How many times has a chatbot successfully taken care of a customer support problem you had? I have had success, but the success rate is less than 5%. Maybe even way less than 5%.
Companies need to stop looking at customer support as an expense, but rather as an opportunity to build trust and strengthen your business relationship. They warn against assessing someone when everything is going well for them - the true measure of the person is what they do when things are not going well. It's the same for companies. When your customers are experiencing problems, that's the time to shine! It's not a problem, it's an opportunity.
The few times I've let a company sucker me into engaging with a chatbot, it was nothing but a worse interface to searching their support website. It was capable of nothing but directing me to pages which could not help me, because what I needed was not more information about the problem I already knew I had, but someone to fix the damn problem.
This doesn’t work for technical people, but it works for the other 90% of people who’d rather call and waste not only support’s time, but their own time even if their problem can be resolved by common sense or the first page of the knowledge base.
Companies need to offer an “advanced support” option - a separate number with big scary warnings where every call whose resolution is due to your own fault or something findable on the docs ends up charging the user a fee. In exchange, it directly bypasses all chatbots and first-line support.
I’ve never heard an argument why companies don’t do that, it seems like it would be a win-win for everyone to get the customers to self-triage before reaching out.
Sometimes there will be a loop that's tough to break out of where the "Contact us" tells you to talk to a chat bot before putting in a ticket or showing you a phone number, and the bot won't be able to help but will spit you out to the page that tells you to talk to the chat bot rather than give you info for actual support until you find the special event chain that leads it to let you talk to people, or attempt to.
xfinity is absolutely lousy for this. at least with a human representative, i can let them know right out of the gate that, yes, i've power cycled my CPE, and yes, i've bypassed my own network to confirm the problem is not with my equipment. every single time i've had to go through this dance, they acknowledge that the problem is on their end and can fix it right away or put in a work order. every time i've had to interact with a chatbot, it wastes 15 minutes of my time before directing me to call (and deal with an audio chatbot until i convince it to let me talk to a person).
I'm currently working on adding a bot to our support chat at TalkJS. And it's great, it has probably a 90% success rate at handling complex queries. But that's because we're throwing money at it. That chat is normally staffed by senior devs, meaning it's not unusual for a single response to cost $10 of labour.
If you approach it as a cost cutting exercise, you end up with crap. If you approach it as a way to make a better experience while you sleep, it's achievable.
If you're not treating it as a cost cutting exercise, how much are you spending per query on the chatbot, and what is that $10 budget per query going towards?
Can you give some examples of complex queries that it's handled?
The only time a chatbot worked for me is Amazon's, of all things. It auto approved my return after I answered a few questions.
I haven't had any chatbot outside that be useful to me. I always end up getting to the end of all the prompts only to be told I need to speak to a human or the chatbot going in a circle, in which I have to reach out to a different layer of support.
I think that's partially because Amazon returns are the most happy path support interaction I've ever seen. They basically always grant the refund/return (in my experience if it's soonish after purchase) and it's mostly about gathering the info to get it going rather than actually resolving an issue. The main decision on Amazon's side seems to be if they want you to bother sending the item back or not.
I was about to say the same thing. Amazon pretty much nailed it, at least for simple, straightforward "happy path" returns and refunds. I was actually kind of shocked after the "chatbot" conversation, sitting there thinking "Really, that's it and we're done?" and sure enough the money was refunded!
> I always end up getting to the end of all the prompts only to be told I need to speak to a human or the chatbot going in a circle
I've had success with just repeating "Agent please" or "I wanna talk to human" if I notice the chat bot isn't a traditional conditional-if-else-bot but an LLM, and it seems like most of them have some sort of escape-hatch they can trigger, but they're prompted to really avoid it. But if you continue sending "Agent please" over and over again, eventually it seems like the typical context-rot prevents them from avoiding the escape-hatch, and they send you along to a real human.
the last time i tried this i got pretty far then it switched to a human and i had to provide all the same information again. and then the person ghosted me.
My last experience with a chatbot wasn't terrible. It asked me all the relevant information about the problem, even follow up questions, and all required reference numbers, and then passed me off to a human support person.
A human would have done the same thing but it would be a waste of time for them.
It was actually nice that I wasn't stuck in chatbot hell, I didn't have to ask for human, it just did it at the right moment.
