Staples chat: That wasn’t easy!
We’re all looking to take a few shortcuts when shopping, especially online, so when I recently ran into an issue on Staples.com, I opted to give "chat" a try. Although not a big fan of online chat, the fact that the 800 number wasn’t easy to locate was a big motivator.
The issue was simple: Staples.com was advertising that if you spent $150 on the site and used VISA Checkout to pay, you would receive a $30 credit. The details were sketchy, such as whether this was a site credit or a VISA credit, but what the heck? So, I upped my purchase about $60 to get over the minimum and got ready to use VISA Checkout. However, after selecting that payment method there was no sign that any credit would be forthcoming. So, before clicking to submit the order, I opted to chat with Staples.
Nine system messages and nearly three minutes later, I was happily chatting with "Aditi P." The rep asked whether I had a VISA account, followed by whether I had selected VISA Checkout as the payment option, and then verified that the $30 credit was not showing up. After chatting with the rep for five minutes, it was suggested I check out Staples’ "exciting daily deals" while waiting. Then, we went over instructions as to how to enter credit card information on the website. After, two more rounds of "checking in to this" occurred, we had a total elapsed time of over 23 minutes, so I gave up, reduced the order to what was originally intended, thanked the service rep, and left the chat. (See a transcript of the chat.)
To be clear, there was nothing wrong with the chat function itself. What is wrong, is the way Staples and other retailers apparently use chat:
- Chat is being used to reduce costs, rather than improve customer service. I draw that conclusion here because an 800# is not easy to find on the Staples.com site, and industry sources say chat is typically a lot cheaper than phone interactions.
- Information is requested that is not used. In this case, one has to submit an e-mail address in order to chat, although Staples already has that information when loyalty members are logged in. The e-mail address provided was not used after the chat to provide an answer to the problem.
- Although it may or may not have been the case here, chat agents are often working on multiple cases at one time, delaying customer response times at the expense of good customer service.
- Chat is being outsourced – nothing wrong with that, except that in at least this case the agent wasn’t provided with enough information to solve even the most basic problems.
Discussion Questions
Do you see most retailers using chat to make the customer experience better or is it usually more of a money-saving decision? What suggestions do you have for those looking to improve the customer experience using chat?
Poll
BrainTrust
Dr. Stephen Needel
Managing Partner, Advanced Simulations
David Zahn
Owner ZAHN Consulting, LLC
I would add a fourth: chat is being used to market other services and offers. Chat is a game of seconds, not minutes. Being available, having the right answer to the question, not simply a checklist to go down and truly helping the customer are key. Without it, chat is email with fewer capabilities.
Chat is like training — seen as a cost, not a value-add to the consumer. Until that is changed many like Staples will try to get away with the bare minimum.
I think the goal is to enhance the customer experience and the bonus is that it is cheaper. That said, Al, I’ve had both good and bad experiences with chat (Samsung chat refused to believe there was a difference in connectors for digital optical and digital coax). But Comcast chat has been a great experience. Vanguard likewise.
The key to me for a good customer experience is that the chat is not a regurgitation of the manual or online troubleshooting — I’ve done that already and it hasn’t worked, that’s why I’m chatting. I need experts who actually know about the products they are working on.
Al, I am with you! Asking for redundant information that had been previously provided (name, email address, phone number, etc.) when registering or becoming a member, clearly typing from a script or doing a cut and paste (“I am sorry you are experiencing problems” even though I am inquiring about a feature and not necessarily experiencing a problem per se is a big one I encounter), the long lags between responses, etc., it does not feel at all like it is an experience designed for my convenience or benefit at all! It often (as Bob points out) becomes a sales call at a time when I am feeling less inclined to be sold and it raises my resentment.
I would request more dialogue/information — what are they doing? Where are they looking? What have they uncovered? What is their “working solution?” I want it to be a conversation and not what feels like dragging me through a maze to the point of exhaustion before I quit (like you did). I have the same feeling for some of these “chat” functions that I do for automated systems for the phone. Punch this number, repeat this phrase, depress the # key, say or sing your account number, turn around and put your right arm in, take your right arm out, etc.
I have no question that chat is a cost saver. As Al points out, just try to locate the number for customer service on the site. They just don’t want you to call.
Having said that, my experiences with chat service have been surprisingly good. I used to avoid chat because I viewed it as just one more attempt to separate me from anyone who could actually be implored to solve my problem. But now I don’t hesitate to use it, as long as my problems are technical or of the “do you have … ?” nature. I still prefer a live person if I need to get an erroneous charge reversed, for example.
My biggest customer service pet peeve is one Al mentions: not using information I am forced to provide to get through the phone tree to a rep at all. Financial institutions are the worst. You inevitably have to punch in your eight digit account number before you can “press one to speak to a representative …” — then the first thing the rep that comes on the line asks you for is your account number. Zowie! One bad hair day, coming up!
Did a quick survey of people in my office after reading this post. Chat is the hardest way to get a problem resolved. Much more time consuming. Not user-friendly.
If retailers or anyone else do not learn to get it right it is going to turn off more customers than the cost savings are worth.
My experience with chat assistance has been good-to-very good. While it may save money for the retailer, it is a good way for one to talk to someone and be less intimated than by speaking directly on the phone. It may be up to each individual as to their preference of phone or chat.
Honestly I don’t think the problems raised here are exclusive to the chat medium. It is basic customer service. A company needs to have their customer service reps knowledgeable and empowered, not just reading from a script or limited to basic troubleshooting questions. Also companies need to stop requiring that their reps try to upsell me while I am talking with them about a problem with their service. In general when I have used chat functions for help I have been satisfied, but I suppose I have been lucky!
