RSS

Category Archives: relationships

Customer Service NOT

We just came back from a popular bakery, soup, and sandwich chain.  In many ways, decor-wise, it is a Starbucks knockoff, with comfortable seating, WiFi, etc.  The place where you could go, anytime, be comfortable and stay awhile.

The last time I was there the service was awful.

The problem at that time was focus.  It was difficult to get anyone’s attention to take our order and when they finally came over, the two cashiers, a male and female, were busy flirting instead of serving us.

I wrote an email to the corporate management that followed up and the local restaurant manager followed up.

We’ve been back once before: the service wasn’t exceptional, but it wasn’t bad.

Tonight we were back.  The cashier who I reported for her flirting transactions took our order.  She was FABULOUS!  Engaging, polite, one couldn’t ask for more.  I was impressed: the manager turned the place around.

Then I waited for the food to be prepared and my name be called out.  The food prep person stopped working on preparing our meal (or any meal, for that matter) and spent time talking with an employee who had concluded her shift.  There was discussion of how her cell phone had run out of minutes.  The on-duty food prep person actually reached across the food serving bar to “high-five” the departing employee.

During this exchange another two workers were cleaning items… and apparently both were having difficulties, because I heard a loud “SH*T!” out of both of them.

Sigh.  Madeline was better… other members of the staff were now “broke.”

I complained to the on-duty manager, who brought over bakery items to make amends.

Here’s an observation: companies need to make a decision about customer experiences and not send two signals.  A nice warm inviting decor with awful employees is still an awful experience.

What confuses me is this: with so many people out of work, why is still difficult to find quality employees that can provide a quality customer experience?

Advertisements
 
1 Comment

Posted by on October 8, 2012 in customer experience, relationships, retail, users

 

Context, personal relationships, id, ego, and Facebook

Today I read the New York Time article “Don’t Tell Me, I Don’t Want to Know” by Pamela Paul. It talks about the profound sense of loss of privacy, for both source of information as well as the informed.

There is something about Facebook’s business model that troubles me. It seems to monetize the human need to share. It works at the level of the id, a place where motivations are chaotic and ill-formed. How many stories have you heard just this week about people using guns in relationship to a Facebook event? (Here’s two, if you missed them: “Father Shoots Daughter’s Laptop Over “Disrespectful” Facebook Post” and “Facebook ‘Defriending’ Led to Double Murder, Say Police”)

It seems to me that the being “open and transparent” that Facebook supports, and the deep emotional sharing that occurs sometimes thoughtlessly on Facebook, seems to exploit people at their weakest: when they are operating more out of their id, their heart. Moreover, it appears (based on the two previously mentioned articles), that Facebook content is sometimes consumed it that same frame of mind.

Zuckerberg has said in his letter on the eve of the IPO that “Personal relationships are the fundamental unit of our society. Relationships are how we discover new ideas, understand our world and ultimately derive long-term happiness” and “By helping people form these connections, we hope to rewire the way people spread and consume information.” He closes with lip-service to past criticisms of Facebook “We also believe that giving people control over what they share is a fundamental principle of this rewiring.”  It is interesting to point out that the issue of control is mentioned only once in the entire letter.

In the real physical world of personal relationships, sharing is framed with some context. This context is lacking in Facebook. That is what makes the control issue so problematic: how does one represent the context so that a person operating more from the id can move to operating more from the ego and make rational decisions?  And, moreover, what is Facebook’s business motivation to prevent people from sharing? None that I can see.

“Good fences make good neighbors” is about social order being built on boundaries.  Facebook is about removing those boundaries.  Is this a good thing? I’m not so sure.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 11, 2012 in Facebook, humanity, privacy, relationships

 
 
%d bloggers like this: