Dear Jason,
I want to first thank you for taking the time to write up a detailed post about your issues with our service. In some ways it was the model of good feedback: specific, direct, actionable. The only thing missing was your browser and OS details :)

You were angry, and honestly I don’t blame you. We all know what it’s like to feel manipulated. And while I would have preferred you sending us a note, or even posting it somewhere less trafficked than your popular blog, the fact is that Get Satisfaction is a huge proponent of public airing of grievances. You were right to bring it to our attention any way you saw fit. I only wish that you hadn’t implied unethical motives with words like “extortion,” “mafia shakedown,” etc. The fact is, many people hear those words and nothing else, and it compromises years of work by our small but committed team.

But what I really wanted to do, from one product guy to another, is explain how we found ourselves here and where we’re going. I hope it gives you some idea of the kind of people we are, and the vision that drives us. Much of that story was overwhelmed yesterday by one big screwup and the unintended consequences of some well-intentioned design decisions. There are lessons here!

We started Get Satisfaction originally to solve a problem we had ourselves. We’d experienced the pain of delivering customer service via email, but had amazing experiences answering questions in public on our blog. We thought we could build something more results-oriented and social than what was available. Get Satisfaction was born.

After starting it, we noticed that everyone we talked to was frustrated with customer service with big companies. We hypothesized that the companies that needed open, honest customer interaction the most were those that were least likely to embrace it in a programmatic way. So we launched Get Satisfaction not only for companies to set up their own customer communities, but also to let customers start a community space around any brand they liked–to give them the same kind of soap box for results that you have with your blog, Signal vs Noise.

We believed that the more we empowered customers the better off companies would be, whether or not they knew it yet. It was a provocative concept, and we certainly owe much of our success so far on creating this as a “Switzerland for customer service.” For instance, this just popped into my Twitter search feed:

denisess: Get Satisfaction actually works. I’ve been trying to get McAfee support to respond to me for 6 weeks. 24 hours on GS and I got a response.

Because we wanted to make sure we created an even playing field between employees and customers we devised the Company-Customer Pact to foster accountability for both sides. Our values have always been the driving force behind our product design. We benefited from good SEO on these support related pages, of course, but we always tried to be clear that this was a third-party site. Thus the heavy branding on our old header:

In the year and half since we launched we’ve seen the numbers of companies added on a monthly basis skyrocket–but today over 80% of new companies are added by the companies themselves, and these range from huge companies to little tiny ones. It was on the basis of this (and requests by these companies) that we decided to redesign the header and overall framing of the site. We wanted to make it simpler and more neutral for companies to use how they saw fit, whether as a primary support channel or remote outpost. There were branding hierarchy issues between our logo and the name of the company (as you can see above). Due to the minimized branding, we created the Company-Customer Pact badge for companies that signed up to partcipate.

We realized we needed something in this spot for the communities where the company was not participating. This is when the very badly worded badge was added. Released two weeks ago, it was thrown together in the midst of the overall redesign effort and did not get vetted properly. We’ve already seen the consequences. It was most definitely not the result of a strategy to extort.

In thinking about this all day, it occurred to me that the badge was only half the problem. The other half is that the new header design makes confusion more likely when a company is not participating. We solved one problem (confusion for customers on official support sites) and exacerbated another (confusion on unofficial sites).

The other thing is that we currently treat fortune 500 companies the same as little startups, when the situations are very different. It’s important to us that customers who are stymied by AT&T’s phone support be able to use the internet to gain real leverage. But small companies may actually be at a disadvantage relative to the hyper-empowered power users on the Web today. We have to figure out how to deal with that conflict.

Which brings me to the question of where do we go from here? First, we’re in the midst of an ongoing redesign of key components of our system. We’re folding in our learning from the past few years to make for a much clearer, cleaner experience. We’re going to address the core areas of tension that I described in the paragraphs above. We heard a number of great suggestions today in the peanut gallery, including:

- Much more clearly mark areas that are purely user driven
– Put more limits on logo publishing
– Change page titles and descriptions to be clear in search results when pages are not sanctioned support spaces
– More/better tools for setting expectations of a company’s usage of get satisfaction.

These are some of the ideas we’re looking at doing in the very short term, and we’re open to more. We are moving with urgency to make the right revisions.

Our business isn’t about building a better mousetrap, but about fostering new modes of interaction between companies and customers. We don’t always get it right, but we’re proud of the good we’ve done so far. I believe we’ll continue to make progress thanks to honest feedback like yours, and the support of an amazing community.

Sincerely yours,

Thor Muller
CTO & Co-founder
Get Satisfaction

P.S. I hope you also get the chance to read Garrett Dimon’s “can’t we all just get along” post: http://garrettdimon.com/archives/2009/3/31/handling_things/ Eloquent, as always.

Edited @ 3:43 4/1/09. “Inethical” is not a word (as a few nice people pointed out), but “unethical” is. Fixed.

I don’t know about you, but I rely on word-of-mouth observations nearly every single day, whether it’s asking a co-worker what they think of a local restaurant (which I did today, twice) or going online to scout out advice from real people about the best external hard drive to purchase (which I did last month; I settled on this one). That kind of authentic reccomendation is powerful.

There’s a simple way to take this natural compulsion people have to seek out advice from neutral parties and apply it to your business. Ready to find out how much someone loves or hates you? Ask them if they’d recommend you to a friend. This stark question yields a wealth of information.

