What about states? Ever had to call unemployment? Lucky enough to be in a US state with paid leave? They are websites that make 1998 1.0 look decent. Their phone trees just dump you when you call them and say they are overloaded. No email, no ticket support online. So no web, phone or email support for those you are beholden to.
States aren’t trying to turn a profit, what is the incentive to have unemployment and paid leave broken in states that have passed them as law?odt of the states with paid leave tout them and promote how great they are but make the process a gauntlet of cirizen-hating obstacles.
This is such a an interesting, and completely different, problem. Sometimes it’s lack of funding, sometimes it’s poor management, sometimes it’s something else all together. 🤷
I generally think of it as the combination of poor project management dependent on 3rd party consultants, mix in the larger infrastructure of state being aligned with corps on not wanting it to work “too” well, and large governments being unfortunately comprised of people and structures inexperienced in change–which exacerbates #1 on my list.
Too many businesses grow and merge beyond their ability to support their customers. I say companies shouldn’t be allowed to merge unless their average time to connect callers to a live person is less than one minute.
I would argue that it’s more a consequence of a whole series of poorly thought-out business decisions. Customer service is a cost center, meaning it doesn’t bring in revenue. So it’s one of those things that executives like to target for cost-cutting measures because any amount they can reduce spending there improves their overall bottom line. So we get things like:
Outsourcing CS. Maybe in the US, but more likely overseas
Reduced training
Rules for call handlers that are meant to encourage solving problems quickly, but effectively punish them for providing good service when they are unable to do that.
When the only meaningful metric they look at is “how little can we spend?” the only logical conclusion is that service is going to suffer. The actual cost of poor customer service is a lot more difficult to pin down and measure.
Sorta… I mean there are CSAT scores that can be used and also customer churn. But deciding to not spend money to support your customers is totally a business decision.
It is a business decision to have terrible customer service.
What about states? Ever had to call unemployment? Lucky enough to be in a US state with paid leave? They are websites that make 1998 1.0 look decent. Their phone trees just dump you when you call them and say they are overloaded. No email, no ticket support online. So no web, phone or email support for those you are beholden to.
States aren’t trying to turn a profit, what is the incentive to have unemployment and paid leave broken in states that have passed them as law?odt of the states with paid leave tout them and promote how great they are but make the process a gauntlet of cirizen-hating obstacles.
Looking at you CA, OR and WA.
This is such a an interesting, and completely different, problem. Sometimes it’s lack of funding, sometimes it’s poor management, sometimes it’s something else all together. 🤷
I generally think of it as the combination of poor project management dependent on 3rd party consultants, mix in the larger infrastructure of state being aligned with corps on not wanting it to work “too” well, and large governments being unfortunately comprised of people and structures inexperienced in change–which exacerbates #1 on my list.
Yeah they do? Or rather they still have a budget to balance and not paying social helps the balancing
I get the general sentiment, but there’s a huge difference between being profit-driven and caring about balancing a budget.
States are not trying to turn a profit.
It’s the same. Poor service is a choice they make
And the state doesn’t want you to not be a slave for more than a second.
Too many businesses grow and merge beyond their ability to support their customers. I say companies shouldn’t be allowed to merge unless their average time to connect callers to a live person is less than one minute.
I would argue that it’s more a consequence of a whole series of poorly thought-out business decisions. Customer service is a cost center, meaning it doesn’t bring in revenue. So it’s one of those things that executives like to target for cost-cutting measures because any amount they can reduce spending there improves their overall bottom line. So we get things like:
When the only meaningful metric they look at is “how little can we spend?” the only logical conclusion is that service is going to suffer. The actual cost of poor customer service is a lot more difficult to pin down and measure.
Sorta… I mean there are CSAT scores that can be used and also customer churn. But deciding to not spend money to support your customers is totally a business decision.