The Professor's Notes

My brother shared with me a very humorous story, about UPS apparently confabulating a story about his son (5 y.o. at the time) apparently calling UPS to tell them to return a shipment to sender. My brother writes:

A birthday present for our soon to be 6 year old son was being delivered by UPS. Initially their site said (according to my mother-in-law) that it had been delivered on our porch on Thursday. When my wife called UPS on Friday to say that it was not delivered she was told, “Mack Brady called and requested it be returned to sender.” My wife pointed out that Mack Brady was 5 years old and expecting that box to contain lots of LEGOs from his grandparents. He was unlikely to make the call much less request that the package be returned to sender.

It was delivered 5 days (3 business days) later.

I find this experience very interesting as we seek to learn valuable service delivery,  supply chain, and life lessons. Read the rest of this entry »

(I am currently teaching a Service Operations Management course for our MBA program, and part of the requirements for the course is for students to blog weekly on service experiences they have had, and relate and assess that experience as it directly relates to the recent chapters covered in class.  In that spirit, I am offering some of my recent service experiences on my blog.)

My wife is an insulin dependent diabetic, and has been using the Medtronic “pump” for several years now.  In addition, she has the “continuous glucose monitoring” (CGM) sensors, that talk with the pump, and allow her to get information far more quickly about changes in her glucose levels.  ¹

As part of that treatment regimen she has to order supplies on a regular basis.  Of course, these supplies are only available from the manufacturer.   Our insurance company picks up the tab for much of the supply cost, and as part of the typical healthcare regimen, we pay our portion of the bill as well.  I typically call  Medtronic, or at least their billing contractor, and make the payment over the phone with a credit card.

In December I called, and quickly dispatched with the task, paying the balance owed on the bill, and writing down the confirmation number.  Then, in January, we received another bill, for the next set of supplies received, and I called back.  This time, they told me I owed for the new supplies, and that I still owed the (now late) payment for the prior supplies.

Here is where things could have gone terribly wrong, with accusations, recriminations, and the like being passed back and forth.  But instead, things went terribly RIGHT. (um… is that possible?)

I dug around, and found my copy of the previous bill, with the confirmation number written on there (in traditional, Air Force “Memo for Record” fashion.  Old habits die hard.)  I read the customer service representative the number, and she looked it up.  And then she gasped! “I was the person who took the payment!”

She immediately sprang into action, verifying that they had, indeed, taken my call on that day, and that I had indeed paid my bill.  She went to her supervisor whom I was told was “as we speak” taking the paperwork to the accounting office to straighten them out.  We then proceeded to take care of the rest of the business, and process the payment for the balance owed.

At the end of the call, I asked if she wouldn’t mind sharing her name with me, just in case I had any other issues.  She was very gracious and agreed to that.

So, Esther, thank you for your gracious and attentive support to your customers.  It is very appreciated!

Many of you know I bought an AppleTV and immediately hacked it to allow me to watch TV shows. This involved installing Boxee, and then using that open source software to stream Hulu.  Well, this week Hulu says they were forced by their content providers to stop Boxee from streaming their shows (which, by the way, included the advertising that Hulu inserted).

Hulu appeared “sorrowful” but apparently couldn’t convince their content providers that content is meant to be viewed.

What is most odd (and disturbing) is that Hulu has not only not shared which content providers strong-armed them, but they have also not share any rationale for why these content providers wanted Boxee stopped.  Remember, it was just streaming to a “full screen” shows exactly as they would be viewed on your computer.  The only real difference is that I am more comfortable and watching (in my case) on a larger screen.

I left a comment on Hulu’s site:

Okay–I too bought an Apple TV specifically to watch Hulu (and CBS) on my TV. I even made the decision to canceling cable TV.

Of course let me say that, while I thought Hulu was cool, I didn’t watch on my computer.  Sorry–the chair isn’t comfortable for WORK, why sit in it for pleasure?

So what has this decision done for me?  Made me realize that perhaps I watch too much TV.

Fox.  NBC.  Any other providers.

HEAR THIS:  I will not watch you on Hulu.  AND I will not be going back to Network TV to watch you either.

Bu-bye!

Do I expect anything close to the response we saw from Facebook?  Nope.  Of course not.  The old media establishment is far too entrenched to let something like viewers get in the way of their decisions.

But this does once again bring to the fore the discussion questions:

1. Who are the customers for a business (such as hulu)?
2. Do you have responsibilities to your users/viewers if they are not directly paying you?
3. Are “advertisers” really the customer since they are paying directly?
4. How does one measure the fact that viewers/users are the indirect sources of revenue since they are the target of the advertisers?

Any and all thoughts are appreciated.

Remember Storming Media?  I wrote about them in the previous post.

You will recall they resell government reports to you for which you have already paid as a taxpayer.  They do this, and provide no remuneration to the authors, even when those authors were not government employees. Well, that said, they pride themselves on “speedy and courteous service” which I suppose is a good thing.

I had to chuckle though.  I went to view their contact information, and saw this note at the bottom:

Please note that our phone numbers have changed unexpectedly due to serious incompetence and hostility towards customers by Verizon. We apologize for the inconvenience and would encourage others to try to avoid doing business with Verizon and other companies that take such a hostile attitude toward customers. We pride ourselves on treating customers much better.

I had to step back, and say “wow.” I understand we all have our customer service problems.  And many of us will write about them publicly.  Usually on blogs, or if we are journalists, in our editorial pages and commentaries.  But this is quite an unusual step.  They are, as a business, calling out Verizon.

I can imagine conversations about Verizon’s bad treatment of customers when one gets home from work.  Or perhaps sharing it in my Service Operations Management class, where we dissect business service experiences to better learn.  Perhaps even sharing stories over a beer at a restaurant, or party.

But on your business website?

So let me ask you, dear reader, the following questions:

1.  Would you put something like this on your professional business site?

2.  Do you believe that Storming Media was without blame in the issue?

3.  How would you have handled this?

The pressure worked on Facebook (Again.)

According to this story in the New York Times, Facebook has once again made a change, angered their users, and then have to backtrack.

===========

The word choices are interesting.  Facebook talks about the “feedback” they received.  How about: canceled accounts, deleted files, and angry emails.  I suppose that’s “feedback.”

What is really interesting though is that they have reverted back to the old TOS “…while we resolve the issues that people have raised.”  Just what does that mean?  Does that mean they will not go back? They will more clearly state that they will only keep material that is cross-linked to other people’s accounts? Or does it mean that they will try again when no one is looking?

Given that I asked the question about “Outcome Focused Performance” a few posts back, I can’t help but wonder what “outcome” Facebook (the corporation) has in mind with their decisions.  Obviously every business has financial success as their goal, but that is usually achieved through a mix of product, service, and value that attracts customers.

Facebook doesn’t really generate revenue directly from the users.  We pay no fee to join, no monthly account maintenance fee, and no data storage fee.  One could argue they have no obligation to us, and that there is no “contract” since no money changes hands.  Therefore they should be able to do whatever they wish.  The revenue that Facebook generates is a direct result of our being there, but is derived from our presence, and our activity.  Given this, Facebook’s action in changing the TOS could be viewed as a business simply hoping to extend their opportunities for revenue through the users.

Of course, I think they are losing sight of one important fact–we are guests.  Now, some would remind us that guests should “behave themselves” when in someone else’s house.  True enough.

But Facebook should remember that they need to be gracious hosts.

====

n.b.:The link identified in the article excerpt above is here.