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?

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.