I'd have waited a few extra days." Being deeply upset by something so trivial seems like unnecessarily sweating the small stuff. It's particularly silly because she had absolutely no reason to think that Home Depot couldn't find a strong day laborer on short notice.
Fucking Hell. With all the smart people on HN, why can't we have things like a filter for "author has worked a real job once in their life" or "author possesses overinflated sense of own empathy while directly demonstrating contempt for no good reason"
You know, I'm trying really hard not to flame you, I really am. It comes off as extremely douchey to tell people whose problems are much harder than yours -- and if you have time to comment on HN, this is true -- that they can always say no.
It's extremely presumptuous, to say the least, to enumerate someone else's life options and then write off their current difficulties as a matter of choice. Why don't these old people just go to college so they can get a professional job? Completely incompatible with the idea of being empathetic, which implies understanding of someone's situation on an emotional level, not just a rational level.
"implies understanding of someone's situation on an emotional level, not just a rational level."
You've identified the difference between sympathy and empathy. OK, fine. I have plenty of sympathy, but no empathy in this situation. I deeply understand that this must suck for people who don't have a choice.
All I'm saying is that it's absolutely ridiculous to cry over the fact that somebody else's superior forced them to work late/hard one night. The original author should not feel any culpability for that. If there's any emotion I'd share here, it would be anger at those superiors, not a sense of guilt.
"It comes off as extremely douchey to tell people [...] that they can always say no."
The person I replied to was talking about a different person and suggested that person went the extra mile, hoping for some repeat business. That is absolutely optional. I have no idea if the delivery people in the original story had a choice, but I wasn't speaking about them.
"They probably got paid nicely to go through all that trouble. "
If they really were in store management, they would be salaried workers, and therefore not paid for overtime. They would likely have been compensated for mileage and tolls during the delivery.
I agree completely. I don't understand why companies provide better support over Twitter (it is a bad idea as far as I can tell - they just have generally lousy customer service and for some reason change for Twitter, to some degree).
The foolish response of relying on non-sustainable heroic efforts by employees to provide customer service is feeble. But the customer is not responsible for stupid management actions. Now customers can be unreasonable and if you are doing that it makes sense to me to feel some culpability for the outcome of your bad behavior (even if others had to enable the bad outcome too). Just based on the post it does seem to me the request was unreasonable.
It is true, sadly, both customers and employees suffer from very bad systems management has put in place for customer support.
> I don't understand why companies provide better support over Twitter (it is a bad idea as far as I can tell - they just have generally lousy customer service and for some reason change for Twitter, to some degree).
It's very simple: regular frontline workers represent a large chunk of the total costs of the company (let's say 30%, so you keep them underpaid and overworked to keep profits high. But social media is the domain of PR - much fewer people, much better paid, much more visible to management, and able to order around even middle management when it's for the good of the company's image.
Now for a reason why you shouldn't use it to respond to customer complaints: The second word gets out that using Twitter gets you better customer service, everyone will use Twitter. And unlike the occasional good PR that comes with Twitter, you now have a reputation for not doing things right in the first place. Availability bias is a bitch.
Nitpicking but... I'd say responding to complaints on Twitter is a great idea, but just to show you're listening and then as an arrow pointing to the correct channel for resolving an issue
"Wait your turn, like everybody else, like we all learned in elementary school. It's much more satisfying in the end.
Unless the corporation you're going after is Time Warner Cable, in which case you should use every tool available to you to take those f-ing mobsters down."
This is self indulgent crap. Where's the bit where she tweeted back to Home Depot saying that she thought it was terrible to make their employees do that? Is she afraid that doing that would cause someone in the chain to get fired for having upset her?
Agreed. The crying bit was particularly bad. For an article that could have focused on how far some individuals will go to respond to their customers, she some how managed to turn the focus onto her "plight" for actually getting what she damn well intended in the first place (albeit not from the stereotyped deliverers she'd expected).
This whole article says more about her than anything else.
No, it isn't. This blog post says "don't ask for customer service! The people who respond might be crazy and make someone do something ridiculous that you weren't specifically requesting!" What the tweet or a blog post aimed at solving the problem, would say is "Wow Home Depot, I can't believe you treat your employees so badly! I expect you to treat your employees well, and especially to prioritise doing so over meeting ridiculous customer service requests! How you treated your employees has affected my willingness to buy things from you in x way, and I hope that this reaction influences you to make a different decision next time. To other companies listening - I would prefer that you prioritise your employees over ridiculously good customer service, and will make purchasing decisions based on that where I can."
Who else is going to respond to a Home Depot customer service issue but the employees?
It seems the company is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Damned if they don't respond to her tweet. Damned if they do, because then they'd be slave drivers pushing themselves or their employees to provide great service without taking into account work-life balance, etc.
Do you agree those two things are opposed? Why can't she just be grateful these people (in this case unnecessarily) pushed to go the extra mile for her, rather than encouraging her to attack them again for doing so?
She should get their names and encourage people to buy Home Depot if she really felt bad for them.
By 'that' I mean, make the delivery that night by driving a couple hours out of their way after hours. The idea of 'kill yourself satisfying customers' is definitely opposed to 'never go out of your way for a customer', but the middle ground is 'make an effort to do something to help customers and leave them happy, but don't do things that will actually hurt you (the company/employees)'.
In this case the middle ground would have been more like tweet back to her promising delivery the next day, deliver the next day, and is likely to have the best overall result - employees not pissed off/miserable, customer still feels that they got taken care of by getting next day delivery instead of two weeks later.
