Thursday, 11 October 2012

No "Misunderstanding": All Your Fault

A French customer received a telephone bill from Bouygues Telecom for €11,721,000,000,000,000. That’s 11 quadrillion Euro, roughly 1,000 times the United States government debt.
OK, so computer errors happen and the company cannot know the error has occurred until the customer contacts them to have the problem fixed. The real issue here is that what happened next is symptomatic of the way large organizations, both corporate and government seem to deal with errors entirely of their own making.
The call centre operator told the customer, Solenne San Jose that they could not amend the bill or stop the amount being debited from her account. What a load of bullshit.
It smacks of the all too common try on when poorly trained staff do not know how to fix a problem and are too lazy to go and find out what to do, so they just lie to the customer and pretend they cannot solve the problem in the hope the customer will give up and go away. How many of us have experienced this crap?
Many readers might be thinking: Call centre … India or Philippines (or their Francophone equivalent for those who spotted that the customers would speak French) … what do you expect? But no: according to Bouygues Telecom, they have 6 call centres, all in France.
It took several calls to have the matter resolved. The company finally admitted the real amount was €117.21, then waived it in compensation for the inconvenience (and to try to ameliorate the PR damage), which was the least they should do.
Even then, Bouygues Telecom stated that the problem had been due to
“a printing error and a subsequent misunderstanding between the client and staff at their call centre”
Yes, certainly a printing error, but no “misunderstanding” BETWEEN the customer and your staff. The blame lies entirely at one end: with your idiot employees. Obviously the amount was wrong, so just apologise for the inconvenience and arrange to send a new bill with the correct amount. Even if you can’t work out the correct figure immediately, put a stop on the bill, then refer it. Simple, but still too hard for the staff at Bouygues Telecom.
Why don’t you just tell the truth and admit that your staff should have fixed what was obviously a billing error the first time the customer rang? Don’t pretend it was a “misunderstanding”. Your staff are clearly stupid and poorly trained. That is the fault of management. Rip the call centre manager a new arsehole and have him / her commit to ensuring improved staff training and quality, or be sacked.
Unfortunately, this episode is an example of the way large organizations too often deal with customer complaints, even when as in this case, it’s obviously a system error. First, they require the customer to do most of the work, usually exacerbated by their staff’s failure to promptly identify and solve the problem (even when it’s blindingly obvious). Staff often instinctively deny any responsibility for fixing the problem, or sometimes for the problem itself. Then if the matter does blow up, as in this example, some oily oxygen thief from Corporate Communications adds insult to injury by trying to pretend it was all a “misunderstanding”, the insinuation being that the customer is partly to blame.
It’s part of a modern, Western malaise: nothing is really ever anyone’s fault. No-one will take responsibility for anything and we can’t blame anyone because that would be unfair.
No it isn’t. If a customer tells you they have received a bill for 11 quadrillion Euro and you say you can’t fix it, you are a lazy idiot. Your manager is probably incompetent for inadequately training you or employing you in the first place. Both of you should be told to improve your performance or be sacked.
The correct approach is to take the customer’s details and only call back when the error has been fixed. But how many times have you experienced this? In my experience, it’s a minority of cases. If organizations did this properly at the first contact with the customer, they wouldn’t need bullshit statements from Corporate Communications.

No comments:

Post a Comment