Loading Profile...
What if a company already has a GetSat'n type program in place on it's own site?
What should a company do if it fully acknowledges that some of it's customers have created questions on Satisfaction for it's products, but for various (legitimate) reasons it does not wish to have it's support dialog with it's customers semantically forked on Get Satisfaction from the rest of the conversation on the company's main site?
My point is, for companies that do not have the infrastructure, resources or forsight to engage with it's customer base, Get Satisfaction is a great tool. And frankly, as a customer myself, it's great to help 'push the membrane' a little when a given company point-blankly refuses to engage (you know this, it's why you created it!).
BUT there are companies that actually take such customer dialog seriously already and have invested in similar setups on their own site.
The reasonable assertion then might be that by having the conversations taking place in one place, customers benefit from the archive of answered questions and threads. If said company was to engage with users on Get Satisfaction then those threads are semantically forked and customers visiting the main site miss the good points raised elsewhere. The support cost is also raised, as duplicate threads are raised and customer service members have to monitor more sites (assume there is competition to GetSat'n too which could also have a section for same company)
You could argue that if the support is so great on-site, why did a customer(s) feel the need to create a GetSat'n site - but people do stuff just to try it out.
Bottom line: there are a small number of companies that have their support and customer discussion sorted out correctly, what is Get Satisfactions policy when such a company raises the above concern
My point is, for companies that do not have the infrastructure, resources or forsight to engage with it's customer base, Get Satisfaction is a great tool. And frankly, as a customer myself, it's great to help 'push the membrane' a little when a given company point-blankly refuses to engage (you know this, it's why you created it!).
BUT there are companies that actually take such customer dialog seriously already and have invested in similar setups on their own site.
The reasonable assertion then might be that by having the conversations taking place in one place, customers benefit from the archive of answered questions and threads. If said company was to engage with users on Get Satisfaction then those threads are semantically forked and customers visiting the main site miss the good points raised elsewhere. The support cost is also raised, as duplicate threads are raised and customer service members have to monitor more sites (assume there is competition to GetSat'n too which could also have a section for same company)
You could argue that if the support is so great on-site, why did a customer(s) feel the need to create a GetSat'n site - but people do stuff just to try it out.
Bottom line: there are a small number of companies that have their support and customer discussion sorted out correctly, what is Get Satisfactions policy when such a company raises the above concern
I’m asking a theoretical question, but one I'm curious to the answer of
1
person has this question
I have this question, too!
Tell me when someone answers.
The more people who ask this question, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who ask this question, the more it gets noticed.
The best answer from the company
-
This is an interesting topic, and I think we're going to have to sort it out in the marketplace. Our policy is to encourage people and companies use the tools in the best way for them. This means sometimes the company ignores their customer conversations, or observes them without responding. But we don't "turn off" a company if it doesn't want its customers talking about it here. If duplicate content occurs between sites then we assume that Google + the market will sort it out.
In any case, here are some observations I've had in this early period:
- Some companies, like Google or Comcast, have their own robust "peer support" tools already. However, for various reasons they have a policy of allowing certain staff-members to participate in third-party support communities like Get Satisfaction. By doing so they're recognizing that there are multiple contexts where their customers congregate, and they want to help where they can.
- Other companies, like Apple, not only have their own vibrant forums but there are numerous third-party communities out there. The user participation that occurs around Apple here on Get Satisfaction is the by-product of the unique community dynamics on this site. And it works without any involvement from Apple at all.
- Context matters. Several companies who have been pulled in to the system by their users have told us that the interaction they have with customers here is substantively different (and often more productive) than on their own site because it's a neutral space that they don't "control."
- One Web 2.0 company--which I won't name but it has a famously vibrant community and very sophisticated tools--has expressed frustration to us that some of their users are discussing issues on Get Satisfaction rather than their own site. But these users are showing up here because they're frustrated with the response they've gotten in the "official community," as robust as it may be.
------
My belief is that it's unrealistic for companies to expect that they can put up a community or support system and get all their users to use it exclusively. The Internet is just messy. If the company does a good job it may get the vast majority of its users to conform, but there's still the issue of the remainder--and how companies deal with them says a lot about their philosophy of customer engagement.
It helps to look at this issue *not* from the perspective of the company that is trying to optimize its own operations, but from the consumer who is dealing with a range of companies in their day-to-day life. What if, as the VRM folks have suggested, companies are best served by conforming their operations to the needs of consumers rather than the other way around? What would a Web service look like that supported that network of relationships? Get Satisfaction may ultimately answer that question.
While traditional customer support folks may be baffled by this inverted model, smart marketing folks already get it--it's a powerful way to go *to* users and communicate with them in a neutral space. This is part of what we mean when we refer to customer service as the "new marketing."
I’m not terribly worried about it
3 people say
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?I think this is the sort of thing that the API will really help with. Think two-way sync between both places. Although you would have a tough time doing that today with the current API... I'm sure that if someone wanted to use the API to tackle such a problem we would gladly collaborate and get things worked out so that everyone can benefit.
We're in the planning stages for tools that will let us fork-and-merge topics within get satisfaction (as well as tools to help manage topic lifetimes) so it would appropriate to consider the case of data away from satisfaction also.
