Sometimes I find myself writing about some very obvious things - I repeat trivialities like “communicate with the client in a human language”, “build processes around the client”, “learn to solve problems” from time to time. Everything is true, but without examples, these are only formulations - vague and useless. Fortunately, personal experience threw me a wonderful case with typical client service errors. And today I’ll tell you how Velobike rightly withdrew 1000 rubles from me and did not return them unjustly. To the furnace insult and emotions - today we are learning from a bad example and we will analyze what the guys did wrong and how they should have.

You just don’t know how to cook them!
The first bell rang when a friend lamented that he had erroneously written off 100 rubles for 2 hours of skiing, to which I calmly answered - he was a fool.



For some reason, the universe became attached to this incident and decided to teach me a lesson because I am too clever.
Two days later, I took the usual route from 1905 to Arbat, parked great and saw on the screen.



The riding time showed 33 minutes - it did not fit in the free half hour :( Well, of course I’m slow, but there were 2 underground passages with steep climbs of 25 steps, and Moscow is not suitable for cyclists, even my grandchildren will probably not live up to the barrier-free environment , and in general it’s my fault ... Then I plunged into thoughts about the fate of the motherland and went to work.
Three hours later I received an SMS.



Well, I’ll arrange for them !!!
I called support. The girl clarified whether I waited for the SMS to complete the rental, advised me to wait for him next time, and promised to transfer the claim to the technical service - they’ll figure it out. To consolidate my success, I wrote a letter of support.



I had no doubts that they would return the money to me, “I’ve been in customer service for 8 years and I know how such issues are resolved,” I thought. But in Velobike they thought differently.

Error 1. Answering Machine

I was taken aback by the answer.



Clerical and copy-paste user agreement - are you serious? They dismissed me from a monstrous pattern, without a shadow of sympathy and an attempt to figure it out. Hey, we have 2016 here, now even banks do not answer like that.

So how should it be? Inability to communicate with the client in a normal language is not the worst thing that happens in a service. This can be learned. Yes, I would not be so offended, and Velobike would not be so ashamed if the response showed empathy, apologized, humanly argued for the position and politely refused to return. But this is not a solution. When there is a problem, but there is no systemic solution, such letters are obtained. Correcting here is not a text, but an approach to maintenance. What it is, we understand further.

Error 2. Deafness

I climbed to look for similar cases - you never know, I don’t read the user agreement alone - everything can be. The first Google request was issued by the Velobike VKontakte group. So so so. The guys even have a smm, so they still feel that they need to be closer to the people, and there they will help to resolve any issue. And again I did not guess. Claims like mine are a dime a dozen. And the answers transparently transmit the policy of "do not know how to read the conditions - that’s why you suffer."



So how should it be? Once - an accident, three times - already a system. If clients report the same problem, the red light should already light up and blink and the siren should howl - it’s time to stop playing negation.



So,

Complaint → recognition of the problem → search for causes → search for a solution.

The cycle must be repeated until victorious. There are complaints, the problem is on the face. The contact center, I give my hand for clipping, spends the lion's share of the time on processing precisely these claims, albeit with templates. So let's go look for reasons.

Error 3. The fence is also written.

What is written there in the conditions and where to read them at all? I’m going to the site, looking for where they mention the necessary SMS after skiing. So here, both on the main and in the tariffs section, it is written everywhere - wait for the SMS.



Why no one waits - we all wrote in Russian letters and the picture was still hung on all pages. We also send SMS 5 minutes before the end of 30 minutes of skiing!
Yes, because it is not clear that this information is important and what will be the consequences, if not done according to the instructions.

So how should it be? It is not enough to highlight red letters on the site

WAIT FOR SMS !!!

People need to explain why these actions are required of them, to show the benefits. Did I know that you need to wait for SMS? She knew, and even taught others. Why didn’t you wait? Because I did not expect that it is so important that I risk losing money and not returning it.

SMS in 5 minutes is an excellent move in the right direction. But let's be honest - who reads sms while riding? I can hardly imagine it: with one hand behind the wheel, with the other with a telephone, and not looking at the road, knocking down pedestrians? What if after 30 minutes of riding minutes send another SMS:
“Dude, time has run out for free, and you didn’t set it great, or set it, but something went wrong and we didn’t fix it. If you don’t ride anymore, check if you have blocked the bike, otherwise the money will be written off and you won’t have enough ice cream - there’s such heat in the street :) ".
And now this will remove some of the claims. Because SMS will come at the moment when the person set is great and sits at work. He will read the message without any problems and save his money.
It’s not enough to communicate what is important, make sure that you have done everything so that the client hears you.

Mistake 4. Passive aggression

I continue to fumble on the site, trying to justify Velobike. I come across Frequently Asked Questions.



Cycling bike as it hints that this is state. office, not friendly service for hipsters. No matter what the client says, the essence is still the same. So let's write two identical answers to two different questions. We will repeat the same thing, in the end he will tire of arguing and will lag behind. “You violated” - the typical tone of communication between the state and a person - accusatory, cold and arrogant. From which I want to cringe, blush and go on my own to stand in a corner with my head down. I'm stupid.



The carrot and stick method in action. Do you like to ride - ride. But just a little - you're an intruder. Thanks, at least the criminal case is not automatically opened.

So how should it be?Always proceed from the thesis that if a client doesn’t succeed, it is your fault and more than a draw. So, your service is garbage, so you couldn’t explain something, it means you didn’t train employees well, so you did not draw a map of the client’s interaction with your service. Without realizing and accepting this thought, nothing will move and in the end the company will drown in customer negativity and disappointment. Do not want to admit the jambs personally in front of the client - please, then quietly dismiss the guilty or tear off your hands and head.

Error 5. Lack of solution

After the first answer and refusal, I did not give up and wrote another letter. In it, I summarized the arguments that I now disclose in detail in this article. And she asked to transfer the message to a higher level.



Well, now a man will join in the conversation, I hoped, and we will find a solution amicably. But it turned out worse than I thought.



The soulless robot on the other side was implacable. It turned out that Velobike does not have such a concept as a “non-standard approach” in the procedures. The problem was not recognized and refused to be resolved. Instead of steaming with returns and (God forbid!) To finally fix the discrepancies in the systems, Velobike transfers responsibility to the client. It’s more convenient for them.

So how should it be?In fact, a non-standard approach should not be. The approach should just be standard, but take into account non-standard situations. The general recipe is this: to describe all possible scenarios in the process of servicing, select appropriate solutions for them and write instructions for employees “how to act if ...”. Moreover, the adequacy of the decision is determined only by the customers. If it is inadequate, you will know about it right away - remember error 2 and the chain “Complaint → recognition of the problem → search for causes → search for a solution”. There is only one reference point for you - customer convenience.

Total

1. Forget to refer to the User Agreement. Talk humanly.
2. Listen to what customers are saying and respond to the case.
3. Focus on the important. Make sure customers hear you.
4. Boldly admit mistakes - this is the only chance to correct them.
5. Start from the beginning, taking into account the needs of customers.

Here is my response to the caused moral damage :-) What would you advise Velobayku? Share your cycling stories in the comments to help the guys get good service.

UPD The
guys react, it's cool :)


UPD 2
Read the continuation about how Velobike introduced UseDesk after this publication .