David Segal’s “The Haggler” column in the 2/12/12 edition of The New York Times covered a few horror stories about U.P.S., all of which had one thing in common: a customer’s package was lost, and U.P.S.’s customer service was useless. The haggler conservatively estimated that if U.P.S. is truly exceptional at keeping track of packages (only losing 0.05%), then every day U.P.S. bungles about 8,000 deliveries.
8,000 mistakes a day means 8,000 upset, confused customers and 8,000 calls in to U.P.S. customer service. Segal spoke with one U.P.S. rep who was “extremely helpful” and several who were “pointlessly brusque”. Other customers spoke with Segal about their U.P.S. travails and had a similar ratio of helpful to useless service.
Now, I’m going to extrapolate: If only one out of several calls (let’s say 1/3) was helpful, that means U.P.S.’s error rate when it comes to these critical conversations is 67%. How could a company with an enviably low error rate for deliveries have such a high error rate when it comes to a key, memorable customer conversation that happens 8,000 times a day?
Here’s why: Apparently, U.P.S. Managers don’t consider the “hazy conjecture” and inconsiderate care their team gave Segal to be a problem. If they did, these frustrating conversations wouldn’t have happened—or, at least not 67% of the time.
Most companies simply don’t recognize the importance of customer interactions. They think that with the right software and generalized metrics, they’ve got things covered. In fact, according to a much quoted Bain & Company study, 80% of companies believe they deliver a “superior experience,” but only 8% of customers agree. In our customer service audits, we find that poorly designed surveys that result in inaccurate information are often the source of staggering gaps between executives and their customers.
What’s the solution? Because getting covered by The Haggler can’t possibly be good for business, U.P.S. needs to change its perspective. U.P.S. managers need to turn their gaze away from averages and take a closer look at their actual interactions. After all, by definition, averages obscure the details.
If we had a U.P.S. exec’s ear, we’d tell him/her that they need to study their customer interactions with fresh eyes and different metrics—metrics that more realistically capture the lived experience. If they did that, they wouldn’t have to learn the weak points of their customer experience by reading The New York Times. As always, snaps to The Haggler for giving a voice to the actual customer experience!
Well said, Martha. UPS has branded itself with “We love logistics.” Maybe it should love its customers a little more.
Agreed. While companies often forget to think from the customer’s perspective, it’s still odd. And while UPS does well, they could probably do even better if they loved their customers a little more. In this age of hypersensitive social media, excellent customer service is the smart, sustainable way to go! Martha
Thanks Martha for highlighting David Segal’s “The Haggler” column about UPS customer service. Your substantive comments are refreshing and right on target. Here’s my view;
UPS is a 20th Century heir to the Industrial Revolution with the technological and logistical ability to complete almost 16 million delivery transactions each day worldwide, while simultaneously enraging what must be a staggering (“proprietary”) number of customers – victims of the seemingly inevitable errors that arise from that volume of transactions. I’d call what they are doing the Flintstones-Jetsons Paradox, an old/modern problem whereby technological innovation far outpaces human abilities to adjust to it. They have married modern lightning fast transactions with caveman customer interactions. A company can’t anger – what seems to add up to – millions of customers a year and flourish indefinitely.
But as the 20th Century sage Yogi Berra once said “The future ain’t what it used to be”. Technological innovation can be balanced with emotional intelligence. In fact, customer interactions have become more important than transactions. There are now many innovative and effective techniques businesses can use to understand and improve their customers’ experiences. One resource I would recommend is Daniel Kahneman’s book ‘Thinking Fast and Slow – a culmination of decades of research in social psychology and behavioral economics.
Wll it’s not easy to make a customer who just lost a package happy with just a phone call. Compensation not always work to so the only solution to this problem is do less errors.
yeah customers will get benefits from this. it is great post Martha, Thanks for sharing.
The customer is ineedd always right. The way you present yourself to your customers can make or break your business. If your customers are not satisfied with YOUR service then you can kiss THEIR service goodbye! If you provide good customer service they will more than likely keep coming back and there’s nothing like having loyal customers.