7 ms·

Classic. Instead of fixing the problems so there are no angry customers just make it so the angry customers can’t be heard. What could possibly go wrong.

rokkamokka 2y ago
Does it? It doesn't change the content, just the tone. If I were a call center operator I might want something like this
- notaustinpowers 2y ago
  The content is only a part of it. We are a species specially-suited to pick up on others emotional states and factor that in our responses. A mismatch in response to certain emotions is going to cause further problems as, to an angry customer, it comes off as patronizing, dismissive, and disrespectful. Typically, angry customers are conveying severity and urgency. If you do not respond with a similar sense of severity or urgency you now have two people who aren't on the same page. That's not a good foundation to solve problems on.
  - b112 2y ago
    There's also good angry, where you can tell the person is angry, but not at the call center person. I personally take care in this, saying things to reassure, such as indicating that I know it's the company's fault, not the rep's. This vecomes more of a "bartender" situation, where the anger is clearly at the situation, not the rep, and can create a more engaged, helpful response even. I think one could sue for purposefully changing a person's appearance or voice, without their consent. And no, calling a help line can never ever have a tos enforced, as often the entity is required by law to deal with warranty or other issues. No tos applies. Back to changing the voice, as others have mentioned, tenor, tone, etc all are part of speaking. They cannot be separated. Tone is often, for example, brought up in testimony as it conveys something. It has as much meaning as the words. I would be astonished if this isn't challenged soon.
    - pixl97 2y ago
      As someone that's worked in call centers for a fair time in my life, I'm not sure about this. I've worked for a cable company for a while that really turned to shit, and went into buying off representatives rather than fixing their technical problems (heavily investing in making city owned fiber illegal in many states). Customers being enraged with us was a very strong motivation for me to leave and find better work with a less abusive company. And yes, call centers commonly shut down/move/ or actually start giving better service when they can't keep staff because they are such a crap company that their users are in constant rage mode.
39896880 2y ago
There will always be angry customers. People who call customer service and abuse the representative are not expressing anger solely due to the complaint. It’s an accumulation of other things in their lives.
- realce 2y ago
  > There will always be angry customers. There will always be companies that make their customers angry. You're really going against people seeking solutions from companies they pay? I'm amazed anyone would downvote this - how am I disillusion here?
  - BadHumans 2y ago
    The customer is not always right.
  - mind-blight 2y ago
    Please don't straw man. Nothing in OP's comment said they're against fixing issues. But they - correctly - pointed out that you won't be able to completely eliminate abusive callers even if you're fixing issues. They never once presented it as dichotomy.
    - realce 2y ago
      I would argue the strawman is the depiction of every upset customer being irate because of a personal problem instead of the issue they're contacting customer service about.
      - Capricorn2481 2y ago
        Agreed
      - mind-blight 2y ago
        > the depiction of every upset customer being irate because of a personal problem That's the straw man. I don't see anything in the parent comment that implies or expresses that. It says 1. "There will always be a subset of people who act irate or abusively for external reasons", not 2. "All people who are irate or abusive due to external reasons" Your flipping the implication within the sentence, then arguing against that

rokkamokka 2y ago

Does it? It doesn't change the content, just the tone. If I were a call center operator I might want something like this

notaustinpowers 2y ago
The content is only a part of it. We are a species specially-suited to pick up on others emotional states and factor that in our responses. A mismatch in response to certain emotions is going to cause further problems as, to an angry customer, it comes off as patronizing, dismissive, and disrespectful. Typically, angry customers are conveying severity and urgency. If you do not respond with a similar sense of severity or urgency you now have two people who aren't on the same page. That's not a good foundation to solve problems on.
- b112 2y ago
  There's also good angry, where you can tell the person is angry, but not at the call center person. I personally take care in this, saying things to reassure, such as indicating that I know it's the company's fault, not the rep's. This vecomes more of a "bartender" situation, where the anger is clearly at the situation, not the rep, and can create a more engaged, helpful response even. I think one could sue for purposefully changing a person's appearance or voice, without their consent. And no, calling a help line can never ever have a tos enforced, as often the entity is required by law to deal with warranty or other issues. No tos applies. Back to changing the voice, as others have mentioned, tenor, tone, etc all are part of speaking. They cannot be separated. Tone is often, for example, brought up in testimony as it conveys something. It has as much meaning as the words. I would be astonished if this isn't challenged soon.
  - pixl97 2y ago
    As someone that's worked in call centers for a fair time in my life, I'm not sure about this. I've worked for a cable company for a while that really turned to shit, and went into buying off representatives rather than fixing their technical problems (heavily investing in making city owned fiber illegal in many states). Customers being enraged with us was a very strong motivation for me to leave and find better work with a less abusive company. And yes, call centers commonly shut down/move/ or actually start giving better service when they can't keep staff because they are such a crap company that their users are in constant rage mode.

39896880 2y ago

There will always be angry customers. People who call customer service and abuse the representative are not expressing anger solely due to the complaint. It’s an accumulation of other things in their lives.

realce 2y ago
> There will always be angry customers. There will always be companies that make their customers angry. You're really going against people seeking solutions from companies they pay? I'm amazed anyone would downvote this - how am I disillusion here?
- BadHumans 2y ago
  The customer is not always right.
- mind-blight 2y ago
  Please don't straw man. Nothing in OP's comment said they're against fixing issues. But they - correctly - pointed out that you won't be able to completely eliminate abusive callers even if you're fixing issues. They never once presented it as dichotomy.
  - realce 2y ago
    I would argue the strawman is the depiction of every upset customer being irate because of a personal problem instead of the issue they're contacting customer service about.
    - Capricorn2481 2y ago
      Agreed
    - mind-blight 2y ago
      > the depiction of every upset customer being irate because of a personal problem That's the straw man. I don't see anything in the parent comment that implies or expresses that. It says 1. "There will always be a subset of people who act irate or abusively for external reasons", not 2. "All people who are irate or abusive due to external reasons" Your flipping the implication within the sentence, then arguing against that