Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K
FWIW the I've found CS in this country to be very good. However most calls seem to get routed overseas where it's very poor and they can't stray from their scripts.
I only ever choose the 'thinking of leaving option' when ringing for whatever reason because I know I'll get good customer service from UK agents (they don't seem to mind).
Guess it's a cost/profit/customer satisfaction balance that VM getting wrong. Are we prepared to pay more for UK base called centres and better CS ? (i would, a little more anyway  ) |
I agree with you that CS is worse with the overseas call centres. And I usually expect better from the UK ones.
---------- Post added at 10:51 ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh
Me thinks that some of the heat in this discussion is the calling an individual a liar rather than the company/system.
There is a concept called "lying to children" where you tell an untruth to explain something that the listener can't or won't understand. (At this time of year there is an obvious one being told and shown repeatedly.) Now maybe there is need for a process/system change but until that happens just telling the customer this can't be done will normally suffice. Maybe some explanation could be given but again would the customer understand and is there time to do so, plenty more folk in the queue.
So while the response is "untrue" it's good enough for most situations. Now that doesn't excuse the failures in this particular case and the OP then pushed back and got something done.
|
I have said on many occasions in this thread, the CSR made a untrue
statement which is a lie. Now many people have said that it was propbably down to his poor training. So if had been trained to do so by VM, then it is the company that I have a problem with. Now the 4th CSR wasn't responsible for the other 3 getting it wrong, but all 4 represent VM, so my gripe is with VM (as I quite clearly said in my first post).
---------- Post added at 10:51 ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob
I really don't get the extent to which this thread has been rumbling on debating the use of the word "impossible" and that in turn seems to have become such a massive issue and outright lie. It seems harsh to me.
The first few responses clearly indicate the use of the word impossible was appropriate in a figure of speech way as the standard systems in place to the service agent did not allow the changes you were expecting. Further enquiries by your agent then later revealed there was a way to workaround or bend the IT systems in place, but it seems to be that use of that is a rather extreme way of solvinng the problem.
I don't see that it is fair to call the use of the word "impossible", as meaning an outright lie in this instance. After all if Ofcom, the ASA and whoever can allow the use of the word "unlimited" to describe many broadband and phone services, when there are restrictions in place, it is clear to me that the English language is allowed to be distorted.
|
Read post 154.