[HN Gopher] Cheerful chatbots don't necessarily improve customer... ___________________________________________________________________ Cheerful chatbots don't necessarily improve customer service Author : giuliomagnifico Score : 39 points Date : 2022-12-28 16:50 UTC (2 days ago) (HTM) web link (research.gatech.edu) (TXT) w3m dump (research.gatech.edu) | karaterobot wrote: | > The results across the studies show that using positive emotion | in chatbots is challenging because businesses don't know a | customer's biases and expectations going into the interaction. A | happy chatbot could lead to an unhappy customer. | | I don't think chatbots count as customer service, and the idea of | a "happy chatbot" is nonsense, since the bot isn't happy or sad, | it's a script. It's an interface to a set of FAQs. That does not | count as customer service any more than a searchable FAQ or | documentation site is customer service. It's useful, but it's not | customer service, it's a way to avoid paying people who can | provide customer service. | daneel_w wrote: | I believe we learned this lesson already with Clippy. | notyourwork wrote: | Chat boys are never helpful. | rickreynoldssf wrote: | What infuriates me about support chat | | Me: My order wasn't delivered | | Support: Thank you for contacting support. I am sorry you are not | having a delightful experience with our service. How can I help? | | Me: My order wasn't delivered | | Support: Thank you for that. I understand your order wasn't | delivered. Is that correct? | | Me: Yes | | Support: Thank you for that. Please hold while I look it up. | | ...minutes pass... | | Support: What is the order number? | | Me: abc123 | | Support: Thank you for that. I understand your order number is | abc123 and you have not received the delivery. Is that correct? | | Me: yes | | Support: Please wait while I look this up. | | ...minutes pass... | | Support: Thank you for waiting. I'm happy to tell you that your | order was delivered on 12/29/22. Is there anything else I can | help with? | | Me: I did not receive it. | | Support: Thank you for that. I understand that you did not | receive your order. Is that correct? | | Me: Yes | | Support: Your order was delivered by UPS on 12/29/22 and was left | on your porch. Did you look there? | | Me: Yes | | Support: Thank you for that. I understand you looked on your | porch and did not see it. Is that correct? | | Me: Yes | | ...minutes pass... | | Support: Thank you for that. Can you tell me your order number? | [deleted] | [deleted] | ilyt wrote: | They were never made for that. | | Their purpose is to hire less tech support people. They don't | care about your time wasted, and you bought the product already, | better to pay people to sell product to more people than to deal | with tiny % that has problems with it. | ericd wrote: | If your company has a reputation of not standing behind its | products, selling is going to become harder, and more | expensive, and your margins will go down. This is hard to | measure accurately (people try with NPS, but that's fraught | with bias), so it might be hard to argue for spending more on | customer satisfaction and a good reputation, if your org is | trying to be metrics driven rather than intuition/principles | driven. | | So basically, blame the MBAs :-) | ilyt wrote: | That's for the next manager or CEO to worry, you get your | bonus for saving corporate money then move in. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | Wherever I encounter a chatbot, my user experience usually | suffers a lot, especially if they give me a slow and hard to | navigate tree menu instead of a well structured help index, and | no way to contact actual support. | sideshowb wrote: | s/necessarily// | agilob wrote: | Cheerful chatbots don't necessarily improve customer service, but | at least they are annoying and time wasting, so there's that. | chucksmash wrote: | Even when actual human beings give scripted customer service | responses, it's already hard enough to come across well. Makes | sense that taking the human being out of the loop but leaving in | obsequious corporate niceness rubs people the wrong way. The | customers were responding positively to a person, not to the | script in front of the person (imo). | charcircuit wrote: | I feel the results of this study would be culture specific. | MonkeyMalarky wrote: | If I'm talking to support, it's because I already have some sort | of problem. If I'm shunted into talking to a chatbot, I've now | got two problems and I'm not happy about it. Adding a chipper | disposition to it is like rubbing salt in the wound and a hollow | attempt to paper over the fact that the business is trying to cut | support costs as much as possible. | colejohnson66 wrote: | > If I'm talking to support, it's because I already have some | sort of problem. | | You and I may wait until then, but plenty of customers don't | bother, and will open the chatbot because they can't be | bothered to read the navigation. Companies then realize their | customers are idiots wasting employee's time and throw them | behind a chatbot to attempt to filter them out. | | It's frustrating. | [deleted] | lazide wrote: | As someone who tends to have unconventional needs of support | (because I already figure out anything that is a more normal | request), I despite chat bots with a passion. | | They never have any idea about what is going on, and add | excessive delay getting to someone who can actually look at and | override or fix whatever broken thing in their system is causing | the problem. | | Hard to say if they top voice call mazes though. | herbst wrote: | PayPals literally took