Preach. Shout out to the be/st bank in Germany, Commerzbank. They advertise being reachable 24h a day[1] but all day you gotta go through a chatbot first and beyond core hours there isn't a human at the end of the line. Worse, they don't tell you what their actual core hours are so if you are calling at, say, 9:00, you could be suckered into waiting on the line for the next hour for an actual human agent. You could call 16:01 on a Friday not realizing that the next opportunity to talk to a human agent is at 10:00 the next Monday.
Okay, the last one is a stretch but people worried about their money are desperate. Not to go all radical all of a sudden here but fact of the matter is banks hold a lot of power over your average guy. The least that they could do is show some respect for your time.
Commerzbank seems like a distillate of everything that is wrong with German bureaucracy and business culture. I have an account with them, but only because I can't figure out how to sell ~€500 of stock and shut it down.
I've had bad luck. Most of it very frustrating where the bot obviously doesn't understand anything.
My best luck with a chat bot was ironically only because of HN.
I was to complaining about amazon's chat bot (it would send me in an infinite loop of directions) and someone who worked at Amazon on HN told me that there were multiple chat bots, and they told me the right one use (I had to click a different link on the amazon webpage than I was clicking).
That one worked ... it took some engineer on HN to make me understand how to make it work.
I had a joint account with an ex who now lives abroad and I no longer have contact with.
I talked to the bank and there was no way to close the account without both of us present.
Recently they released a chat bot on their app and so I asked it to close the account and the bot did it for me! That's the best success I've had with a CS bot.
Possibly the policy changed in the mean-time or the lack of activity in the account for several years allowed it to happen (though the humans never told me after x years of inactivity I'd be able to close it)
> Recently they released a chat bot on their app and so I asked it to close the account and the bot did it for me!
Have you filed a support ticket for that? It's clearly a bug. It should have forced you to call an agent so they could upsell you on a premium service. /s
Success rate depends on many factors (risk of failure, your value to the business, complexity of the ask), but it's definitely on average much higher than 5% (I sell this technology and look at the results many times a day).
> Companies need to stop looking at customer support as an expense, but rather as an opportunity to build trust and strengthen your business relationship.
This is bang on. But unfortunately many companies have top down mandates to drive costs down (without backstops for LTV retention) and they look at top line growth as separate from OpEx. It's weird and broken, but it's a side effect of the common organizational structure of most enterprises. There are companies that do not look at themselves divisionally as CX, Sales, Product, Marketing etc. and the ones I can think of do have very high NPS (apple comes to mind).
>but it's definitely on average much higher than 5% (I sell this technology and look at the results many times a day)
I think you'd have a very hard time accurately estimating a true success rate because of the number of people who will just bounce off and give up after a maybe successful response. There's no real way to know whether the response really solved their problem other than doing surveys. But survey responders aren't a random sample.
I bet chatbots are very successful when measuring how much the interaction costs, which seems to be what most companies are measuring when it comes to customer support. The problem is that it's very easy to measure cost (how many person-minutes did it take and what's your hourly cost for support agents, or how much API usage did it take for the bot?) and very hard to measure any outcome the customer actually cares about. Fix this misaligned incentive and the rest will follow naturally, but that requires treating support as a facilitator for the rest of the business rather than as a pure cost center that needs to be minimized.
I'm literally trying to give them tens of thousands of dollars...I dunno why I bothered even engaging with it, I hoped it would end up taking a report or something, but it doesn't, it just wastes my time.
I remember the pre-AI Geico chat bot that I liked. I could call it once every six months and pay my entire balance with a few words. But then the company started leaning harder on monthly payments and the "pay entire balance" option was removed and I now must either laboriously speak-out the entire dollars and cents due or talk to a person.
What is to say that a lot of the functions that a customer service person does is getting people things they need and that the company resists giving to them. Which is to say that companies mostly need customer service agents because the company's raw impulses are so shitty they need someone with the slight independence of a customer service agent just to provide the services their customers need.
It's like why I never go to company websites despite being very web-savy. These websites only serve the company's idea of what I get and if I'm calling at all, it's because I need more than that.
Naturally, the point is an AI chat can't do customer service because it can't override policy, tell people tricks and similar things.
> I remember the pre-AI Geico chat bot that I liked. I could call it once every six months and pay my entire balance with a few words.
That still sounds like a bot fulfilling a function that should be solved by making the product better. This could have been either 1) an autopay requiring zero interaction, or 2) if you don't want to autopay, a form you can click "pay" on.
