JetBlue To Most Loyal Customers: We're Too Busy To Help You, Sorry

from the ouch dept

Nearly six years ago, there was a fantastic article in Inc. Magazine about how JetBlue's CEO and founder, David Neeleman, regularly worked on flights as a flight attendant to better connect with JetBlue customers and understand what they needed. It's really a tremendous article -- and it wasn't initiated by a PR push, but by a reporter who just happened to be on one of those flights and experienced the whole thing first hand. It's really an amazing story of customer service, something that JetBlue had a strong reputation for in the early days. I experienced a lot of that first hand as I flew JetBlue pretty often. However, a few years ago, things changed, culminating in the infamous JetBlue "Valentine's Day Massacre" of ridiculously bad customer service on a busy day, which is now a Harvard Business School case study. While I wasn't there, a separate incident around that time (involving getting stuck at the landing gate and unable to get out of the gate area for 45 minutes -- yes on landing, not departure -- due to overcrowding) had me switch to other airlines.

Neeleman insisted that he would fix the problems, but he didn't get the chance. Just a few months later he was pushed out, and many people warned that this was a massive mistake, because he was being replaced by operational people who didn't have the passion to fix JetBlue like Neeleman did. It seems like this has happened.

The company recently switched to a new reservation system, and it's been a huge mess according to a bunch of folks who regularly fly JetBlue. Worst of all, the switchover basically screwed over JetBlue's most loyal customers, changing the terms of their rewards offerings (expiring their points in one year, rather than letting them last forever if you had a JetBlue AmEx) and also telling those TrueBlue members they could no longer redeem frequent flyer passes using the website. Instead, they had to call. Yes, the airline that pioneered pushing flyers to use the website rather than call has gone the other direction.

And guess what a mess that caused? A good friend of mine who regularly flies JetBlue (at least once a month) wanted to redeem a "TruePass" for an upcoming trip, and after discovering that the website could no longer do it, she called and was told that hold times were 60 minutes or more. So she waited. And was then was disconnected by JetBlue customer service twice -- once on purpose after she asked for the customer service representative's name, and that representative apparently didn't want to give it out. So, in response, my friend emailed in a complaint to JetBlue, and JetBlue's response was: we're too busy to look at your email or help you. Seriously:

Dear A,

Thank you for contacting JetBlue Airways regarding your TrueBlue account. JetBlue has just completed transitioning to a new reservation system and as a result, the TrueBlue help desk is currently receiving a high volume of email and can no longer accept them at this time. We apologize for the inconvenience.

The email then pointed her to the JetBlue website, though it again noted that "Old TrueBlue points that appear in your online account summary can not be booked through jetblue.com. To book Award travel using these old points, please call us at 1-800-JETBLUE." Of course, that was exactly what she was complaining about.

Apparently JetBlue has decided that helping its most loyal customers is too much trouble. Sorry. Too busy. From the airline that pioneered friendly airline customer service to this... in just a few years time is really quite a travesty.

Filed Under: customer service
Companies: jetblue

Once Again, Google's Customer Service Is Becoming An Issue

from the this-again? dept

We've had a whole string of stories in the last few months about communication problems from Google -- from users getting locked out of their documents to advertisers banned with no explanation or recourse to a blogger who went six months trying to get Google to turn back on a blog that it had shut down. I've heard from a few Google folks, noting that they recognize it's an issue, and it's something that some people within Google are trying to deal with. But given all of these problems on "smaller" issues, perhaps it's no surprise that there's been an outcry over the poor customer service people are receiving after purchasing Nexus One phones from the company.

Google does lots of things really well. But, clearly, customer service is not one of them. And while its massive success can hide (or at least minimize) the impact of such poor customer service, at some point it's really going to begin to hurt, unless Google finally wakes up to the fact that when people have problems, they want to be able to reach out to a human being who will listen to them, hear what they have to say and (hopefully) help. Some have claimed that this is just not Google's culture -- and perhaps that's the case, but at some point that cultural flaw may cause much larger headaches.

Filed Under: customer service, nexus one
Companies: google

Netflix Refunds Money Without Being Asked

from the that's-how-it's-done dept

With so many stories out there of companies screwing over customers or making life difficult for users, it's always nice to hear a good story. Apparently, Netflix recently had a problem with their Xbox video streaming, and proactively refunded money to customers without them asking. I can't think of any other company I've heard of that's done that. Hell, I remember a past broadband provider who I would call (regularly) without outages, and the best they would do is say that after the service came back, I could call and then they would process a refund -- knowing that when that finally happened hours later, it wouldn't be worth the hassle to call back in and wait on hold.

