Visit speed website Speed blog home
November 1st, 2010 by Rebecca Gregory

Cracking communications of my beloved London Underground

London Underground roundel logo

Image via Wikipedia

I’ve long taken a pro-London Underground stance and regularly defend it against TFL bashers. My view is that we would all benefit from remembering that our metro system, parts of which date back to the 19th century, carries more than one billion passengers each year – millions more than it was ever designed to. The fact that it doesn’t buckle under this strain completely and slowly run to a whimpering halt each and every day in protest, is a testament to the efforts put in to keep it going.

The only thing that, for me, lets it down is its hit and miss customer service. A few years back all it seemed that TFL had trained its train drivers to keep passengers informed at all times on the correct understanding that it is infuriating for tetchy commuters to be stuck in a motionless carriage for no apparent reason, without explanation or timeframes. These days, more often than not you’re updated every 30 seconds – it may interrupt your reading, but at least you don’t need to panic that you’re stuck there for the rest of the day.

But what is infuriating is the lack of consistency to what information is relayed. It is a constant wonder to me that so many customer facing London Underground staff don’t seem to think that customer satisfaction is part of their job description.

TFL has certainly done much to up its profile in recent years, but it has two important next steps to take:

  1. Ensure all staff automatically think about providing constructive information when announcing a tube fail
  2. Ensure the less-than-friendly or helpful staff to remember that they are customer facing and have a duty to be helpful and constructive

What frustrates me – and no doubt many others – is that it surely can’t be that hard to provide constructive communication. How hard is it to let announce what time the next tube is due; what those alternative routes might be when we need to “find alternative routes”, or that the train on the opposite platform is not subject to delays and it might be a good idea to hot foot it over there if you don’t want to be stuck in Hammersmith for the next five hours?

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve had amazingly positive experiences on the underground with staff going beyond the call of duty. Polite and helpful staff (manning the Bakerloo Line at London Paddington at 6:30am on a Saturday morning, to be specific) telling me exactly what bus I need to get with step by step instructions on how to find the right stop, thereby ensuring I didn’t miss my one-an-hour train; or train drivers letting me ride in the front with them when I’ve explained that my only other fellow travellers are a group of drunk aggressive leery men (whether this is allowed by TFL I don’t know, but I was certainly very grateful).

A smile is often rewarded with a smile – something that all customer service orientated industries ought to remember. If treated with a smile and a handy hint, commuters will (one hopes) be more positive – thus making the working day of the TFL staff that much better.

* And, I know I shouldn’t (but I will anyway): how could I miss the opportunity to promote Dr Suman Biswas and Dr Adam Kay’s cracking yet rude version of London Underground? [Parental warning: contains explicit lyrics.]

Enhanced by Zemanta
September 29th, 2010 by Rebecca Gregory

Apple’s PR Armageddon?

A depiction by Gustave Doré.

Image via Wikipedia

Recent journalist reactions to the recent furore over Steve Jobs’ email exchange with journalist student Chelsea Isaacs, have been interestingly split. There are two camps. Camp 1 sees Steve as the big bad wolf dressed as a little old grandma devouring the innocent student for breakfast. Camp 2 sees Chelsea more as a Goldilocks figure, demanding that Apple provide her with company information given that it’s her basic right to be provided all information that she requires, at any given time.

When her initial efforts to get information from the press office failed, Chelsea went straight to the top and emailed Steve Jobs. Always a smart option (when it’s a justifiable problem).

It does have to be acknowledged that, yes it is notoriously hard for journalists to get through to Apple’s press office (confirmed by ex-Apple press team members and journalists alike). But it is also worth noting that a press office is employed to respond to media requests, not to hand out information for academic dissertations. Academic enquires to a press office aren’t unusual and most PRs I know will politely respond if able to help or not. Given that the Apple one of the largest tech companies in the world I think it’s safe to assume that their press office is inundated with press enquires (that it alone can decide whether to respond to or not), let alone emails from students and the crazy people.