Too many times organizations of all sorts feel obliged to play whatever the current game is. We all had to have Vision Statements so we went through the obligatory vision workshop or, to save money, we had someone in HR do it. Ninety-nine percent totally meaningless, but we played. Quality Assurance was another game we were obliged to play. Then we moved into technology games and multi-channel games and one-hour delivery games. It never ends and for most this is all a facade and a total waste of time and money.
Sadly even this “customer service” thing is a game and as Al found out, not usually played very well. Every website has a Contact Us link as though they actually want you to do that. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve inquired after a product or service to get absolutely zero response — even with a long explanation of my problem. Just another game organizations play. The lesson is this: If you’re playing just because it’s trendy and you like the appearance of it, please don’t bother. You’re annoying people.
I am a chatter (OK, cut the smart comments). I have found that chat functions with large retailers just do not work very well. Almost all chats with larger retailers ended up with responders that knew squat about the product or the process. The DIY retail chatters do seem to know what is going on.
The mid-size retailers have their chats together and are a real help. I recently had a chat when visiting Shineola, a smaller fashion store in Detroit. Great help via chat and followup emails were super.
So it looks like the larger shops need to remember the fact that the transaction involves every touch point with the shopper, even chatters.
My number one suggestion for lousy chatters — make sure that the chatters KNOW the business and want to help close the deal or serve the shopper. Do not toss chatting off to some cheap off-shore shop that has people who do the chatting for your shop and know nada along with having complex first and/or last names. Try to locate chatters with names like Dan, Mary, Ron, TRedd, etc.
Someday I will retire and become a pro-chatter. My goal will be solve the problem and selling the shopper up a level. Sell add-ons, increase the basket size via chatting — chat sales are a CHANNEL!
Chat, like a lot else, comes down to how intelligently the retailer does it. Some are really good and some are mediocre-to-poor. Surprise!
I use chat fairly often myself across a wide range of sites and think it is a good idea. But some are clearly better at it than others. And just as the chat representative is serving other customers, there is nothing wrong with YOU doing other things as the chat moves along. Think of it as a “texting” situation and it makes a LOT of sense.
I think it’s both a cost savings and convenience offer for customers who do not want to be tied to a phone. Similarly, retailers are using Twitter and Facebook to provide customer service because that’s the method which many customers are choosing today. As with any customer experience, it should be genuine, prompt and in context.
For some companies (like phone companies) chat is merely a delaying tactic, asking the customer to enter information over and over, only to ask for it again. In retail its purpose seems to be genuine, but largely uninformative.
What a huge issue this addresses. Retail execs want to cut costs so they come up with a plan that doesn’t properly gauge (or continually monitor) the customer experience to make sure that it’s working for people — not simply meeting the functional requirements. They also have no method to gauge impact from a soft cost perspective, which can be monumental. This is often driven by IT and operations people following a process to accomplish their task (create chat and save x percent on sales and service costs) and no one looking at it from a CXO lens.
What people want is not difficult and doesn’t require a gazillion dollars in research to “prove.” They want to be able to call a phone number or click a chat button and REACH someone quickly who is INFORMED and actually CARES to solve their problem then move along with their day. It’s not rocket science, but it does involve addressing it from a human perspective and fixing what’s not working for people. I hope we can do better as an industry.
I have had good experience with chats with financial institutions, not as much with retailers. The key is to invest in people and knowledge in order to deliver great customer experience and help with conversion and lower abandoned baskets. Retailers who do that will succeed, retailers who do chat just to save money from phones will fail.
Chat and customer care in general is all too vulnerable to cost-cutting pressures and reacting to customers indifferently (i.e., not in terms of their value…treating them all the same). Yet customer service is a huge component of the overall customer experience and the data supports that, especially for Millennials.
Just today the Center for Media Research reported on a study from Aspect that showed “76% of Americans view customer service as a ‘true test’ of how much a company values them” and that “55% of people have stopped shopping or using the services of at least one company because of poor customer service in the past year.” Perhaps most telling, is that “nearly a third of consumers would rather ‘clean a toilet’ than talk to customer service.”
I don’t think Al’s problem with Staples really had much—or anything—to do with “chat.” It was just poor service. As for being cheaper (than phone lines), I don’t see why it would be, as you still have to have the same people on the other end. The only apparent advantage is that the communication is in writing, so unintelligible accents aren’t an issue…though of course WHY you’re dealing with people who speak with unintelligible accents is very much one.
Like many things in retail, there doesn’t need to be just one reason to do something. To answer the question, more than likely using chat does both. I would add that it also builds a personal connection, something that can be difficult otherwise online.
I’ve used the chat service at other sites, for complex purchases, and it’s made the difference not just in buying the right thing, but buying at all. How to make it better? Ensure the people on the other end are actually experts. Sometimes the knowledge can be thin. But it’s better than nothing….
I think it is too often used as an alternative to sell add-ons to a customer’s already planned purchase, which ends up being an annoyance and irritating.
In the right situation, chat can be easy. It’s simple and is right there and in real time. If you are stumbling around on a website and need help, the customer service rep on the chat app can take of you quickly and efficiently.
As with any customer service solution, be it email, chat, online, etc., there should still be a traditional “fallback” and that is still the phone. You’ll find the best online retailers, even with different support channels, make it easy for the customer to reach them via phone.
1990s technology like chat is clumsy, slow and frustrating to those in need of quick reaction help. If the customer is in need of assistance with printer or system errors the time chances for additional corruption of critical files is escalated and/or in jeopardy of being so for many reasons. Attention to detail is reduced simply because the support person is usually in several dissimilar attention needing issues. Companies still use chat to reduce costs exactly where the client wishes priority and results.
This is clearly a time and money saving decision that usually hurts customer service. To improve customer service, ALL chat should have an 800 number. How hard is that?