Customer Service That Astonishes

Last week I tried to get a replacement part for my stationary bike. One of the end caps from the handle bars had cracked and needed to be replaced…

First, I called the local store. They didn’t have any and instructed me to call their central service department number.

The service department indicated that because the bike was not a current model, I needed to get the part from the US manufacturer – Vision Fitness. They provided the hotline number.

I called the Hotline and sat on hold for 15-20 minutes before getting a live person. They were very helpful and indicated that the replacement part would cost $0.78 USD. They proceeded to get my mailing address for shipment.

They then indicated that it would be mailed at a cost of $10.00 USD.

When I asked why a $0.78 plastic part was going to cost $10.00 to ship I was told “that’s our minimum shipment cost”. The cost didn’t reflect the weight — it was a minimum charge for them to send out any part.

I had already invested thousands of dollars to purchase their machine. I guess the figured they already had my money and what was the likelyhood of me purchasing a second stationary bike.

Well the part wasn’t that critical and I had already spent too much time on the issue, so I decided to forget about it and just live with a cracked end cap.

What initially seemed like a minor issue was no longer worth the trouble.

My Perspective: A customer-focused organization anticipates situations like this and would simply offer to put a part like this in the mail. The fact that they have a minimum charge indicates that their first concern is their own profitability — not the customer. They will only make the customer happy if it first serves their profit motive.

We should ask ourselves whether our policies are addressing our employees and customers needs — or simply acting as barrier to providing exceptional customer service.

I recently submitted an article to one of the online publishing sites. It was rejected for broaching their rule of using company names in the content.

I used the spelling “excelerate” versus the correct spelling — accelerate — since I have trademarked the term Performance Excelerator^TM. I always use this spelling. It is part of my brand.

But because the term Performance Excelerator is trademarked in my author signature they rejected this spelling.

The publisher wants to avoid self promotion within their articles and maintain the integrity of the article content and their site. All appropriate objectives that most authors are very happy to follow — including myself.

I wrote and explained it was the spelling I always used and not to do so would be inconsistent with my branding.

I was not promoting my company name (Bill Hogg & Associates), nor was I drawing attention to the specific word for promotional purposes through bolding. It was just spelled differently in line with my trademarked name The Performance Excelerator.

While I hoped they would see the reason why this guideline should be waived in my case, I recognized the reasoning behind their guideline and was willing to forego publishing the article rather than use the correct spelling.

Upon review, they published the article based on this special circumstance.

My Perspective: Even a rule that is in place for all the right reasons may need to be broken given certain circumstances. Having a guideline that is based on an outcome that is widely understood allowed someone in the organization to make a decision based on the specific circumstance.

Are your rules supported by clear guidelines that provide guidance if a unique circumstance arises that isn’t covered by the rules?

 Staples had a sale on computer remotes. Regular price $74.99, on sale for $19.99 — a $50.00 savings. I already had one, but at that price, it made sense to get a back-up.

I dropped by on the way home — unfortunately I arrived at 5 minutes past closing time. The doors were open, people were shopping and cash registers were open.

However, I was denied entrance. I asked if I could enter, explaining that I was there to pick up a specific item and that I knew exactly where it was located. No deal. The young man at the door had his orders. No one was allowed in after closing time.

I didn’t get my back-up remote. They lost the goodwill of a customer.

Which was worse?

My Perspective: This is a perfect example of the need for guidelines versus rules. It is difficult for rules to be flexible. But guidelines allow for real people to make decisions based on specific circumstances. Why was this employee not empowered to make a simple call on an issue?

Frequently I have discussions with clients that are based on a specific issue that has arisen. My advice is always to avoid creating a rule that will fix that issue — but to look for the guideline that would have prevented the issue.

Then you either need to create a guideline that will avoid numerous similar issues — or communicate the existing guideline better so people know how to work within it. We usually agree that communication and training is the issue versus creating a new guideline.

So the next time an issue arises and you are thinking about creating a rule — stop, and look for the root cause and focus your efforts there.

Do you need a new guideline — or do you just need to communicate the existing guidelines better?

By the way — I did get the remote — my wife was kind enough to drop by the next day and pick one up. But Staples never regained their goodwill.

I phoned the call centre at Mirvish Productions  to renew our tickets subscription for the next theatre season. The CSR quickly went about renewing my subscription. I am sure I was one of a long list of calls that day doing exactly the same transaction. She was very efficient in getting the order processed.

However, after twice telling her the payment option I had chosen was 50% today and the balance in 3 months — she processed the entire order as a single payment immediately.

When I for a third time told her I wanted the 2 part payment — she said “That’s not what you said”

My Perspective: There are 2 issues here.

The first is simply listening. Even when you are doing the same thing again and again — remember, each customer is unique. And even if they are not — we need to make them feel like they are.

The second is more bothersome. A CSR should never tell a customer they are wrong. I was very clear about my request, but even if I was wrong, or just forgot to ask, there are much better ways to deal with this situation than placing the blame on the customer.

I don’t subscribe to the philosopy that the customer is always right. But I am pretty sure there is rarely a good reason to tell them they are wrong.

On the recent weekend, we expected family and friends would be dropping by at irregular intervals with their various activities — making regular meals less likely.

I decided to stop at The Pickle Barrel — a well known Toronto restaurant and delicatessen — to pick up some bite-size deli sandwiches so we would have some easy snacks available whenever anyone was hungry. However, we are not fans of their lox and cream cheese sandwiches which are part of their pre-made party platters.

I asked if I could get a selection without these sandwiches and they confirmed this was possible — but would require a wait while they made up the platter. No problem. I placed my order and said I would be back in the recommended 15 minutes.

When I returned to pick up my order they rang it up and I was surprised that the price had increased by 50% versus the posted price. When I questioned the accuarcy of the bill, I was informed that mine was a custom order and this resulted in the surcharge. This was the first I heard of any surcharge. It was also something never charged in the past.

I asked to speak to the manager since I felt they should have mentioned this when I placed my order so I could have decided whether I wanted to; 1) the pay the surcharge, 2) take the standard platter, or 3) not order at all.

The manager claimed he was unaware of the surcharge and would look into it — but was unwilling to take any action.

I left wondering what function this manager played. He claimed ignorance of a policy that a cashier was implementing — yet was unwilling or unable to do anything about the policy.

More importantly, I was surprised by his complete lack of interest in the issue. It was simply, “I don’t know and I don’t care”.

My Perspective: Of course, the issue was not the charge, or the amount. The issue was that an extra charge was not clearly communicated to me and resultant I was surprised by the change. This left me feeling trapped into a purchase I may not have wanted.

On a more expensive purchase, in addition to breaking trust, this could lead to embarrassment if the customer was unwilling or unable to pay the demanded amount.

It is critical that any extra charges be clearly communicated to customers before the service is provided.

Plus, it is equally important to make sure that you communicate the reason(s) for the extra charge in a manner that demonstrates value to the customer.

Transparency is a key driver of customer satisfaction and loyalty. Don’t risk losing a customer because you assume they understand your pricing structure.

Review your pricing structure to ensure there are no hidden surprises and that every employee is clear on how to communicate the value associated with the change that justifies the increase.