I had a chatbot attempt to answer an issue I had with setting up a Shopify site yesterday. All of the information was correct, but I had already done it. A customer support rep was able to retrigger the TLS query. The chatbot knew that needed to be done, but couldn't actually do it. It suggested ways of doing it which didn't exist in the UI, which was even more frustrating
I've gotten pointed to documentation I never would have found and I doubt a human would have found. I've had returns immediately processed rather than waiting 2 days for a RMA to show up in my email. I had a subscription rate lowered (my desired outcome) when I tried to cancel a service. And I've had a software bug escalated to the appropriate team within a couple of minutes. And all these interactions were probably 10x faster, at least, than they would have been with a human.
I love chatbots for customer service. Not because they save the company money, but because they seem to save me a ton of time (no more 20 minutes of hold, followed by being put on hold for 10 minutes multiple times), and they seem to follow policies more "objectively", and they escalate easily whenever they can't handle something. It just seems like more reliable and faster outcomes for "normal" support, and then you still get a real agent for more complicated situations.
I'm curious - whose chatbots do you find useful? Clearly these are the bots us HNers should be looking at as an example for what we should be building.
My bank started to use an ai chatbot and it seems impossible to bypass... i mean sorry to bother you about all of my money that you have... what do you think is your job here in our relationship?
Drives me nuts.
But switching banks is just too much of a hassle for me currently.
I miss the times when companies were building their brands on trust and honor. I remember calling HP support because I bought a monitor that was probably lying in a warehouse somewhere, and it had some "stain" on the screen. It still had 9 of 36 months of warranty. HP sent a fedex WITH the new monitor and they replaced the old one. Best support ever!
It is consistently worse than a google search with a site: set to their website. My best interactions have been with ones that were slightly less annoying than a phone-tree to get to a CS rep.
Most of the companies where I've had first hand experience test customer experience in the aggregate, ie NPS and similar. Part of this is scale, but a big part is also CS is viewed as a cost center and it's a rare individual who does what you're suggesting. There's also seldom any sorry if pay off for making that one customer incredibly happy, CS people are not usually tested very well by anyone
That actually sounds like a good use case. I always wondered how support departments tracked frequent issues, beyond ye olde drop-down menu of previously categorized reasons for contact. I guess it's something people use RAGs for nowadays?
The only positive experience I've had with a chatbot was functionally not a chatbot, but rather a form I needed to fill out, but which was done in a chat style, presumably to be more user friendly. It wasn't bad, per se, but a normal form would have been better, but it wouldn't surprise me if this style of form-filling does generate less tickets than the normal approach, since it doesn't dump 10 fields the user needs to fill in all at once, but rather staggers them and give you one at a time. Even if half the things you need to fill in are 'full name' and 'date of birth' and the like, many people have a very low tolerance for overload when it comes to these things, and I don't think there's a good solution to that.
It's a similar problem to how power users only get in touch with support when all other options have been exhausted, and then get annoyed when they have to go through the motions and try everything again, knowing it won't work, which it then doesn't, and only after half an hour of dicking about can support actually do what they need to do. The problem is that Average Joe almost certainly hasn't exhausted every option, and it's even fairly likely that they went to call as their first option over anything else. The only difference now is that a chatbot is now available as first line of defence that doesn't take up the time of an actual human, rather than that being the phone, which very often will need a human on the other end, at least at some point. The chatbot doesn't even need to be good to pay itself back, so long as it solves some problems that then prevent some support calls, since human time is expensive.
We need that XKCD shibboleth or something to fix that, but even that is open for abuse, so I don't think there's an actual solution to be had.
>Companies need to stop looking at customer support as an expense, but rather as an opportunity to build trust and strengthen your business relationship.
As someone that's worked in basically a service industry my entire life, good luck with this. I don't disagree, I'm just old enough to understand the world that humans build, and this type of long-term approach is dead in the current "Profits over all" culture of the US.
While I generally agree with you on the consumer side, I have the opposite experience in selling Business-to-Business solutions.
I’ve worked for small firms selling software to libraries (public and university systems), enterprise managed security services (think anti-Phishing operations), and now in managed medical claims for niche practices.
In all cases, our firm has had the customer-first philosophy to make them love us. Provide rapid responses and quality outcomes, regardless of perceived cost-center metrics. That has always, in my experience, resulted in an easy contract renewal or even having fans of ours jump to a new job at a new firm and buy our product at their new job.
