Even before the Internet, communication with businesses was difficult, but generally, only the smallest businesses were so minimally staffed that no one would even answer your phone call.
As a child, I can recall going into one-person shops run by someone who would repair watches or fix shoes, and how they would have to stop everything they were doing -- including talking to a customer -- if the telephone should ring, because there was no way to know who called, or if they would ever call back. In the 1970s, the "answering machine" was invented, and so now the solo business owner could "let the machine answer" the call and they could call the person back.
The only other way to contact a business, without going to it personally, was by mail. Old-timers told me how the mail used to be delivered twice a day, such that it was possible to send a message to someone in the morning, and possibly get a reply in the afternoon, or the next day. However, in my time, the mail only came once a day. Offices concentrated in downtown areas, and companies hired "delivery boys" solely to carry letters and packets of documents between offices.
For larger businesses, phones were answered by a receptionist and transferred through a "private business exchange" (PBX) usually using the distinctive five-button phone with one red button to put a caller on hold.
There was also an ancient system called "Telex," plus you could send a "Telegram" over Western Union, but they were costly and in the case of Telex, required special expensive equipment.
The fax machine came along in the 1980s; for the first time ever, it was possible to send someone a message, and they would receive it in seconds. Besides missing a message when the fax machine ran out of paper, the fax machined created a new problem: For the first time, it was actually possible for a person to receive messages faster than they could respond to them -- assuming their mail wasn't delivered in stacks or bags -- especially if they had anything to do besides reply to messages.
Now, thanks to the Internet, it is possible to send messages as fast as one's fingers can type. However, not only is the time to reply to those messages the same length, but one has no way to know how busy the person you had tried to contact is.
When I was a technical support specialist for a small computer equipment manufacturer, our priorities were simple: Telephone first, e-mail/fax/mail second. When people called, our policy was to spend up to 20 minutes "walking" the caller through the process of solving their problem. If the problem wasn't solved by the basic support specialist, the call would be transferred to someone with more experience who would keep working until the problem was fixed. Nevertheless, some of the most irate callers would be someone who "just sent an e-mail" and wondered why no one had responded. Our "up to 20 minutes (or until it gets done)" policy always surprised and soothed them: "Wow, you really help people" was a frequent comment.
Now we have social media and Internet chat. Internet chat is great for getting help from a business, but it tends to be slow, because the person on the other end is helping several other people besides you. Many times, I have to spend most of an hour to get four replies.
Enter Twitter. Twitter serves consumers largely because every message sent over Twitter is a potential threat to the entire business. A company MUST reply to Twitter messages ASAP because the world can see when they ignore them. On the more positive side, if one customer has a problem, several other people probably have the same issue, and the company should respond immediately.
I have found Twitter most helpful when traveling. When a train doesn't show up and the other information available is conflicting, a Tweet to Amtrak, Metrolink, or NCTD (Coaster) usually gets a prompt, useful reply.
For example, I once was waiting for the last train from Los Angeles to San Diego that was late, and the only reason I was shivering on Platform 8 was that the departure board at the station said the train was here, yet it clearly wasn't. The Amtrak phone application was not working, and there were no Tweets from Amtrak about Train 796, so I sent a tweet to @Amtrak (now @PacificSurfliners), expressing some of my frustration, and Amtrak tweeted correct info about four minutes later.
When you think about it, the chief difference inherent in using social media to communicate with a company or agency is the pressure it puts on the entity. Using social media is like erecting a billboard outside their headquarters. From my perspective, social media makes business infinitely more difficult, because one failure can convert your most enthusiastic customers into an electronic lynch mob in less time than it takes to go out to lunch. Toyota and Apple are just too companies that rely on a "fan base" that tends to treat these private firms as though they were public agencies whose reputations depend on being responsive to the public.
Hiring "social media managers" is costly, but it is as important a part of a business as a employing a receptionist to answer telephone calls and open mail. Just as one would not let the telephone ring unanswered, or leave piles of mail unopened, a business or agency must reply to social media messages if it opens such accounts. Social media is like the proverbial two-edged sword; using it to send messages to potential and current customers leads the general public to use the same channels to communicate back to the entity.