me into the same canned question & | response loop twice in the same session until the bot suggested | that I could talk to a human which was available seconds after | that suggestion. | | I tried to same loop before several times, always asking for a | human. But obviously I didn't meet the character threeshold or | whatever that it would be willing to forward me. | | Worst possible customer experience by far | mmanfrin wrote: | The chat bots always just seem to be frontends for their | knowledge bases, because a lot of people don't even try to | self-help. But that's so frustrating for those of us who do; | YES, I _have_ tried resetting it, let me get past you chatbot. | Spooky23 wrote: | The chatbot is there to encourage abandonment. | ilyt wrote: | Shibboleet [1] | | * [1] https://xkcd.com/806/ | ericd wrote: | Not the point of that comic, but I love how the first guy | doesn't even have a computer on his desk, so he couldn't | help directly with anything even if he wanted to. | netsharc wrote: | I wonder if any telephone menu engineers have actually | implemented this after reading the xkcd. | | I'm trying to think of other real life copying fictional | concepts, but can't come up with anything right now... | ceejayoz wrote: | It's a pity you can't opt for a short quiz to prove you've | tried the usual approaches. | Nextgrid wrote: | Or just put down a deposit that gets refunded only if the | issue ends up being legitimate. A "I bet $100 that I'm not | a dumbass" button. | echelon wrote: | Sounds like a very quick way to build a negative brand | image. | Nextgrid wrote: | You can frame it in a more "brandable" way, such as | calling it a support contract. | echelon wrote: | That would take engineering time and resources. Given the | multiplied bell curve distributions of technical aptitude, | domain experience, and whatever else might compel a person | to solve their own problems, this audience is vanishingly | long tail. | | If you put the direct contact link on the website, people | who forgot to plug the product in will find it. | | Another solution is to hire more customer support staff. | But that's costly - headcount, training, etc. And there's a | lot of churn from downright abusive customers. | | A business has a million other things that need attention. | lazide wrote: | Is it better or worse when you know exactly why they're | fucking you that way? | jareklupinski wrote: | would be nice of those chatbot teams to put in a backdoor we | can use to bypass the first-line support scripts, like mashing | # 0 * on a phone pad | | "Please escalate" seems to work sometimes, but I'd be fine with | "ENGAGE_LUCKY_MODE_777" or something | varjag wrote: | I always go with "bring me to your leader". Works quite often | as it seems to confuse elizas enough. | joelrunyon wrote: | This. | | When you have already troubleshot and gone through the help | docs and are actually pointing out a flaw in their system - | chatbots are completely useless. | oidar wrote: | It's become a huge selling point for me that I can walk into a | store and talk to a human about a problem I am having with a | product. Lately, this has meant that the Walmart online store | gets more of my business than Amazon for items that aren't | available at brick-and-mortar stores in my area. Because Walmart | will take back items bought at the store and resolve problems | right then and there. | | Amazon has started selling items that aren't returnable and I | wish I could opt out of it. I got a laptop/phone bracket that was | made with some crappy, brittle plastic, but Amazon didn't accept | returns on that item. If Walmart sold ebooks, I don't think I'd | use Amazon anymore. After dealing with expired food and medicine | through Subscribe and Save, Amazon delivery just throwing things | on the ground and damaging them, and unreturnable items like the | phone accessory, I am done with them for physical items. | | Getting through to Amazon customer service is a huge pain in the | butt, especially now that the customer service flow is self-help | -> text chat -> telephone chatbot -> foreign call center. With | Walmart, I just drive a half block away, go to customer service, | wait in line for five minutes, and boom, it's done. It's a breath | of fresh air honestly. | schappim wrote: | > started selling items that aren't returnable and I wish I | could opt out of it | | I'm not sure if this is legal in Australia or EU. You might | also have some state-level laws that would prevent this. Have | you tried pushing back against them? | armchairhacker wrote: | > Amazon has started selling items that aren't returnable and I | wish I could opt out of it | | Is that legal? | | I would not buy something where the seller can literally ship | junk and legally you have no recourse. | unity1001 wrote: | > Is that legal? | | Not in Europe. | SoftTalker wrote: | Caveat Emptor. | | AFAIK it's legal. Might be courteous to disclose "no returns | accepted" on such listings, but I don't think it's mandatory, | at least not everywhere. | | Buy with a credit card that offers warranty coverage on | purchased items. | archontes wrote: | It's reasonable they could do a chargeback on the basis of | violation of implied warranty of fitness. | | Edit: it's probably a violation of implied warranty of | merchantability. | ghaff wrote: | Even brick and mortar stores definitely will sell special | items (discontinued items, returned items, etc.) on an all | sales final basis sometimes. | wahnfrieden wrote: | in the US yeah. it takes coordinated pressure from the | working class to get reasonable-seeming laws like that | passed. when we leave our rights to corporate