Turns out people aren’t as fickle and price sensitive and still highly value good service, at least when they’re spending the companies money and not their own.
I had to use an Amazon chatbot a few weeks ago. It introduced itself as "Deepshikha". After that facepalm, I started down the path with its various preferred responses to get a refund on an item I bought that never arrived, had no tracking information, and was almost certainly a scam by a third-party seller. I eventually, after a few tries, selected the right combination of things to get the refund processed. But the chatbot wasn't helpful, it didn't make any decisions, and it simply served as a filter for scam refund requests.
I guarantee you that some middle-management PM and some VP at Amazon counted that interaction as a success. I'm sure that's how it ended up on their quarterly graphs and charts. After all, the customer (me) got what they wanted and the right decision was made. And, !bonus!, it used "AI", reduces cost, and had low latency. Raises and promotions are almost certainly incoming!
But the experience was abysmal and insulting, contibuting to the ongoing ensh*ttification of the Amazon experience.
I had an experience recently where the chatbot gathered details about my problem, but then referred me to a knowledgebase article. I just replied "human" and it connected me with a human, but the AI must have given them a detailed summary, because they joined the chat, said "I understand the issue, let me see what I can do," and then two minutes later, said "I went ahead and fixed that for you on the backend."
One way to look at that anecdote is "the AI failed." Another way is "the AI made the human agent about 100% more efficient." I'm pretty sure CS agents don't love gathering basic info.
Its slightly more useful than a static "choose this number to direct you to X".
What really grinds my gears is when they pass the bot off as a human. inevitably you discover its not and thats almost always right about the same time you realize that they cant help you. I would rather not have wasted my time and been told up front "sorry we dont have anyone available to help you right now"
This is mentioned a lot, but it's still true - people on HN are not representative of the majority of users for customer support.
The majority of support tickets are repetitive and answered by a simple formula the representative churns without thinking. Which is likely easily replaceable by chatbots.
>The majority of support tickets are repetitive and answered by a simple formula the representative churns without thinking. Which is likely easily replaceable by chatbots.
I think a large fraction of those repetitive requests are covering up gaps in the customer portal/whatever by doing data entry the customer could be doing.
Like "if you need your address changed call support" type stuff.
It will be interesting to see how this evolves over time though. As the older generation of folks who generally don't even understand what having an account means on websites exit the customer pool the purpose of support tools could significantly change.
> Now, CBA has apologized to the fired workers. A spokesperson told Bloomberg that they can choose to come back to their prior roles, seek another position, or leave the firm with an exit payment.
So no real consequences to the Bank for these underhanded tactics, since this just returns everything back to status quo before the layoffs, perhaps with reduced overall headcount as some workers choose not to return and take the exit payment instead, but surely the numbers still worked well enough that they will do it again but be more crafty about it so they don't lose the appeal.
True, but the union protected its workers from those at the bank. That is the value in the union. In jurisdictions without a union or parity labor policy, these workers would have no recourse for this fraud and the lies.
Absolutely! The union did great. My comment is more about, what is stopping the Bank from doing this again? Because there doesn't really seem to be a downside to attempting it. When they lose, they just have to give everyone their job back, but probably end up ahead due to attrition
The best the union can manage here probably is to be less conciliatory the next time contract negotiations come up.
Oh you want us to take it easy on you with the raise %? Remember that time you fired all of us for no good reason? Yeah our bank accounts still have a hole we're gonna fill up now. Nice try.
""a reduction in call volumes" by 2,000 a week" means people aren't calling in as much. How many problems people have per day is roughly constant, so the only change in how many calls they get is entirely dependent on how much people expect calling in is going to fix their problems. So a reduction in call volume means they're not fixing as many problems which means customers are less satisfied
“ The union took CBA to the workplace relations tribunal earlier this month as the company wasn’t being transparent about call volumes, according to a statement Thursday from the Finance Sector Union. The nation’s largest lender had said that the voice bot reduced call volumes by 2,000 a week, when union members said volumes were in fact rising and CBA had to offer staff overtime and direct team leaders to answer calls, the union said.”
This was my read of this as well! What a stupid metric. The first thing I thought when I read that was "Yeah, that's probably because people stopped calling and started looking for another bank."
That'll be what I'll do if my bank starts replacing people with AI. Take my money out and go somewhere that isn't trash.
