When you attempt to resolve a customer dispute do you…

Always take the customer’s side……………………………………………………….1

Usually take the customer’s side………………………………………………………2

Sometimes take the customer’s side, sometimes the company’s side……3

Usually take the company’s side………………………………………………………4

Always take the company’s side………………………………………………………5

DON’T KNOW…………………………………………………………………………..8

It used to look something like that. That is not the best example as “side” is ambiguous if not contentious, the question does not explain what it is asking about, and I just do not know how anyone can answer it. Probably the scale needs to be clarified and at least rotated too.

But how can anyone answer it is a heck of a question in itself. It not a good question because of its lack of reliability, though it is an interesting one.

Under the right scenario–assuming it is a part of a longer questionnaire and the circumstances had been explained there was room for open-ended responses–one could answer it if they had already thought about. If they had a preconceived notion they could answer it. If someone had thought about it and had strong beliefs they could answer it. If they had been trained for their job to act a certain way they could answer it.

Again, assuming there were more questions surrounding it… “90% of the time we do what the customer needs or wants and everyone is happy” could be one answer. “My job is to resolve the issue to the customer’s satisfaction” would be even strong.

“We enforce what we are told and the customer frequently goes away disappointed” would be the other side of things. “I am not empowered,” would be even harsher.

—

Think like a lawyer, think like a lawyer. Interesting, albeit not necessarily good advice, and we’ll get to that.

For now I am thinking in terms of customer satisfaction. I have dealt with Bank of America and I know it will be like a legal fight. I am going to pull out all the punches; I am going to utilize the United States Postal System.

And I going to use writing.

I need the practice. Baby steps.

A month ago I did it for Liberty Mutual in an effort to finally cancel my last policy. I have not seen a reply but I do not check my mail often. Everything is on autopay and I can usually solve whatever ails on a smartphone or at most a larger computer. Now I must employ a printer too.

Why does a company hide behind phones when a chat will do? Why do they force chat? Why do they require writing–and not email–when phone is better?

Parts of it have become even more difficult than they used to be, sometimes because of security. Put it this way: the hiding is intentional. At the very least it is a clearcut way of operating. It can be infuriating because the combination of technology and fine print can daunting, ever-changing, unavailable too.

It can seem like everyone’s role is even more clearly defined. No one is an owner, they are just an operator. They are viewing the same screens, and they cannot change them either.

Is there a person behind it and are they going to resolve it? Maybe the answer depends on if they are told to.

So how to cut through is the problem. I will employ writing, the USPS, and eventually the courts.

Oh, I am repeating myself. It is good practice. That is how you learn and improve. If it is important and if you do it over a long period, I guess it becomes you.

P.S. Hostinger requires chat (which takes is terrible) and a foreign transaction fee, which is curious, but it works. It is easy and it looks all black and white.