charity, this | is what we're left with | drstewart wrote: | You mean Japan, not the US. | | https://www.reddit.com/r/japanlife/comments/zt9ra1/why_is_i | t... | [deleted] | johnea wrote: | Micro Center RULES!!! | delusional wrote: | It's so bad that I've started to disregard any customer support | that happens as a chat. I'd rather drop and email or a support | ticket than talk to some godforsaken chatbot or wait in line | for 2 hours to talk to a human. It seems to me that the "chat | support" craze has been used as an excuse to gut customer | support teams. | johnea wrote: | This really shouldn't be a surprise. Even the outsourced | Indian human support lines, where they are required to recite | the corporate litany, and monitored to make sure they do, are | really just human shields that protect the corporation from | accountability... | ilyt wrote: | > Amazon has started selling items that aren't returnable and I | wish I could opt out of it. I got a laptop/phone bracket that | was made with some crappy, brittle plastic, but Amazon didn't | accept returns on that item. | | Every time I read shit like that I feel like EU's intrusiveness | and overreaching might in the end be worth it if it stops [1] | corporation from shit like that | | * | https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/gua... | strbean wrote: | Maybe the intrusiveness and overreaching was just fundamental | consumer protections all along. | ilyt wrote: | Oh, no, there is definitely some questionable overreach in | regulations, the most known example to the outside is | probably just how shittily the "cookie law" was written, | good intentions with law that made the intentions | irrelevant as implementation just trained users to click | the stupid button and get on with their day. | | And stuff like pushing for EVs before infrastructure is | there, all while planes are fine and dandy to run on | fucking leaded fuel... | tgv wrote: | The cookie law wasn't half as shitty as the lazy ways | companies adhere to it. But even that I'll take any day | over the time before the cookie law (which, BTW, is much | more extensive than just regulating cookies). | robotnikman wrote: | Having worked customer support as one of my first jobs, I have a | feeling a lot of people use it just to have an emotional punching | bag to take out their frustration on others, or as a buffer for | unpopular corporate policies which customers don't like. | | Corporation adds a policy that's unpopular with customers? No | worries, customer support is there to take the anger and | complaints | LarryMullins wrote: | When talking to human customer support, I'm happy to be | superficially pleasant even if I'm having a bad day with their | company, and I like when they treat me the same. Just because | one of us is having a bad day, doesn't mean we should go and | ruin the day of another person. Even if I hate their employer, | the discussion I'm having is person-to-person, not person-to- | corporation. Being superficially pleasant is a genuine courtesy | to the other person. | | But when the corporate representative is a bot, not a person, I | know the superficial pleasantness cannot be explained by one | person earnestly trying to be pleasant to another. No, in this | case the pleasantness is _wholly_ artificial and I don 't | appreciate it in the least. | cafard wrote: | Yes, I've been on the phones, and talked to one or two such | customers. | | However, chatbots are just another unpopular (result of) policy | on top of whatever else the customers are unhappy with. | joelrunyon wrote: | How soon until someone lets you | | 1) create a series of help docs | | 2) trains an AI on those help docs | | 3) solves customer headaches using a chatgpt interface with that | training | | 4) drops you into a human that can help as soon as you ask for | it. | | My primary issues with "live chat" features are | | 1) They ask you for stupid stuff (email/name/etc) when you're | logged in that are already in the system. This makes things worse | somehow. | | 2) The sheer resistance to handing me over to a human when I've | asked for it. If you don't have humans on live chat - that's | fine, but at least send it to a help desk. | | 3) The fact they try to ask me to categorize the issue vs. | semantically figuring it out via the request is extra annoying as | they will often ask you this AGAIN if they can't initially place | you in one of their pre-selected categories. | m348e912 wrote: | This is what I was going to say. Chatbots suck today but with | integration of a trained ChatGPT instance they could get | substantially better. In some cases it could even better than | first-line human support. (I am looking at you AT&T) | smegger001 wrote: | maybe, but seeing as ChaptGPT already has a habit of making | shitup when it doens't know that looks plausible but is wrong | I would be worried that it would start sending bad responses | make situations worse and not have a obvious way to escalate | to a human as its decided it has a 'solved' the problem. | SoftTalker wrote: | Issue #1 is likely because the "live chat" is a separate | product that they bought and linked on the main website, but | which is not integrated into the user database or | authentication system at all. Therefore the bot needs to ask | you for all this identifying information even though you are | already logged in. | joelrunyon wrote: | I understand that - but they should be able to sync the | databases or pass an auth token of some sort. | | The fact you have to re-enter it all makes the experience | stupid and customers frustrated. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-30 23:00 UTC)