Funny thing is, I originally joined Twitter to try to get customer support when it looked like the company I was trying to contact (Vonage, if I remember right) was replying in minutes on Twitter when their email support never got answered (and phone support kept getting rerouted to people who didn't know any answers). Then, I used to do tech support for Metalab's Flow, and we used Twitter for customer support via Desk.com daily. It works good for rapid response to simple questions in my experience, and I'd recommend companies take advantage of it. There's no reason Tweeting for customer support is more entitled or demanding than seeking customer support via any other means.
Proactively communicating incidents and outages on Twitter is an excellent use of the service.
Handling individual contacts is a practice only marketing guys like I think. You can create temporary appearance of good service that way (if you are lucky), but not build a solid reputation for good service - you run into the problems others have pointed out below, selection bias, neglecting your more effective support channels etc.
This looks like a company misunderstanding how to use social media to me - someone created a social media team and gave them free reign to "solve problems via social media".
It reminds me of a time I attended a sales presentation of a CRM with the sales guy bragging how a company used their twitter contact routing to identify the guy as a top influencer (via Klout or something) and had the chairman of their multi-billion company call back some celebrity who was complaining about the service he received with about some standard problem he was having with their service (it was something very commoditized, broadband I think). The customer service guys attending the presentation didn't understand why they thought it was a good use of technology or time - that isnt the way to build customer trust, making sure the problem was fixed by the first guy the celebrity contacted is how you build trust.
Personally, I've found twitter to be hugely useful for getting responses from companies and because of this I don't plan to stop using it. Often I've found the response time I get on twitter is far far better than what I would get if I phoned in (few mins - hour) or emailed (never) the customer support department.
It's one of the few ways that new social media is actually providing value for me.
Some specific examples where I can recall using it:
(1) Engaging the Microsoft developer team to fix up an issue with my account
(2) Engaging Air Canada to ask about using my Aeroplan points
(3) Engaging Commonwealth Bank to say thanks for great customer service and recommending someone I did deal with in person at a branch (to which they replied they would pass along the commendation).
All times I had a faster and more satisfactory engagement than if I had used phone, email, etc (as I'm reminded when I have to revert to these methods)...
I've had similar experiences. Recently my internet provider discontinued this service, and I'm not sure why. Luckily, the Social Media team were able to be transferred to other departments (and not completely laid off).
My guess is that they were losing a lot of money doing this. (Back story) I've had an on-going problem for about 2 years about slow speeds and contacted the BBB because nothing was being done after numerous complaints over the phone. They did a fix and the problem still continued. I've posted on DSLReports and my ISP's Social Media team helped me out so I continued to use them. I've received numerous credits to my account by just complaining to the SM team, which I think is more than fair--even though I didn't specifically ask for credits.
Not what I was expecting at all! I was expecting an article about customer service fragmentation by giving disproportionate emphasis on social media rather than brand-specific infrastructure - something I have seen and experienced often.
That said, while I understand her emotional perspective, I tentatively disagree with the sentiment. If the use of social media does produce efficiency gains that would otherwise have been difficult or impossible to attain, then everyone benefits, including the company gaining a competitive advantage, perhaps ala Theory of Constraints.
Of course, there is more than one way to use social media. The company could have used it only for information broadcasts. I presume if they set it up to actively seek to improve their customer service, then they are happy to accept all the consequences for it too.
I don't think this situation is unique to twitter. Any person with a sufficiently large public following will instantly receive special treatment and pandering behavior (like Home Depot in this case). Joe Average won't get his backordered AC by 11pm on the same day if he complains on twitter.
From the comment section: "Oh my god, New York is going to eat this nice lady alive."
It's not a problem with twitter, it's a problem with the store you're buying from. Next time buy your ac unit from a place that treats their employees right. If you want to take an even longer view of this, you'll probably run smack into the economy at large and the desperate situation that minimum wage big box stores can force upon their employees as a result of the unemployment rate. They treat you like dirt and hold you responsible for failing to meet goals that were never possible in the first place.
An alternate view TFA could take would be that since you've discovered that public complaining via irascible tweet seems to be effective--tweet again about your horror regarding their treatment of their employees. There's no reason they shouldn't have some sort of infrastructure in place to deal with this sort of thing if they are going to attempt immediate reparations brought to their attention via twitter.
The store could have offered over time pay to stronger employees willing to volunteer the next day, perhaps; the salaried managers likely didn't receive any compensation for their after hours efforts. I'm sure the AC unit could have waited another 24-48 hours.
I've had a fair few experiences with various companies where normal channels fail and the only way to get prompt action is to use twitter, or a similar public channel.
It's a pretty sorry state where the only way to be taken seriously is to make a public fuss rather than just having a quiet chat like two grown up human beings. Every time I'm forced to do it I feel like the kid throwing a tantrum in the snack aisle.
Hell, it gets results, but it degrades all involved.
First of all, the title of this post is pretty misleading. From reading it, I assumed some privacy nightmare story.
But the point the author makes is great: Think about the price of the customer service you receive. You're getting that service for free, so someone else has to pay for it.
I used Twitter in my previous job to answer questions that customers or potential customers may have. It was a quick and easy solution, especially where more than the intended recipient can see it.
Apple, Dell, etc like cheap Chinese labour which is at least controversial (some would use works like "slave"), and all customers care about is label price. In the end, that's a human cost. I find it a bit weird that this is the breaker for her.
Sad, but human cost is dirt cheap. I'd hate to think human cost really means, "my" people's human cost, but the cost to "those" people is irrelevant.
Even if they were pressured in to that delivery by some contract or power-play, it's not her fault that she demanded quality service. Twitter et al are making companies accountable for their shortcomings. As a result, the treatment of customers is improving steadily across many industries. Like with anything, sometimes you need to break a few eggs to make an omelet.