5 ms·

What? It’s a legitimate question. Companies set up automated phone trees to reduce costs, at the expense of frustrating customers. It would seem relatively simp

What? It’s a legitimate question. Companies set up automated phone trees to reduce costs, at the expense of frustrating customers. It would seem relatively simple to send any account info entered on the phone to whichever operator ends up pulling up the customer on the computer.

gregjor 4y ago
Agreed. That would make sense given the facts I think I have. Maybe some legal or regulatory or anti-fraud consideration comes into it that I don’t know about. I have worked on phone trees that run in a software PBX that actually doesn’t connect to other systems, like customer service, though I don’t see any technical impediment. Maybe the various vendors don’t interoperate. Maybe the company outsources their phone tree, or their customer service, or both. Lots of things don’t work the way we’d like or think they should. I get that. But getting upset and starting off the chat with a real person in a bad mood or tone, when they had nothing to do with the phone tree implementation, you do have control over that. Almost every day I see people driving in ways I interpret as rude, dangerous, or oblivious. I try to remind myself that their behavior isn’t directed at me, personally, and I can’t control them but I can control my reactions. Same principle.
- robbrown451 4y ago
  "But getting upset and starting off the chat with a real person in a bad mood or tone," They didn't say that. They never said they took it out on the employee. They said that the system caused the customer to be less happy than they could have been. Perfectly legit complaint, and a failure on the part of the people who set up the system. That's actually why they came HERE to ask. That is something they have control over.
  - gregjor 4y ago
    > Its aggravating and sets the wrong tone for my support call. One can read that in different ways. When I’m aggravated by the time I get through to a person I may communicate that by my tone. Having worked on the receiving end of support calls I know that’s common. Who else can they vent on?
    - robbrown451 4y ago
      And they have a right to be aggravated. You're talking about something else, their outward reaction, which you are making assumptions about. I'd hope every user interface designer (and yes this is user interface design) also gets aggravated by bad design. If all you do is make excuses for bad design, it's a good bet your designs suck.
      - gregjor 4y ago
        I made no excuses. I did offer some possible explanations in a different comment thread. I didn’t go so far as to say anyone’s work sucked. I don’t let myself get aggravated over things I can’t control or that likely have causes other than malice or someone sucking at design. I don’t take out my frustrations on customer support people. Not worth it, no point.
        robbrown451 4y ago
        Again, no one took out their frustrations on customer support, so I'm not sure why you keep saying that. They came to HN and voiced them.
        gregjor 4y ago
        You don’t know that. We just interpret the original complaint differently. If someone says their frustration with a phone tree “sets the tone” that implies something about the following conversation. A “tone” doesn’t mean anything without a conversation. Complaining on HN will not get any closer to changing the actual problem. I offered possible explanations elsewhere — multiple vendors, incompatible systems, outsourcing, deliberate friction to reduce human call volume, anti-fraud. Sheer incompetence or even malice present possible explanations too. I stand by my original answer: Things don’t necessarily work the way we think they should, that’s simply a fact, so there’s no point letting yourself get aggravated about those things.
        robbrown451 4y ago
version_five 4y ago
> Companies set up automated phone trees to reduce costs, at the expense of frustrating customers I'd modify that slightly to say they set up phone trees to reduce costs by frustrating customers. Adding friction to prevent people from getting refunds or other concessions, or getting them to give up without speaking to a human, is a big reason for these systems. They could easily make them better, but there is no incentive. That's why (usually) monopolies or places like rewards programs that don't want you to use them have the worst service, but if you ever call in to get a new insurance policy you'll be talking to a human in seconds.
- gregjor 4y ago
  True. Reducing customer support calls that get to a real person contributes to the performance and cost metrics for a call center. Some companies may try to make a useful phone tree. Some may use it to introduce friction and cut off nuisance calls. I won’t say the companies always have nefarious or uncaring intentions but it can feel that way from the customer end.

gregjor 4y ago

Agreed. That would make sense given the facts I think I have. Maybe some legal or regulatory or anti-fraud consideration comes into it that I don’t know about. I have worked on phone trees that run in a software PBX that actually doesn’t connect to other systems, like customer service, though I don’t see any technical impediment. Maybe the various vendors don’t interoperate. Maybe the company outsources their phone tree, or their customer service, or both. Lots of things don’t work the way we’d like or think they should. I get that. But getting upset and starting off the chat with a real person in a bad mood or tone, when they had nothing to do with the phone tree implementation, you do have control over that. Almost every day I see people driving in ways I interpret as rude, dangerous, or oblivious. I try to remind myself that their behavior isn’t directed at me, personally, and I can’t control them but I can control my reactions. Same principle.

robbrown451 4y ago
"But getting upset and starting off the chat with a real person in a bad mood or tone," They didn't say that. They never said they took it out on the employee. They said that the system caused the customer to be less happy than they could have been. Perfectly legit complaint, and a failure on the part of the people who set up the system. That's actually why they came HERE to ask. That is something they have control over.
- gregjor 4y ago
  > Its aggravating and sets the wrong tone for my support call. One can read that in different ways. When I’m aggravated by the time I get through to a person I may communicate that by my tone. Having worked on the receiving end of support calls I know that’s common. Who else can they vent on?
  - robbrown451 4y ago
    And they have a right to be aggravated. You're talking about something else, their outward reaction, which you are making assumptions about. I'd hope every user interface designer (and yes this is user interface design) also gets aggravated by bad design. If all you do is make excuses for bad design, it's a good bet your designs suck.
    - gregjor 4y ago
      I made no excuses. I did offer some possible explanations in a different comment thread. I didn’t go so far as to say anyone’s work sucked. I don’t let myself get aggravated over things I can’t control or that likely have causes other than malice or someone sucking at design. I don’t take out my frustrations on customer support people. Not worth it, no point.
      - robbrown451 4y ago
        Again, no one took out their frustrations on customer support, so I'm not sure why you keep saying that. They came to HN and voiced them.
        gregjor 4y ago
        You don’t know that. We just interpret the original complaint differently. If someone says their frustration with a phone tree “sets the tone” that implies something about the following conversation. A “tone” doesn’t mean anything without a conversation. Complaining on HN will not get any closer to changing the actual problem. I offered possible explanations elsewhere — multiple vendors, incompatible systems, outsourcing, deliberate friction to reduce human call volume, anti-fraud. Sheer incompetence or even malice present possible explanations too. I stand by my original answer: Things don’t necessarily work the way we think they should, that’s simply a fact, so there’s no point letting yourself get aggravated about those things.
        robbrown451 4y ago

version_five 4y ago

> Companies set up automated phone trees to reduce costs, at the expense of frustrating customers I'd modify that slightly to say they set up phone trees to reduce costs by frustrating customers. Adding friction to prevent people from getting refunds or other concessions, or getting them to give up without speaking to a human, is a big reason for these systems. They could easily make them better, but there is no incentive. That's why (usually) monopolies or places like rewards programs that don't want you to use them have the worst service, but if you ever call in to get a new insurance policy you'll be talking to a human in seconds.

gregjor 4y ago
True. Reducing customer support calls that get to a real person contributes to the performance and cost metrics for a call center. Some companies may try to make a useful phone tree. Some may use it to introduce friction and cut off nuisance calls. I won’t say the companies always have nefarious or uncaring intentions but it can feel that way from the customer end.