> The union also alleged that CBA was hiring for similar roles in India, Bloomberg noted, which made it appear that CBA had perhaps used the chatbot to cover up a shady pivot to outsource jobs.
A lot of the linkedIn style "we did X with AI and saved Y" stories seem exceptionally vague and maybe entirely made up.
It makes sense that some companies will be foolish enough to believe and to pull the trigger.
Everyone involved in that decision should be the ones fired. It seems entirely avoidable with some basic testing of the chatbot while still employing these people.
> redundant. At that time, CBA claimed that launching the chatbot supposedly "led to a reduction in call volumes" by 2,000 a week, FSU said.
Yeah it is reduced because as soon as someone calls they're trapped in a 30 minute "I'm sorry I didn't understand, what can I help you with" And people just give up and decide, maybe the $20 ATM fee isn't worth contesting...
Then again, this means the bank may be saving money too.
I don't begin to understand why the bank should have to "justify" its decision to replace workers with AI in the first place. Maybe it works better? Maybe it's worse? Who cares? Shareholders bear the risk of getting it wrong, and can fire management if they think they aren't doing a good job of getting it right.
If the humans are in fact more expensive than the chatbots, it's not like the shareholders just say "oh, ok, I guess we'll just take lower compensation for slightly more risk". Instead, they'll pressure management to pass the higher cost on to the customer.
If you want to "protect workers" by making sure they get paid x amount regardless of whether they're the most efficient way to achieve y goal, why not just do that through taxes? You're basically taxing bank shareholders and subsidizing employees, but with a lot of extra steps. Plus, the employees have to actually show up to work every day, which I understand can be kind of a drag.
Lot of companies want to do drive down costs. This often falls on departments which are not "bringing in revenue". That means in this era of AI lot of back office operations are the first on the chopping block. Executives often don't care for consequences of cutting back office operations.
Customer support has been the biggest target for a long time. Companies care only about revenue and people signing up. After that unless you are giving them more business they stop caring. They figure - best case they frustrate you enough that you leave them alone or bad case - they refund you and worst case - they give you a gift coupon.
With that mind, AI chatbots are the best solution. Intentionally make it difficult to solve the issue and then even if you reach human support - they have the old scripts. That means now companies ability to frustrate-out a customer is now supercharged.
Readit News
Companies need to stop looking at customer support as an expense, but rather as an opportunity to build trust and strengthen your business relationship. They warn against assessing someone when everything is going well for them - the true measure of the person is what they do when things are not going well. It's the same for companies. When your customers are experiencing problems, that's the time to shine! It's not a problem, it's an opportunity.
Companies need to offer an “advanced support” option - a separate number with big scary warnings where every call whose resolution is due to your own fault or something findable on the docs ends up charging the user a fee. In exchange, it directly bypasses all chatbots and first-line support.
I’ve never heard an argument why companies don’t do that, it seems like it would be a win-win for everyone to get the customers to self-triage before reaching out.
If you approach it as a cost cutting exercise, you end up with crap. If you approach it as a way to make a better experience while you sleep, it's achievable.
Can you give some examples of complex queries that it's handled?
I haven't had any chatbot outside that be useful to me. I always end up getting to the end of all the prompts only to be told I need to speak to a human or the chatbot going in a circle, in which I have to reach out to a different layer of support.
I've had success with just repeating "Agent please" or "I wanna talk to human" if I notice the chat bot isn't a traditional conditional-if-else-bot but an LLM, and it seems like most of them have some sort of escape-hatch they can trigger, but they're prompted to really avoid it. But if you continue sending "Agent please" over and over again, eventually it seems like the typical context-rot prevents them from avoiding the escape-hatch, and they send you along to a real human.
I think I used to just type in my problem into a text box and press send like an email.
A human would have done the same thing but it would be a waste of time for them.
It was actually nice that I wasn't stuck in chatbot hell, I didn't have to ask for human, it just did it at the right moment.
Just good the company knows a chatbot can not actually handle anything beyond taking some data.
Okay, the last one is a stretch but people worried about their money are desperate. Not to go all radical all of a sudden here but fact of the matter is banks hold a lot of power over your average guy. The least that they could do is show some respect for your time.
[1] See: https://web.archive.org/web/20250617083138/https://www.comme... and even the actual page as of this writing.
My best luck with a chat bot was ironically only because of HN.
