IT Support Pro Tells Why He Hates Live Chat 228
colinneagle writes "When someone calls into support, we first verify his or her account information. On the phone, this can take seconds. On a chat feature it can take a minute or two because people type slower than they speak. I also find that when people type in a chat they try to make the process go quicker by abbreviating the conversation. This means they might not give me all the information they would have if we were talking on the phone. The more descriptive a customer is about a problem, the easier and faster it will be to solve their issue. But the nature of a chat feature means people will abbreviate their stories to be more efficient, without realizing this just makes it more difficult to solve the problem. I end up asking more questions, which takes longer for the full story to come out. Explaining how to fix a problem can be difficult on the phone, but on a chat feature where I can't see your screen and likely have less information to work with, it can make it impossible to tackle a complex issue. It would be much more efficient for both me and the customer to talk on the phone so I can walk the customer through the steps I am taking."
The user is saving his time - not yours (Score:5, Informative)
Users can multitask during a text chat session, and the support staff can sit and wait while the user looks up their account code, or what ever.
The user doesn't have to put up with surly condescending attitude on a chat call.
The user doesn't have to put up with poor language skills or a heavy accent, or a shitty phone connection.
The user doesn't have to give out a telephone number, and be monitored and recorded for quality control purposes.
Chat sessions aren't something users were pressing for, they are an invention of the service organizations to cut costs.
If those organizations find they don't like them, I'm sure they could hire some competent English speaking help and actually teach them something more than reading through a solution tree in a book for a product they have never laid eyes on, while ignoring every thing the user is saying.
Especially when these solution trees invariably end with some stupid advice "like factory reset your device" thereby wiping out weeks if not months of work.
Also, people tend to think while typing, and questions are actually more well though out.
A stead stream of verbal "um, ah, like, seedimsayin?, I mean, Huh? Where? How do I do that? Wait while I find a pencile" etc. etc. etc. is not an efficiency model I like to engage in. Neither is explaining the problem to 4 consecutive flack catchers before finally finding someone who as even the shadow of a clue.
So, the service industry made this bed, they can damn well sleep in it. You built it, you fix it.
you just described the agent (Score:5, Informative)
I've never had any "live chat" calls where the agent was swift at responding, asking the right question, using the information I just typed or not helping at least 3 other people (they admitted that nonsense answers/requests from them were supposed to be typed in another customers window) or even fast at typing.
Bottom line is, either be good at your work and like it, or go flip burgers. Being an "IT Support Pro" isn't for everybody and if you blame your problems on the user, you don't have the right attitude. I know I just described 95% of the help desk staffers, but that is the sad truth, it's a dirty job and good staff is hard to find for that.
Re:Is this a journal entry? (Score:4, Informative)
I could rant all day about how terrible phone-based chat is - having worked on a tech support line - and how often people assume that just because you're on the phone to them you can magically see what's on their screen. How reading from a list of required questions (ie, to figure out what system they're running) exasperates people who expect you to already know this because they've been on your site/using your application and they MUST have entered their own phone number for a reason, if it's not to identify who you are when you phone for help then what's it for?
I certainly wouldn't submit it as a /. article though.
I'd probably leave it as a comment.
Re:Opposite experience (Score:5, Informative)
I have good experiences from both ends. But that required a login system where identification is already handled. When the customer is logged in, the chat presents all the details the tech needs. Free for all chat is only useful for sales, and shouldn't be used for tech-support.
Re:Opposite experience (Score:3, Informative)
I too have had the opposte experience. Fed up of having to call to premium rate phone number and being on hold for 10 minutes before getting someone who can barely speak English, asks me to repeat my name several times, etc, I now see these support phone numbers as another way for the company to make money. I've started using the web chat whenever possible now, and my experience has been great.
Same Here (Score:4, Informative)
I've never actually been on the "support staff" of a live chat feature, but at my client, their live chat support thingy collects all kinds of important information about the user (browser/OS/cookies/login/session/IP/godknowswhatelse). Saves the user from having to type all that in and saves the support tech from having to explain where to find it all.
On the customer end, I really like the live chat support because then I can continue what I was doing while the CSR researches whatever it is that needs researching and I don't have a phone glued to my ear.