Every year we look forward to one of the most fascinating data dumps the call center industry produces -- the Global Contact Center Benchmarking Report, published by Dimension Data.

I don't know if I agree with either side of the whole Gethuman mess. Both sides make many assumptions. Callers assume the worst in call centers, and call centers assume callers are both dumb and anti-automation.

Here's Frost & Sullivan's Ian Jacobs, writing for Destination CRM:

Gethuman gets it wrong with its very first core principle, which the organization sums up this way: "Humans first--in cases where a human is available, a human should quickly answer the call and determine the caller's need." While this egalitarian vision might sound sensible from a consumer's perspective, companies must be able to prioritize service: The most valuable customers should receive first crack at a knowledgeable live agent; less valuable customers should wait--in other words, stratify customers and provide varying levels of service to them based on their differences. In fact, companies should keep some agent availability in reserve, even if this means that less valuable customers must wait longer or deal with an IVR, due to the possibility that the most valuable customers will call in.

Instead of looking at it from an important customer vs. insignificant customer point of view, why not look at it as a matter of automating the simple and agenting the complex? Customers with simple requests can do it via touch-tone or speech rec IVR. Customers with complex issues can talk to an agent.

I think the answer lies somewhere in between what Paul English and Gethuman are advocating and what Ian Jacobs argues.

Gethuman's platform assumes people know what they need and ought to be able to get it directly. They assume that call centers are out to save money by preventing callers from reaching costly agents.

Ian Jacobs and others may be assuming that callers are reflexibly avoiding automated systems out of bitterness over corporate cost-saving measures.

It's neither. Well-designed systems will give almost all callers what they need, when they need it, with reasonable wait times.

If I call DirecTV to order a movie or a special program, or to change my viewing package, I don't need to talk to a person. An automated speech system will do, and it will do it quickly. If I have a question about my bill, chances are I'll want to talk to an agent, if only for some reassurance, no matter what.

If I call the US Postal Service to find a zip code or check on a package, the IVR will be helpful. If I need to report a mailman who fails to deliver packages and mangles and disappears magazines (yes, true story), I need to speak to an agent.

But if a call center screws this up and frustrates me from the start, no good will come. It's one thing to intelligently route a call to the correct agent or knowledge base item. It's another thing entirely to leave out obvious options like "I have a question about my bill."

Treating us equally well is more important than treating us all equally. We don't all have the same needs, but we all need the same respect.

If those platitudes don't sway all the call center managers out there, there's a threat lurking in the blogosphere that may carry more weight: Please, treat all of us well, because any of us could be a Jeff Jarvis or maybe the girlfriend of Cory Doctorow (a co-editor of Boing Boing, one of the biggest blogs on the Web).

Read Ian Jacobs' article here.

Once upon a time, the practice of running a call center was an offshoot of telecom. The managers in charge of day to day operation had their experience firmly rooted in the world of the call, its routing, distribution and tracking.