Filed Under: customer service, refunds
Companies: netflix

In A Connected World, Where Everyone Has A Voice, Customers Win

from the welcome-to-the-modern-world dept

One of the key underlying themes about the posts we write here -- whether they're about RIAA lawsuits or public policy or business models or security through obscurity or anything else, really -- is that one of the amazing things about the internet is that it gives everyone a voice. And when everyone has a voice, the customer wins. Period. Customers will always be able to get the word out if you screw them over, and so any business has to be focused on providing positive value to customers, not pissing them off. A great example of how old school companies still don't get this (and what happens in response) was sent in by Jeremy Oudit, alerting us to how singer Dave Carroll dealt with a horrible customer service experience with United Airlines. Basically, United broke an expensive guitar in transit and refused to do anything about it. So, he started writing songs about United's terrible customer service and put them on YouTube, along with the story, and they're getting hundreds of thousands of views: This is just the first of at least three songs on the subject, called "United Breaks Guitars"... How much does all that bad publicity cost? How much would it have cost to have compensated Dave for the broken guitar?

Filed Under: business models, customer service, customers win, dave carroll, united breaks guitars
Companies: united airlines

Sounding Human: The Difference Between Good And Bad Customer Service

from the is-it-really-that-hard? dept

I'm writing up the beginning of this post while on an airplane, flying from New York to San Francisco. By the time you've read it, I'll have added some stuff to it after I landed. The issue is one of customer service and sounding human. Late last week, I saw this amusing online customer service chat transcript between a Zappos customer service representative and a guy who wanted to see if their customer service really was as good as advertised. Zappos is famous for its hiring and training practices (including paying people to quit after a month). With the customer service team, there are no scripts and reps aren't measured on how many calls they get through like many other customer service centers, but on how well they help customers. That is really evident in the transcript. Here's an excerpt, though you should read the whole thing:

You are now chatting with Jonathan
Jonathan: Hello Timmy. How can I help you?
Timmy: do you know how wide the G-Shock Atomic Solar - AWG101 SKU #7403774 is?
Timmy: i mean, how big a wrist it would fit?
Timmy: Timmy has a big fat wrist
Timmy: Timmy need watch grande
Jonathan: I'll see what I can find out for Timmy.
Timmy: awesome. and can we please continue to talk about Timmy in the 3rd person? Timmy likes to boost Timmy's ego by talking about Timmy that way
Jonathan: Jonathan would be happy to neglect the use of pronouns for the duration of this conversation.
Timmy: Jonathan and Timmy shall get along just fine
Jonathan: Will Timmy be able to measure Timmy's wrist?
Timmy: Timmy's wrist is big, but not Biggie-Smalls big. Timmy doesn't have the required measurement instruments.
Timmy: Timmy is 6'4" 220lbs if that helps Jonathan
Jonathan: Luckily, that is roughly the size of Jonathan's brother, so that does help.

Now, as I mentioned, I'm writing this from an airplane, where I had hoped to have in-flight internet access. I had it last week on the flight from San Francisco to NY and it was fabulous. And, yes, I've seen the wonderful and enlightening Louis CK bit where he talks about how ridiculous it is that anyone would complain that in-flight WiFi broke, because just think of how amazing it is (by the way, in later interviews, Louis admitted that it wasn't the guy sitting next to him who complained -- but he was really discussing his own reaction to the WiFi breaking). I'm not at all upset that the WiFi broke. It would have been cool (and useful in terms of productivity), but I am amazed that it could work at all, and I know it's new so bound to have some hiccups. That's fine. This post isn't about the fact that the WiFi broke. It's about the way Aircell/GoGo handled it.

It's not at all clear what the problem was exactly. When I first opened up the browser, the proxy server page wouldn't load at all. After a few minutes it did load, and at the top it said: "click buy to get started." Only problem? There was no "buy" to click. Just a big empty white box. However, there was a link to sign in if you already had an account -- which, thanks to my flight last week, I did. So I clicked that, and put in my username/password, and was told that it couldn't authenticate it. I checked my email to confirm the username, and even though I'm sure of the password, tried to go to "recover forgotten password" just in case... and was told it didn't recognize my username or the email address. Fine. It seemed pretty clear that their authentication system had broken down, too. I tried to go back to the main page, but it told me I couldn't until I had purchased my account...

However, I did notice a link to "contact customer service" and discovered that even though I couldn't connect to the full internet, I could have a "live chat" with a customer service rep on the ground named "Georgia." I'm asked my name, and I give it (even though it should have been obvious from the email address I had to give to login to the chat). After Georgia asked for my name and I gave it, it took about 2 minutes for a reply. No problem... I'm sure Georgia is dealing with others as well. But I'm not even sure if she's still there. Then I'm asked the problem, which I describe and am told:

"I apologize for the inconvenience and I'll be glad to help you with that."

Sounds great. So I wait. And wait. And wait. And then start wondering... am I supposed to do anything? I assume it's being looked into, but it's not at all clear. I wasn't told to wait. I was just told that she can help. But is she? So after about 5 minutes of nothing, I say "Hello?" and get a quick apology followed by a statement that they are aware of a problem on my flight and will be monitoring it, and if I'm unable to connect, they'll send me a gift code for future flights. Ok. That's fine again... but what does that mean directly for me. I ask "so should I just try again later?" and am told "I would suggest you reboot and try again."

Wait... what? I was just told the problem was with GoGo's system, so why would it make sense to tell me to reboot? I point this out in a polite manner, and am told: "It may help, yet it may not be resolved until after your flight is over." Beyond the odd use of pronouns (first "it" refers to rebooting, second "it" refers to the problem with their system), this again sounds like someone with a script, rather than anyone trying to sound human or recognize how silly it is for me to reboot after she's already admitted the problem is on her end.

Given that I was clearly communicating with someone on the ground, I figured it was worth asking if there was some way around the authentication issue, since clearly I could connect to a very limited subset of the internet on the ground. I'm then told "all ways to sign in and sign up are not properly working." Aha, so it really is a problem with their system, and not my own, but why couldn't they have just explained that problem initially so that I understood? I tell her that I'll just try to sign on later, and am asked "Is there anything else I can help you with?" Now, I understand this is rather standard closing question... but it seems rather silly in this context. Considering there's no connectivity and that's the only thing this company provides, I'm not sure what else I could possibly be helped with.

Now, this wasn't a bad customer service experience (even if it didn't resolve the problem, though that wasn't "Georgia's fault"). But it was striking to me the contrast between what I had just read with the Zappos transcript and this one. Is it really that difficult for customer service reps to sound human?

Filed Under: customer service, sounding human
Companies: aircell, gogo, zappos

Does Google Need An Ombudsman?

from the couldn't-hurt... dept

Lauren Weinstein has an interesting discussion going on his blog, noting a series of recent incidents where Google has done a spectacularly poor job in communicating with the public -- something I've been critical of the company about, as well. The company can be notoriously secretive at times, even when being a lot more transparent would help. Even worse, the company is quite difficult to contact on many issues, unless you happen to know people there already. Its response times, if you go through the "official channels," are absolutely ridiculous (if they respond at all). Weinstein's suggestion, then, is that Google should set up a small team to play an ombudsman role -- basically acting as the public's "representative" within the company. This wouldn't be a "customer support" role (which is often focused on fixing problems directly) as much as a helping hand within the company. The team could take up issues sent in by the public, find the proper folks within the company and get a real response. While the company may fear that such a group would be overrun by complaints, you would think that it could pretty quickly classify the incoming requests into real issues vs. bogus ones, and concentrate on the real issues. Having such a group could certainly help ease the growing view that Google is something of a monolithic entity that walls itself off from the public that uses it.

Filed Under: customer service, ombudsman
Companies: google

Dear Verizon: I Haven't Been An MCI Customer In Four Years

from the customer-service dept

About five or six years ago, I had landline phone service from MCI. In the age before VoIP was common, MCI had a service called "The Neighborhood" which was like many VoIP services today, but without the VoIP part. Unlimited calls for a single flat rate and such advanced (at the time!) features as emailing you your voicemails. It wasn't a bad deal, and I used it for a year or two, until I was getting ready to move. VoIP services had become popular, so I transferred that phone line to a VoIP account and canceled the MCI service in 2004. And that was that. Or so I thought. In 2006, Verizon bought what was left of a scandal-ridden MCI, and as far as I knew, the MCI brand had pretty much gone away.

Yet, in the last couple of weeks, I've received a barrage of robocalls from MCI, letting me know that my credit card is expiring, and I need to log into mci.com to update the card. The call notes that my bill is automatically charged to this credit card and if I want to "continue enjoying this convenience" I need to update soon. The call is correct in that the credit card I used back when I had MCI expired this month, but is it that hard for Verizon (or whoever it is) to recognize that the very phone number they're calling me on hasn't been connected to MCI service in four years and that the company has not, in fact, billed me during that time? And, honestly, why did they hang onto my credit card info for so long? And, finally, why call me three times a day with no way for me to tell them to knock if off? I thought perhaps this was a new form of phishing, but the call directs you to log into mci.com itself, so it sounds like it's legit. Either way, it raises plenty of questions about MCI (and now Verizon's) data handling practices.

Filed Under: credit cards, customer service, robocalls
Companies: mci, verizon

Netflix Changes Its Mind, Will Keep Profiles

from the listening-to-customers-is-good dept

A few weeks back, we were one of many who questioned Netflix's decision to take away its "profiles" feature, that allows a single account holder to have separate queues for different people in his or her household. For the folks who used this feature, it was quite popular, and our main complaint was the bogus language that Netflix used, claiming that removing this feature was somehow a benefit to users. Obviously, most folks who used that feature regularly thought it was somewhat obnoxious to take away a favorite feature and to tell them it was for their own good -- despite not having any plans for a replacement.

However, Netflix surprised a lot of folks by actually listening to the complaints from many users and agreeing to keep the feature, though it won't promise to do any more enhancements to it. It's so rare to hear of companies actually listening to their users, that it's nice to see Netflix actually do so. Of course, Netflix could potentially make even more fans of the company by somehow opening up the profiles platform so that others could develop for it -- now that Netflix doesn't want to do so. That may not be possible depending on how things are set up, but that could really turn what was a negative into a strong positive for the company.

Filed Under: customer service, netflix profiles
Companies: netflix