Camp 1 considers Chelsea’s role as a budding journalist as cause for concern (I’m sure Steve is quivering in his knees at the thought of Chelsea starting out on her journalist career with the one aim of taking down Apple. It’s like Lex Luther and Superman, just not as plausible).  Her wherewithal to go direct to the CEO is applauded as showing excellent journalist promise. I suspect Camp 2 sees it smacking of self importance, and naivety. Here’s a quote from Chelsea:

“I was incredibly surprised to find Apple’s Media Relations Department to be absolutely unresponsive to my questions, which (as I had repeatedly told them in voicemail after voicemail) are vital to my academic grade as a student journalist.”

This man is the CEO of one of the biggest brands in the world, that he replied at all is pretty impressive/amusing; she must have really p*ssed him off.

Camp 2 is right; it’s not Apple’s responsibility to help her get a good grade. It does have a responsibility to provide good customer support, but she wasn’t getting in touch regarding a product malfunction! If she was, then good on her – go straight to the CEO once the customer services department is a no go.

The long term impact? It will do her career no harm; no doubt Chelsea will land a jammy role as an investigative journalist pretty sharpish. As for Jobs, back to not being known as Mr Laughsalot and the day job of running a multi-billion dollar company and eating students for breakfast. Naturally, I would never advise a CEO to engage directly with a customer in this manner, but as a PR crisis, it’s hardly Armageddon.

Enhanced by Zemanta
February 9th, 2010 by Chris McCrudden

Eager beaver

More Twitter, I’m afraid, and this story’s a bit too old to be a trend, but it’s still too delicious not to comment on. Late on Friday afternoon last week, Vodafone_UK’s account caused an online storm of outrage after tweeting: -

“VodafoneUK is fed up of dirty homo’s and is going after beaver.”

I’ll leave the homilies about how dangerous it is to leave managing massively important customer communication channels in the hands of interns or ingrates to other bloggers. But I will ask you one question.

Is it right that, as a gay man, I’m more offended by the misplaced apostrophe than the homophobia?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
September 30th, 2009 by John Brown

eBayers left in the lurch by a surge in negative detailed seller rating

During the last postal strike I was locked in battle with an exceptionally cheesed off teenager who was convinced that I stole fifty pounds of their hard earnt pocket money by selling him or her my copy of Guitar Hero (complete with guitar) and then not delivering the goods. I can assure you (and I assured the teenager in question) that I dutifully sent the item and due to the postal strike, it got lost in the bowels of the Royal Mail

The end result was that I had to refund the money and Guitar Hero never reached either its destination or its previous home.  I was left out of pocket and even more upsettingly, with a blemish on my beautiful eBay account.  The buyer chastised me with a negative rating and a review that A.A.Gill would have been proud of.

I contacted eBay to let the company know what happened and was predictably told that I should try and resolve this with the buyer and that there was nothing they could do.  I did manage to get over the situation; after all, my living does not depend on my eBay reputation or online buyer perception.  However, these days, many small businesses are at the mercy of the detailed seller rating (DSR).

The recent postal strikes have caused a serious problem for eBay merchants, many of whom are having to deal with PayPal payment disputes, negative feedback and an unresponsive customer service, as a result of goods not arriving on time.  These online sellers rely heavily on buyers trusting them and letting others know of their positive experience. 

eBay’s response has been to come out with a statement advising sellers to contact buyers and inform them of the postal strike. 

But why does eBay not make more of an effort to do this itself?  Surely a homepage banner wouldn’t be too much of an effort, maybe even a few emails here and there would help?  The fact is, eBay’s policy on customer service is simply ‘Do it Yourself’.  But in times of crisis, users need a little more help and support.

Last Sunday an Observer article listed some various rants from eBay users.  One of which raised an important question; should DSR be suspended or restricted during disruptive events such as postal strikes?  Clearly not everyone even knows a postal strike is on and some are very quick off the mark to deal out seller retribution in the form of one star ratings and negative feedback. 

Maybe DSR should be reviewed on the whole?  eBay should take note of eBid.net’s simple system of positive, negative or neutral feedback with a bit of factual blurb and more crucially, the feedback can be altered by the buyer at a later stage, for example if an item eventually arrives.

Right now, online sellers need to ensure that they engage with individual buyers from the off.  Hopefully, by keeping them informed of any potential problems and clearly communicating any posting difficulties, sellers can avoid the dreaded black mark against their name.

In the mean time, eBay might want to review how it communicates business effecting events to its users and how its rating systems can have such a negative impact on the community of sellers that the company relies upon.