Awesome topic, by the way! -
Inappropriate?Yes, thank you, Ben! If you have the need, and the time is right for us, we'd be happy to collaborate with a company towards solving that type of a problem for them.
I’m thankful
-
Inappropriate?I'd love to see a GS API anyway!
I don't think legally speaking you can have a two way API in that way, because someone who comes to the company's site to leave feedback/make comment is not giving permission for that data to be published on GetSatisfaction. They may not even know what Get Satisfaction and so it would also be unfair to have their input appear elsewhere in this way.
Companies running mature programs of their own may also not wish to collaborate with you. That's not me being bullish, it's just a matter of fact. The idea doesn't scale and just gets confusing if there are other Get Satisfactions out there too.
What other strategies, away from an API, do you have?
-
Inappropriate?This is an interesting topic, and I think we're going to have to sort it out in the marketplace. Our policy is to encourage people and companies use the tools in the best way for them. This means sometimes the company ignores their customer conversations, or observes them without responding. But we don't "turn off" a company if it doesn't want its customers talking about it here. If duplicate content occurs between sites then we assume that Google + the market will sort it out.
In any case, here are some observations I've had in this early period:
- Some companies, like Google or Comcast, have their own robust "peer support" tools already. However, for various reasons they have a policy of allowing certain staff-members to participate in third-party support communities like Get Satisfaction. By doing so they're recognizing that there are multiple contexts where their customers congregate, and they want to help where they can.
- Other companies, like Apple, not only have their own vibrant forums but there are numerous third-party communities out there. The user participation that occurs around Apple here on Get Satisfaction is the by-product of the unique community dynamics on this site. And it works without any involvement from Apple at all.
- Context matters. Several companies who have been pulled in to the system by their users have told us that the interaction they have with customers here is substantively different (and often more productive) than on their own site because it's a neutral space that they don't "control."
- One Web 2.0 company--which I won't name but it has a famously vibrant community and very sophisticated tools--has expressed frustration to us that some of their users are discussing issues on Get Satisfaction rather than their own site. But these users are showing up here because they're frustrated with the response they've gotten in the "official community," as robust as it may be.
------
My belief is that it's unrealistic for companies to expect that they can put up a community or support system and get all their users to use it exclusively. The Internet is just messy. If the company does a good job it may get the vast majority of its users to conform, but there's still the issue of the remainder--and how companies deal with them says a lot about their philosophy of customer engagement.
It helps to look at this issue *not* from the perspective of the company that is trying to optimize its own operations, but from the consumer who is dealing with a range of companies in their day-to-day life. What if, as the VRM folks have suggested, companies are best served by conforming their operations to the needs of consumers rather than the other way around? What would a Web service look like that supported that network of relationships? Get Satisfaction may ultimately answer that question.
While traditional customer support folks may be baffled by this inverted model, smart marketing folks already get it--it's a powerful way to go *to* users and communicate with them in a neutral space. This is part of what we mean when we refer to customer service as the "new marketing."
I’m not terribly worried about it
3 people say
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?Our terms of use totally supports the distribution or republishing of user content, while preserving ownership by contributors of their own content. I assume that most companies have a similar license-back policy that would support reciprocal syndication. Whether a company *wants* to do this is another story.
I’m paying lawyers for a reason
-
Inappropriate?
I don't think legally speaking you can have a two way API in that way, because someone who comes to the company's site to leave feedback/make comment is not giving permission for that data to be published on GetSatisfaction
Lawyers ruin everything... but your point remains valid. That said, I believe that sort of problem can be partially or completely solved by opening a dialogue with your contributors.
Companies running mature programs of their own may also not wish to collaborate with you. That's not me being bullish, it's just a matter of fact.
They don't *have* to collaborate: one of the interesting things in my mind is how free we are being with the public data that gets stored on our site. If a company simply wants to pull our content into their own system, then so be it: The customers providing that content will still be in satisfaction, helping to produce a vibrant community in our space.
You can't export that.
As an example of how free we intend to be with the data, in the past some people have expressed desires to be more authoritarian in regards to topics about their company. They are concerned about negative content being posted, or even competitors posting in their space. If they want to censor, wait till the API comes out and build your own interface to the data store. Censor to you hearts content, but the conversations that you want to silence will still be going on in Get Satisfaction.
As far as other strategies, I can't speak to that at the moment. It's late and I'm tired :)
I’m at sleepy time.
1 person says
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?This is a terrific conversation. Thanks for instigating it, Ben.
I’m interested in this dialog
1 person says
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?Thanks Amy,
I feel I should also mention, I'm not asking this just to be snarky.
Recently, a potential client asked me my views on Get Satisfaction, and whilst we were talking about it (I'm quite in favor of your product as you know) they rose this issue as a concern of theres.
The potential client (I can't really say who for confidentiality reasons) already has a fairly comprehensive program in place (ok, it could be improved, but it's alright) and they raised the points I've mentioned in my OP as a concern.
I’m not just being snarky!
-
Inappropriate?I know you're very capable of snark, Ben, but no worries, I didn't at all think you were being snarky in this case. :)
I think it's a very good question that your potential client raised, and one that I'm sure we'll face from time to time (as we already have!). I'm grateful that you gave us the opportunity to give you our thoughts on the matter!
I’m glad we're thinking about these things
1 person says
this answers the question
EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE
