Skip to main content

Does a company's ethos change customer service?

Ever since my time at British Airways I have been very interested in customer service. I even wrote a rather nice book about it. A lot of customer service can be trained, but I've always wondered how much a company's nature comes through in the way its employees treat the public.

Sometimes this seems to be true. If you take supermarkets, I've always found Tesco customer service rather cold and couldn't-care. This is typified by an experience when I once found a bank note on the floor in a Tesco store. I took it to the customer service desk, and the attitude was basically 'Why didn't you keep it? You are wasting my time because I now have to deal with this.'

Sainsbury's, by comparison, while brisk, tends to be rather better. I once went to the customer service desk there because I had left a washing powder box on the rack under a trolley and forgot to pay for it. When I voluntarily took it back, they were effusive about how good it was of me.

However, the picture is not straight-forward. You might expect ASDA, the UK arm of the mighty, but not exactly caring sharing WAL*MART, to be similar to Tesco. But it's not - the employees are usually very friendly and give genuinely helpful customer service. I can't help but wonder if this reflects ASDA's roots as a North of England store. Similarly, despite the wonderful corporate ethos of John Lewis, its Waitrose tends to be a little cool in attitude - perhaps contrasting the less friendly attitude of the South East.

Unfortunately I have one example of customer service that totally smashes the ethos concept. Of course it could just be a data blip - this is all based on a ludicrously small sample. But what it suggests to me is that the individual is just as important as the company spirit. Customer service is given by an individual person, and that person's attitude can make all the difference, whatever the company policy.

The example I have in mind is from Sky - an organization that is normally seen as ruthlessly businesslike and uncaring. This was back in the early days, when you could only obtain a Sky remote from Sky themselves. At the time our dog was obsessed with remote controls. Unless you left them well out of reach she would chew them to pieces. And she particularly liked the slightly rubbery feel of the Sky remote. We went through about a dozen of them.

I had written off to get a new one, and imagine my surprise (as they say) when two arrived in the post. But what made this a customer service triumph was the hand-written note that accompanied them. 'I have put two remotes in,' said the Sky representative. 'One for you, and one for the dog.' Now that's what I call capturing customers' hearts.

Comments

  1. Re your doubling up on remotes from Sky, there's still a lot to be said for the old adage 'surprise and delight the customer'!

    It's important organisations give employees some freedom to do their own thing occasionally. I can imagine some short-sighted would fire the guy for doing that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tim - you are spot on. I am quite sure some organizations/individuals would reprimand someone for that kind of initiative... but they are organizations/individuals that don't understand customer service.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for this fabulous information. This really helps, I've been looking for this kind of info hub on this issue for a long time now and for sure this one is great.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense