I've never gotten so many deeply thoughtful emails on one topic before. Some disagreed with my conclusions, others with the premises behind them. Some took umbrage at my daring to question "the movement" as the anti-IVR folks style themselves. Most made interesting rebuttal to my points. Anyway, here are some of the letters we received. My responses to the responses follow in italics.

Dear Mr. Dawson,

I found your editorial on IVRs to be one-sided and, as such, incomplete, as perhaps an editorial is permitted to be. However, on balance, I believe that other views need to be explored.

You attribute to Paul English a subversiveness that, judging by the rest of your editorial, isn't needed in today's call center environment. Much of what you write can be ascribed to the view that you and the heads of business know what's best for the "masses." You further vilify a person's desire to deal with a fellow human being, citing that this doesn't make financial sense and that a company would lose money were it to adjust to the needs of the masses. And, you bolster your case by using weak, absolute language, such as "by bailing on every IVR you come across." Even my young daughter knows that the use of absolutes, such as every and none, is a sign of a weak argument.

The fact that you disparage the frustration of the masses by stating that they don't "faint out of frustration and despair," is to place a false view on legitimate anger experienced when dealing with a poorly designed IVR. Of course, you give yourself the "big out" by noting that some IVRs are poorly designed, but you do this with the dismissive statement that most systems are well-designed. And, who judges whether a system is well designed? Why, the very businesses and industries that benefit from the use of this technology.

I laughed out loud at your suggestion that companies that use this technology pass the cost savings onto their customers. This may make sense if you pervert logic, as was done in the banking establishment when customers were charged for having the need to speak to a human being, thus making transaction that didn't have the assistance of a human being cheaper. When a company penalizes customers for doing what they've always done, that does not translate into a cost savings to me if they force me to use technology by artificially raising the cost of human contact.

The corporations have decided that it doesn't make sense to pay an agent to handle every transaction, and I agree with that statement. In fact, I, like many customers, prefer using an automated system, such as the internet, for much of our contact with companies. I do this by choice—my choice. Creating a system that provides for self-service is not the same as demanding that all people use this system and eliminating all options. The choice must remain with the customer, with the masses. But companies don't permit that, and, therefore, a subversive such as Paul English is an important figure in what should be an on-going debate.

--Rudy Linke

Mr. Linke: I take no issue with your assessment of the force of my argument. Yes, I could have tightened my expression and my thinking a little and been less absolute. I wish I had had more than the (approximately) 800 words alloted to the space to make my point. Be that as it may, I think you choose an unfortunate example when you select banking as your counterexample. ATM machines are a perfect example of a self-service technology that's proven both more cost-effective and more customer-friendly than the previous option (teller windows). Yes, people are inherently more "friendly" than machines, but it's unreasonable to expect banks to staff teller windows at 2am, or at 7am, or at 5:30pm. Why do we make the same assumption about call centers? Why do customers expect - demand? - full service on a 24/7 basis without having to pay some price for that service? I don't say that companies should charge for 24/7 service, but where does the expectation come from? It's that sense of entitlement on the part of the customer that I find strange. The relationship between company and customer is one that's shrouded in meaningless jargon, marketing babble and pop psychology. It bears a lot more study than anyone has given it.

When you say that "creating a system that provides for self-service is not the same as demanding that all people use this system and eliminating all options" I don't think you are accurately describing the IVR environment. There is a difference between IVR poorly implemented (and in need of fixing, streamlining, etc.) and IVR that's outright hostile. I am against that which is hostile, but not willing to write off that which is broken.

While you make some interesting points, I cannot agree with you on this issue.

For one thing, many of the cost savings you mention are eaten up with monthly fees or support fees for the service, configuration issues, implementation, maintenance, and updates for the system. Additionally if there are cost savings resulting from IVR usage, more than likely those savings are generally passed up the ladder as bonuses or salaries for the management team or dividends for stock holders. I have never heard of an instance where cost savings when IVR was implemented was passed on to the customer in the form of lowered product cost, or reduced support fees. I have heard of offering customers free or low cost IVR and automated support options and then nailing them for high priced support when the automated systems did not meet their needs. It would not surprise me if some of that was by design.

However the bigger issue is the fact that when most IVR systems are implemented they make it almost impossible for a customer to reach a live person. This is also by design as once the system is in place, management usually tries to set policies to isolate themselves from the customer, falsely assuming that the automated system will be able to handle all but the most exotic issues or persistent customers and that most customers, when the system fails to address their issue, if live access is difficult enough, will eventually give up and go away. Unfortunately for the company, when the customer goes away, they are likely to go away to the competition if the competition offers an almost equal or better product along with better customer service.

When IVR systems act as filters to 'encourage' customers from speaking to a live agent they also send a message to the customer that that the company does not appreciate the customers time and that the fact that they are not easily providing a fast clear solution means little to the company. Instead they are sending a message to the customer that the customers time, effort and frustration means little to the company, now that they have the customers money for the product or service. They are also telling the customer that it is more important that the company avoids speaking to the customer to insure that the customer attempts to navigate all possible or potential automated choices and that speaking to an agent is only a last resort when all other options have failed.

The bottom line: automated systems that attempt to filter or isolate the customers from live support, ultimately deliver bad customer service.

What many companies fail to realize is that many customers actually prefer to utilize automated or IVR systems for simple questions or to access information available through automated systems, because it is either faster, impersonal, easier, more accurate, or a combination of all of these features. IVR and automated systems do have a niche and within that realm they do an excellent job.

Where they fail is when a person has an issue that they know an IVR or automated system will not be able to handle, yet they have to go through the entire tree to reach someone. Why should the have to listen to almost endless messages and be directed to solutions that fail to handle their issue quickly and correctly, building up frustration, before the system finally 'gives up' and hands the issue to a human? The harder an automated system makes it to contact a live agent, the greater is the desire for the customer to bypass the system completely and directly reach a live person.

That is where Mr. English's web site becomes a needed and most valuable asset. It gets the customer directed, past the filters, to a source of customer service that can actually address their issue. Mr. English's web site would not be necessary, popular or useful, if company's gave their customers a little credit for having a brain and common sense by providing a escape path from the automated systems to a live person, whenever the customer felt they needed it. Such a path achieves a balance between reducing costs with automated systems and providing great customer service in the way the customer wants it.

Yes, some will abuse it but the ones that don't will likely be customers for life. Besides, why can't IVR systems be designed is such a way, that when the answer is available on IVR, a trained about can transfer them directly to the appropriate queue. That trains the customer and reduces the load on live agents. However if the customer still has additional questions, they should be able to get back to a live agent. This is an example of balance between using automated systems and a live agent to provide effective and quality customer service.

If a company wants to substantially reduce its costs for customer service and support, the place to do it is in the design of the product, clearing stating and providing self help tools for warranty and returns that cover most if not all situations. By design I not only mean building quality into the product, but making it understandable and providing adequate documentation and self help info, so that the customer does not feel that they need to contact support or service.

A well designed and documented product should not require significant support or service. When companies try to save money by attempting to shortcut design, ease of use, documentation, and QA, they should expect support costs to significantly rise. Again, it is all a matter of balance.

Very little in this world is free. Sooner or later someone pays for everything. Companies can pay up front by designing support and service into the product or service before it is sold, or providing adequate support and service for the product or service after it is sold. Otherwise the customer pays - maybe not up front when they buy a cheap product or service but they will pay in loss of time, frustration, and in support and repurchase costs. The problem with the customer paying is that when the customer pays they will be always looking for a better deal from someone else otherwise known as the companies competitor.

Regards, Jim Weil

Mr. Weil: I think your arguments, well expressed as they are, fall into the trap of being too general. You make several absolutist assertions akin to this one: "when most IVR systems are implemented they make it almost impossible for a customer to reach a live person". Most? Impossible? I think that's a bit of a stretch.

I think there's an asymmetry at work in people's biases to overstate the negative at the expense of the positive (or the mediocre). When you have an experience that's unremarkable, you don't remark on it. It's forgotten, or ignored. When you have an experience that sucks, you remember it, and talk about it. That's totally natural, and I think it accounts for a lot of the absolutist talk we hear about IVR and customer experiences in general. I think there's a natural bias to want to talk about what went wrong, and to extrapolate from one's own experience to the experience of the world at large.

Mr. Dawson;

In reading your editorial, I find your thoughts and views on IVR are exactly what is wrong with providing customer care services today in many industries. While IVR has its place in customer care services, whatever happened to customer choice and the voice of the customer?? Whatever happened to the human interaction of servicing a customer because one 'elects' to speak to a person vs. a self-service interaction?? Whatever happened to the image a company conveys by a person vs. an automated attendant, IVR, self-service?? Certainly self-service alternatives can do the job but it's the individual that leaves the lasting impression.

Your editorial appears to have a primary motivation behind it in that the cost of service delivery should be minimized and this should be the priority. I say the customer should have a choice - if one so chooses to speak to a person, they should ALWAYS have that option.

In your own experiences, how many times have you had to repeat your words in a speech interaction multiple times before you finally are transferred to a live agent - or transferred at all?? Delta Airlines greatly suffered from this and now provides customer choice. How many times have you gone down the path of the menu choices in an IVR menu only to find that what you are calling about isn't quite indicated in the choices?? Citigroup last year relaunched a massive campaign to give every caller a choice in their customer service contact - you can either proceed with automated services or speak to a human being. How many call/contact centers have repatriated their call/contact centers to near-shore and on-shore because of the lack of service delivery and language related interactions in the past two years?? Quite a few have - Dell was one of the major firms.

It comes as an immense surprise to me that someone who is an editor in chief of a major Customer Care periodical would offer such an opinion. How customer care focused are you or could you be when you place $$ in front of proper and good customer experiences?? There is a good balance in cost of service delivery and the voice of the customer experience and the types of interactions - this is the message that should be pursued - not to ignore customer choice.

My background spans multiple industries in Customer Care services on a worldwide scale - from millions of contacts/calls per day to high-touch, high-end very personal services; experienced in delivery of customer services for and to major Fortune 100 companies in both 'Follow-The-Sun' models to Work-At-Home Service Delivery; and most recently in the Intelligence Sector. In each and every endeavor, I have sought to provide customer choice and that has served extremely well in delivering customer satisfaction (after all is said and done - isn't this the primary directive of customer services???). Where companies take the path you suggest, they suffer in the long run.

To close, I have always found that true customer oriented individuals/companies that have the innate quality to fully want to service customers have that 'human' touch to the services they deliver. Those companies that view their customer care departments as the 'front door' to their house for their customers/clients have the best reputations. Those that feel it is the back door in the basement have the highest challenges. Your editorial opinion, in my view, reflects the 'back door' mindset. Allow customers to have choices for service interactions and you will always find that the overall cost of service delivery goes down.

One last point - in my entire career I have never heard a word that you have created "agented". It sounds and reads awful. I have always used the term 'Mediated' Services when referencing a 'person-to-person' live interaction. I am available to have a 'Mediated' interaction with you vs. an IVR interaction most any time. If so, please do respond back and, if you wish to, we'll set up a call to discuss further.

Regards, Lawrence R. Caruso

Mr. Caruso: I believe a customer exercises a choice every time they do business. If the interaction experience is that bad, do business somewhere else. We're not Soviets here, why do we act as if business is imposing some sort of command economy on the poor customer? The customer has awesome power, and the whole point of my article was to point out the changing nature of that customer power - the ability of customers to aggregate into blocs that have real sway over companies. So why assume the position of victimhood? If service via IVR is bad, vote with your dollars and do business somewhere else. I still believe that gaming the system does raise the price of service overall. No one's been able to refute that with facts and numbers, just with yelling.

I am with you on one point: I promise not to use the term "agented" again. In return, perhaps we can get the GetHuman folk to stop referring to themselves as a "movement" - that sounds a little cultish to me.

My name is Walter Rolandi. I am a human factors psychologist who is specialized in IVR and speech technologies. I also am an advisor to the GetHuman Movement. Your recent article "Why the Masses Are Wrong About IVR" was the source of some confusion. This particular statement was especially puzzling: "Encouraging people to bail on an IVR system teaches them to do something that's not in their long term interest because it raises the overall cost of providing good service."

You seem to be saying: "Stupid customers! Better put up with the frustration and annoyance of bad IVR or it's going to cost you some money".

Am I misreading something?

Mr. Rolandi: I really don't see the equivalence between those two statements. For one thing, I'm not making value judgments about customers. They are free to try anything they might want to get better service, either as individuals or as aggregated through ventures like GetHuman.

The savvy customer who chooses to game the system by always bailing on an IVR system will win in the short term, but in the long term he'll have to wait in longer queues with everyone else when companies decide that they can't make up for the high cost of service by front-ending the calls with an IVR. I'm all for calling out bad service whenever possible and wherever found. (See my rants on AOL if you don't believe I'm serious about that.) I'm against demonizing a technology that brings both pros and cons to the customers who use it.

In response to an earlier version of the article (which appeared on this blog as part of a series on the Super Empowered Angry Customer), I received an email from Paul English.

Hi Keith, I think you misunderstand my position. Please be sure you read the actual gethuman website, including:

www.gethuman.com/why.html

www.gethuman.com/zero.html

www.gethuman.com/fishing.html

I am not so arrogant as to think that the little gethuman project will cause so many people to bypass IVR as to cause problems for others! Instead, the gethuman website is a wake-up call to industry, and provides advice DRIVEN BY CONSUMERS (not just what you industry guys think about yourselves) as to how these systems should work. I've had
personal contact with *thousands* of consumers on this issue in the past year, how many consumers have you spoken with on these topics this year?

And we rate the "good guys" too, not just the stupid companies.

I am *not* anti-IVR. I just want consumers to have a choice as when to use automation, just like we do at banks (atm vs agent), movie theatres (machine vs agent), airlines (machine vs agent), etc.

Companies can make *more* money by listening and talking with their customers. Only short-sighted stupid CEOs "don't get it", and run their call centers as "cost centers".

Btw, I know a little bit about customer service. I've run customer service groups, have designed customer support systems, and have worked with some pretty big groups, including the call center for Intuit (30mm customers).

And my little Kayak.com travel company has over 10 million customers per month, with 32 employees, yet we answer every inquiry *personally*. So I'm not just some anti-business nut.

See www.gethuman.com/kayak.html for more info.

Kind regards,

Paul

ps, I list my personal cell phone number (+1 781 648-1500) on my website www.paulenglish.com/contact.html - where on your website do you list your personal cell phone number?

Paul, my point was not to discredit you personally for lack of experience, but to use you as an example of the super empowered angry customer who makes use of the modern tools to aggregate discontent. I'm going to make that clearer in my posts.

And no, I do not put my personal cell phone number out there. That's just silly.