The article I was reading was jaw-dropping in its candor and honesty.
Never before – in the pages and pages of industry articles I’ve read – has there ever been such a cold, bright light shed on the idea that IVRs and call center prompts may be *deliberately* designed to confuse, complicate – and ultimately: not pay out.
Yi Zhu, Associate Marketing Professor at Carlson School of Management, was quoted in an article for Marketing Science Magazine, saying:
“Companies deliberately employ inefficient, multistep processes hoping that you will give up so they can avoid giving you a replacement or refund. As a ‘collateral benefit’, companies avoid the labor costs of hiring people who might be able to solve your problem.
If you have this tiered design, you can definitely improve your profit — and you can definitely [tick] people off in the process.”
He went on to say:
“You call them, most of the time you don’t talk to a real person. You wait in the queue because they claim there are lots of calls, maybe they say they’ll call you back in an hour. You finally talk to somebody and they say, ‘ I don’t have the authority to resolve your issue.’ You wait while they transfer you to someone of higher rank. And then you have to repeat what you’ve already said.”
It’s enough to make a caller hang up and give up.
And that’s *precisely* what the company wants.
It flies in the face of traditional customer service beliefs: the customer is always right, we’re there to help them, and – especially in the telecom world – we want to eliminate caller frustration and improve the overall experience.
And retain a customer.
The idea that the company’s bottom line and profitability is worth more than keeping customers is astoundingly disturbing. The concept of “expendability” of customers – especially those who have devoted time to call into a company to resolve an issue – is a concept that feels alien. And the shift in priorities away from service to profitability is one that arouses a feeling of coldness and inhumanity.
Is it the sheer volume of customers – driven by behemoth online vendors – which created this feeling of insignificance towards consumers?
So, just to clarify: IVR’s are no longer just confusing, lengthy, and frustrating to use, due to years and years of systems being developed less than mindfully, or being built with little or no concern for the caller.
No.
They are sometimes *deliberately* and *purposefully* being designed to discourage the caller; to defeat the caller, and to ultimately save the company money by not allowing the customer the achieve what they likely called in for (to get a replacement or refund.)
Zhu, and his collaborator Anthony Dukes even went so far as to develop a mathematical model around a “unit hassle cost”, or the extent that a person is frustrated when being inconvenienced.
Plain and simple: if your complaint or issue is less severe, you are less apt to stay with the call and pursue the issue to its end. This weeds out all but the most serious or determined customers, thereby reducing payout, whether that be in the form of item replacement or a refund.
This shift in IVR/Call center design, skewed towards profit instead of genuine service, can be skewed differently. Assess your system for its ease of use and maximization of productivity of your staff; but resist the temptation to create a situation which “weeds out” all but the persistent callers.
With each of us spending a staggering 13 hours year spend on a customer service call, no wonder we’re frustrated, and there’s a real and tangible reason that you feel the issue is likely not going to get resolved in your favor.