Growth in call centres in the private and public sectors is clearly cost driven.
But, while reducing costs is always a good thing, there are many anecdotal tales indicating that consumer dislike of such centres has a negative impact on company reputations.
One reason is that customers wishing to reach a decision maker in a company wind up with a call centre “consultant”.
They cannot reach company management.
Many feel that this is the whole point – to keep disgruntled customers away from the people in suits.
Managers once avoided visitors with a bloodhound or Rottweiler at their door masquerading as a secretary.
Call centres now seem to play the same role, differing only by having no teeth.
Scripted
Customers’ dislike of cost centres tends to trump the views of accountants.
Even if cost cutting is a motive for such centres, and reflects well on balance sheets, they sometimes create apoplexy.
What causes this is that “consultants” work to a script.
When this fails to solve the problem, the caller has reached a dead end.
Getting through to a consultant can take half an hour with no result, other than a slightly embarrassed person at the other end and a bruised ear for the caller.
The Telkom call centre’s script works like this recent experience: the scene is that a caller has had no internet connection for two days, unable to send or receive e-mails. It is affecting the business.
The call centre is called twice.
Then, after the caller has supplied name, address, telephone number, and ID number, a laborious process starts as the consultant wades through the script, asking the caller to perform various tasks that may, or may not, solve the problem.
When the problem proves insoluble, the caller is told a technician will visit within seven days.
There is a catch. If he finds the customer’s equipment is not Telkom approved chances are he will turn on his heel and go.
Never mind that the original broke down and a private one worked, that this “contraband” is in perfect working order, proving that the Telkom server is the problem, cuts no ice.
The first consultant earlier confessed that Telkom was working on changing the lines in the area.
Telkom did not bother to inform anyone.
“Wait seven days and you may get lucky”.
That is the message. It is a pity it is not actually in the script.
While consumer dissatisfaction with call centres is anecdotal, it is clear that something is very wrong with isolating management from the customer.
The thing is few make formal complaints.
The automatic voice that says, “All calls are monitored” gets a raspberry for two reasons.
It would need an army of listeners. Besides, it is more a check on the consultants.
Customers still cannot reach a company employee.
For companies that use call centres they are a perfect answer to the problems that come with permanent staff.
Personnel departments shrink.
Stationery costs go down, so does water use, even toilet paper, plus the filched ballpoints, and pencils.
It is not surprising that call centres are an accountant’s delight.
Bigger profits, regular dividends, and bigger bonuses result.
Such immutable logic has created thousands of call centres.
Are consumer complaints valid?
The claim that call centres enhance the consumer experience is met with derision, and with good reason.
Customers come second, especially when they have to deal with consultants in a different country.
A call can be answered in Finland, Ireland, Bangladesh, Bangalore or Glasgow.
The consultant may speak your language but the quality of it varies.
With the hope of getting a real person that you can understand and vice versa, you try again (it is never the same consultant twice) – and there is more listening to irritating multiple choices, and canned music.
Personal touch
Once upon a time, none of this was necessary.
You might have had to hold the line for ages or have called during tea time.
It wasn’t perfect but at least you spoke to someone in your country, someone employed directly by the company and someone in the company called back to check that your problem had been solved.
In Britain, some companies are closing their India-based call centres and bringing them home.
They boast of giving a service “close to home”.
It might be in Glasgow so the claim is debatable to those living elsewhere in Britain.
It may even be better than trying to decipher Bombay Welsh but the basic problems are the same.
General customer service remains afterthought.
In the frantic search for cost cuts, the customer has been pushed down the list of concerns.
It is easy to see why. Salaries in developing countries are much lower.
Places such as Thailand, India, Bangladesh, and here in South Africa, are desperate for jobs.
Reputation damage
Working conditions of call centres are another matter.
Occupants in booths stare at screens waiting for the next call.
When things are popping, the calls are relentless.
The old saw, “We are experiencing high call volumes so a long wait may be experienced”.
In plain language, this means “Don’t call us right now, we are busy.”
Adding to the stress of being on the telephone for the whole working day, call centre operators are under constant cost pressures as well.
Perhaps in future customers will have to deal with a robot.
From a customer perspective, if not from that of an accountant, call centres have not enhanced service.
Until senior management recognise this, the sad fact is that the reputations of the corporations they manage will continue to deteriorate.
With companies, as with people, once reputation is lost, it takes a long time to get it back.
Benjamin Franklin said it best: “It takes many good deeds to build a good reputation, and only one bad one to lose it”.
The good news is that after 10 years or so of call centres, there are signs that some companies have recognised the damage they can do to their reputation.
Alas, there are not many, but it is a start.
Keith Bryer is a retired communications consultant.