I was to complaining about amazon's chat bot (it would send me in an infinite loop of directions) and someone who worked at Amazon on HN told me that there were multiple chat bots, and they told me the right one use (I had to click a different link on the amazon webpage than I was clicking).
That one worked ... it took some engineer on HN to make me understand how to make it work.
I talked to the bank and there was no way to close the account without both of us present.
Recently they released a chat bot on their app and so I asked it to close the account and the bot did it for me! That's the best success I've had with a CS bot.
Possibly the policy changed in the mean-time or the lack of activity in the account for several years allowed it to happen (though the humans never told me after x years of inactivity I'd be able to close it)
Have you filed a support ticket for that? It's clearly a bug. It should have forced you to call an agent so they could upsell you on a premium service. /s
> Companies need to stop looking at customer support as an expense, but rather as an opportunity to build trust and strengthen your business relationship.
This is bang on. But unfortunately many companies have top down mandates to drive costs down (without backstops for LTV retention) and they look at top line growth as separate from OpEx. It's weird and broken, but it's a side effect of the common organizational structure of most enterprises. There are companies that do not look at themselves divisionally as CX, Sales, Product, Marketing etc. and the ones I can think of do have very high NPS (apple comes to mind).
I think you'd have a very hard time accurately estimating a true success rate because of the number of people who will just bounce off and give up after a maybe successful response. There's no real way to know whether the response really solved their problem other than doing surveys. But survey responders aren't a random sample.
I'm literally trying to give them tens of thousands of dollars...I dunno why I bothered even engaging with it, I hoped it would end up taking a report or something, but it doesn't, it just wastes my time.
What is to say that a lot of the functions that a customer service person does is getting people things they need and that the company resists giving to them. Which is to say that companies mostly need customer service agents because the company's raw impulses are so shitty they need someone with the slight independence of a customer service agent just to provide the services their customers need.
It's like why I never go to company websites despite being very web-savy. These websites only serve the company's idea of what I get and if I'm calling at all, it's because I need more than that.
Naturally, the point is an AI chat can't do customer service because it can't override policy, tell people tricks and similar things.
That still sounds like a bot fulfilling a function that should be solved by making the product better. This could have been either 1) an autopay requiring zero interaction, or 2) if you don't want to autopay, a form you can click "pay" on.
I've gotten pointed to documentation I never would have found and I doubt a human would have found. I've had returns immediately processed rather than waiting 2 days for a RMA to show up in my email. I had a subscription rate lowered (my desired outcome) when I tried to cancel a service. And I've had a software bug escalated to the appropriate team within a couple of minutes. And all these interactions were probably 10x faster, at least, than they would have been with a human.
I love chatbots for customer service. Not because they save the company money, but because they seem to save me a ton of time (no more 20 minutes of hold, followed by being put on hold for 10 minutes multiple times), and they seem to follow policies more "objectively", and they escalate easily whenever they can't handle something. It just seems like more reliable and faster outcomes for "normal" support, and then you still get a real agent for more complicated situations.
But switching banks is just too much of a hassle for me currently.
I'm pretty sure it's at least once for me, and I think I know a couple people where it's more like 3.
It's a similar problem to how power users only get in touch with support when all other options have been exhausted, and then get annoyed when they have to go through the motions and try everything again, knowing it won't work, which it then doesn't, and only after half an hour of dicking about can support actually do what they need to do. The problem is that Average Joe almost certainly hasn't exhausted every option, and it's even fairly likely that they went to call as their first option over anything else. The only difference now is that a chatbot is now available as first line of defence that doesn't take up the time of an actual human, rather than that being the phone, which very often will need a human on the other end, at least at some point. The chatbot doesn't even need to be good to pay itself back, so long as it solves some problems that then prevent some support calls, since human time is expensive.
We need that XKCD shibboleth or something to fix that, but even that is open for abuse, so I don't think there's an actual solution to be had.
As someone that's worked in basically a service industry my entire life, good luck with this. I don't disagree, I'm just old enough to understand the world that humans build, and this type of long-term approach is dead in the current "Profits over all" culture of the US.
I’ve worked for small firms selling software to libraries (public and university systems), enterprise managed security services (think anti-Phishing operations), and now in managed medical claims for niche practices.
In all cases, our firm has had the customer-first philosophy to make them love us. Provide rapid responses and quality outcomes, regardless of perceived cost-center metrics. That has always, in my experience, resulted in an easy contract renewal or even having fans of ours jump to a new job at a new firm and buy our product at their new job.
