This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
I've worked in customer service software companies for the last 30 years, and one thing I can tell you is that average handle time is not a good metric to decide your success or failure on.
Having a low average handle time is easy. Just hang up on the customer. Or show them quickly that you won't do shit for them so that they hang up on you.
How about showing us those customer satisfaction and first call resolution scores?
show them quickly that you won't do shit for them so that they hang up on you.
I do believe this is the reason why AI is so much faster than humans at this guy's company.
Reminds me of my local Rally's switching to an "automated drive thru assistant." The jank thing doesn't even respond when you talk to it, just reminds you every 60 seconds that it's ready when you are. First time I went I drove off. Went a second time thinking it might have been a fluke and I'd get actual human service. Nope. Guess I'll be finding a new burger place for my hangovers
If the majority of the service requests are that quick, then it's probably something you can automate or by providing a knowledge base. It's the complex problems that require a human and I see us needing that for the foreseeable future
Yes well we will never know any of that based on the metrics he's using to define success.
We're going to be watering plants with Gatorade soon, we're on our way.
It's what plants crave!
It's got electrolytes!
Water? Like out of the toilet?
Did I miss the part about customer satisfaction? Guy could have just moved from solving customer issues in 2 hours to aggravating and loosing customers in under 2 minutes.
Yeah, like, how do you even help someone in two minutes?? They probably just see "oh, it's a bot" and leave
Without any ratings for customer satisfaction. I might as well sack the entire support staff, don't bother with AI and I'll get a answered query to F off in 0 minutes and 100% savings.
I mean this is what teslas PR email does, or is it Twitter... it's one of those lol
I think it's twitter. Journalists often contact twitter because of controversies, and they try to highlight that Twitter always says nothing useful
This fails to say by what metric the bots are more efficient. Unless it’s just time-to-first-response. That’s the only metric referenced and it’s a stupid one if it’s the only metric.
I'm pretty sure most of those layoffs that are contributed to AI are just dumb CEOs that a) buy into the hype that AI makes human workers superflous (which is just completely wrong at this point) and b) just needed a reason to fire a few people to get a bonus.
It was interesting that the stats they were talking about were time to respond and time to close, which are both key customer service stats. I'd be interested to know what the customer satisfaction rating was.
If I message, and someone answers immediately, but I figure out it's a bot and I'm not getting anywhere after a minute, I stop and leave a bad review. From a time standpoint, the interaction looks great. When you integrate the CSAT score, it's terrible. A quick response contributes to a good interaction, but it doesn't make it good outright, unless you don't actually care about whether customers are helped.
Another paragraph masquerading as an article. Ironically, probably written by AI...
Imagine he goes to his own support bot just to get told to F off
I like how that free market suddenly starts working now with technologies allowing idiots to kill themselves that easily.
It just has to stay more agile than the big guys and this really does work.