As a child, I can recall going into one-person shops run by someone who would repair watches or fix shoes, and how they would have to stop everything they were doing -- including talking to a customer -- if the telephone should ring, because there was no way to know who called, or if they would ever call back. In the 1970s, the "answering machine" was invented, and so now the solo business owner could "let the machine answer" the call and they could call the person back.
The only other way to contact a business, without going to it personally, was by mail. Old-timers told me how the mail used to be delivered twice a day, such that it was possible to send a message to someone in the morning, and possibly get a reply in the afternoon, or the next day. However, in my time, the mail only came once a day. Offices concentrated in downtown areas, and companies hired "delivery boys" solely to carry letters and packets of documents between offices.
For larger businesses, phones were answered by a receptionist and transferred through a "private business exchange" (PBX) usually using the distinctive five-button phone with one red button to put a caller on hold.
There was also an ancient system called "Telex," plus you could send a "Telegram" over Western Union, but they were costly and in the case of Telex, required special expensive equipment.
The fax machine came along in the 1980s; for the first time ever, it was possible to send someone a message, and they would receive it in seconds. Besides missing a message when the fax machine ran out of paper, the fax machined created a new problem: For the first time, it was actually possible for a person to receive messages faster than they could respond to them -- assuming their mail wasn't delivered in stacks or bags -- especially if they had anything to do besides reply to messages.
Now, thanks to the Internet, it is possible to send messages as fast as one's fingers can type. However, not only is the time to reply to those messages the same length, but one has no way to know how busy the person you had tried to contact is.
 |
| Life in Business, before the Internet (1993) |
When I was a technical support specialist for a small computer equipment manufacturer, our priorities were simple: Telephone first, e-mail/fax/mail second. When people called, our policy was to spend up to 20 minutes "walking" the caller through the process of solving their problem. If the problem wasn't solved by the basic support specialist, the call would be transferred to someone with more experience who would keep working until the problem was fixed. Nevertheless, some of the most irate callers would be someone who "just sent an e-mail" and wondered why no one had responded. Our "up to 20 minutes (or until it gets done)" policy always surprised and soothed them: "Wow, you really help people" was a frequent comment.
Now we have social media and Internet chat. Internet chat is great for getting help from a business, but it tends to be slow, because the person on the other end is helping several other people besides you. Many times, I have to spend most of an hour to get four replies.
Enter Twitter. Twitter serves consumers largely because every message sent over Twitter is a potential threat to the entire business. A company MUST reply to Twitter messages ASAP because the world can see when they ignore them. On the more positive side, if one customer has a problem, several other people probably have the same issue, and the company should respond immediately.
I have found Twitter most helpful when traveling. When a train doesn't show up and the other information available is conflicting, a Tweet to Amtrak, Metrolink, or NCTD (Coaster) usually gets a prompt, useful reply.
For example, I once was waiting for the last train from Los Angeles to San Diego that was late, and the only reason I was shivering on Platform 8 was that the departure board at the station said the train was here, yet it clearly wasn't. The Amtrak phone application was not working, and there were no Tweets from Amtrak about Train 796, so I sent a tweet to @Amtrak (now @PacificSurfliners), expressing some of my frustration, and Amtrak tweeted correct info about four minutes later.
When you think about it, the chief difference inherent in using social media to communicate with a company or agency is the pressure it puts on the entity. Using social media is like erecting a billboard outside their headquarters. From my perspective, social media makes business infinitely more difficult, because one failure can convert your most enthusiastic customers into an electronic lynch mob in less time than it takes to go out to lunch. Toyota and Apple are just too companies that rely on a "fan base" that tends to treat these private firms as though they were public agencies whose reputations depend on being responsive to the public.
Hiring "social media managers" is costly, but it is as important a part of a business as a employing a receptionist to answer telephone calls and open mail. Just as one would not let the telephone ring unanswered, or leave piles of mail unopened, a business or agency must reply to social media messages if it opens such accounts. Social media is like the proverbial two-edged sword; using it to send messages to potential and current customers leads the general public to use the same channels to communicate back to the entity.
Hey Hannah. I would have never thought to tweet NCTD or Amtrak about train delays. I'll have to remember to do that the next time I'm waiting for a late train. I agree with you that social media for companies can be good or bad. If multiple people are tweeting about a product, it can sway other people to not buy it and can encourage people to share their experiences with the product. And on the other hand, multiple positive tweets about a product could increase sales for a business.
ReplyDelete