Turns out people aren’t as fickle and price sensitive and still highly value good service, at least when they’re spending the companies money and not their own.
Its not just the US - I think its pretty much the norm in the west now. Things like family owned businesses take a longer term view sometimes.
I had to use an Amazon chatbot a few weeks ago. It introduced itself as "Deepshikha". After that facepalm, I started down the path with its various preferred responses to get a refund on an item I bought that never arrived, had no tracking information, and was almost certainly a scam by a third-party seller. I eventually, after a few tries, selected the right combination of things to get the refund processed. But the chatbot wasn't helpful, it didn't make any decisions, and it simply served as a filter for scam refund requests.
I guarantee you that some middle-management PM and some VP at Amazon counted that interaction as a success. I'm sure that's how it ended up on their quarterly graphs and charts. After all, the customer (me) got what they wanted and the right decision was made. And, !bonus!, it used "AI", reduces cost, and had low latency. Raises and promotions are almost certainly incoming!
But the experience was abysmal and insulting, contibuting to the ongoing ensh*ttification of the Amazon experience.
One way to look at that anecdote is "the AI failed." Another way is "the AI made the human agent about 100% more efficient." I'm pretty sure CS agents don't love gathering basic info.
What really grinds my gears is when they pass the bot off as a human. inevitably you discover its not and thats almost always right about the same time you realize that they cant help you. I would rather not have wasted my time and been told up front "sorry we dont have anyone available to help you right now"
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
The majority of support tickets are repetitive and answered by a simple formula the representative churns without thinking. Which is likely easily replaceable by chatbots.
I think a large fraction of those repetitive requests are covering up gaps in the customer portal/whatever by doing data entry the customer could be doing.
Like "if you need your address changed call support" type stuff.
So no real consequences to the Bank for these underhanded tactics, since this just returns everything back to status quo before the layoffs, perhaps with reduced overall headcount as some workers choose not to return and take the exit payment instead, but surely the numbers still worked well enough that they will do it again but be more crafty about it so they don't lose the appeal.
Oh you want us to take it easy on you with the raise %? Remember that time you fired all of us for no good reason? Yeah our bank accounts still have a hole we're gonna fill up now. Nice try.
“ The union took CBA to the workplace relations tribunal earlier this month as the company wasn’t being transparent about call volumes, according to a statement Thursday from the Finance Sector Union. The nation’s largest lender had said that the voice bot reduced call volumes by 2,000 a week, when union members said volumes were in fact rising and CBA had to offer staff overtime and direct team leaders to answer calls, the union said.”
That'll be what I'll do if my bank starts replacing people with AI. Take my money out and go somewhere that isn't trash.
It makes sense that some companies will be foolish enough to believe and to pull the trigger.
Everyone involved in that decision should be the ones fired. It seems entirely avoidable with some basic testing of the chatbot while still employing these people.
Yeah it is reduced because as soon as someone calls they're trapped in a 30 minute "I'm sorry I didn't understand, what can I help you with" And people just give up and decide, maybe the $20 ATM fee isn't worth contesting...
Then again, this means the bank may be saving money too.
I'm sure in some board room some exec is bragging about its smashing success rate.
If the humans are in fact more expensive than the chatbots, it's not like the shareholders just say "oh, ok, I guess we'll just take lower compensation for slightly more risk". Instead, they'll pressure management to pass the higher cost on to the customer.
If you want to "protect workers" by making sure they get paid x amount regardless of whether they're the most efficient way to achieve y goal, why not just do that through taxes? You're basically taxing bank shareholders and subsidizing employees, but with a lot of extra steps. Plus, the employees have to actually show up to work every day, which I understand can be kind of a drag.
Because the workers belong to a union, and in Australia unions have the statutory right to contest mass layoff actions at a tribunal.
Not everywhere is so weighted toward the employer as the U.S.
Customer support has been the biggest target for a long time. Companies care only about revenue and people signing up. After that unless you are giving them more business they stop caring. They figure - best case they frustrate you enough that you leave them alone or bad case - they refund you and worst case - they give you a gift coupon.
With that mind, AI chatbots are the best solution. Intentionally make it difficult to solve the issue and then even if you reach human support - they have the old scripts. That means now companies ability to frustrate-out a customer is now supercharged.