When companies start to ask this one question, they can quickly see how many people (current, potential and former customers) are with them — and how many are against them. That’s valuable data. Again, it sounds simple, but there are a gaggle of brand-consulting firms out there who will cheerfully charge a company many thousands of dollars to answer these two simple questions: Do they love you or hate you? How much?

When companies start examining this kind of cut-and-dry (sometimes painfully honest) measurement, it can help them begin the process of actually listening to their customers. To help encourage that kind of customer-to-company interaction, we’ve added a new feature: You can now recommend or discourage people from using a company and its products.

It’s quite straightforward: Pick any company or product you see on Get Satisfaction and tell us how much you’d recommend it to a friend. It’s an excellent way to — by sheer force of numbers — show companies what everyone really thinks about their products and services. It’s a simple way of saying “numbers don’t lie”: We care this much; no more, no less. When companies see the results, they can very easily determine whether they’re doing enough… or need to do more.

We think this is one of the sharpest features we’ve introduced so far on Get Satisfaction, and we’re keenly interested in hearing what you think of it. In the near future, we’ll be using this information in ways that will help both consumers and companies. It’s the first of many new features we’re hard at work on that will really help everyone get more value out of the system.

Do you love/hate/want to discuss it? Fire away with your observations about our new feature — but only after you’ve already judged us on that same 10-point scale.

This week, Twitter got a big boost in traffic to its Web site from an ABC News Story that showed how an everyday consumer got help from Comcast’s Frank Eliason on Twitter (we’ve written about similar things on this blog in the past). I’ve gone ahead and coined a silly phrase for this kind of outreach: “micro-service”. Thank me later.

All that mainstream-media-led traffic inevitably led to additional traffic to Get Satisfaction, and we were inundated with a wealth of people who had a lot to complain about, but who hadn’t ever used Twitter or Get Satisfaction before. Unexpected events like this are always a great way to see how well we’re framing our service. If they don’t get it, perhaps we aren’t explaining it well enough.

I’m seeing a lot of stories like this ABC News story popping up. Reporters are trying to find a way to write about Twitter, and they seem to want to frame the story in a particular way. More stories like these are surely coming, and most of them will probably be following up on the same Comcast/Twitter story that’s already been written by other, more astute journalists.

I wouldn’t mind seeing stories about Twitter that focus less on complaints. There’s so much more to Twitter. Tons more. When they frame the story as “how to complain and get a company’s attention” rather than “look at all this unexpected interestingness that comes out of new ways of communicating,” I don’t know that they’re accomplishing much — beyond prompting the big complainers to reach out and rant to someone.

Not that I’m complaining too loudly myself. They’re reporting on customer service. That’s a start. More please! I’m ready to direct the traffic.

“We Are Keeping Netflix Profiles”. So reads the title of the e-mail communciation that Netflix users are getting in their e-mail in-boxes today.

This is clearly a well-deserved victory for all the Netflix customers who banded together to voice their outrage at the plan to cancel the popular feature, which lets household members set up and manage separate online queues for their DVDs.

Kudos to everyone who participated in this near-boycott, especially the folks on Get Satisfaction who helped spread the word. This is a powerful affirmation of the power of customer opinion. It smacked down the attempt by Netflix PR man Steve Swasey to make the issue go away. His insistence that taking away the Profiles feature was a “final decision” has been proven wrong.

Let’s celebrate with a movie! Now, what to pick?

Netflix has suddenly decided to eliminate their very popular “Profiles” feature. Many families use this feature to set up separate profiles for each family member. It’s a convenient way for each person in a household to set up their own DVD queue. By many people’s estimation, it’s the one thing that sets Netflix apart from their arch-rival, Blockbuster.

The change won’t go into effect until September 1st, but it’s already starting a swell of outrage across the Internet. I suppose there is still time for Netflix to come clean and provide a better answer than this one:

Why? While it may be disappointing to see this feature go away, this change will help us to continue to improve the Netflix website for all our customers.

That’s not much of an explanation. Okay, let’s be frank: It’s not in any way an explanation. How will taking away this service “improve” things for customers?

The discussion on Get Satisfaction started rolling tonight, and it’s building. In a matter of hours, a topic started on our site has grown quickly, and my guess is that it will keep on growing until Netflix’s customers can get a suitable explanation or response from the company.

When we see customer interest or outrage that explodes like this, we work to get the company connected so they can respond. That’s not always possible, particularly when the company in question hasn’t yet joined Get Satisfaction. I have attempted to contact Netflix in the past, but they haven’t been responsive to me. I’m going to put my head down and reach out to them again. And I encourage everyone else to do the same.

What’s your opinion about the Profiles feature on Netflix? Love it? Never used it? Can’t understand why it would be taken away? Weigh in and let’s reach out and get some answers from the folks at Netflix.

[Netflix is on Get Satisfaction.]

“Great product, customer service sucks! Sucks! SUCKS!”

How’d you like to stumble upon a conversation about your company that reads like that?

That’s how some company representatives learn about Get Satisfaction. While searching for info about their products online, they see a big complainer. Sometimes, you just can’t resist clicking through to read a good rant. I know I can’t. But it’s no fun when it’s a rant about you.

At that point, you’ve got two choices: Ignore it (and hope it goes away), or engage. Since it probably won’t be going away anytime soon — it’s going to be up there in Google search for a long time — you’d probably be well-advised to get involved in the conversation. Even if you don’t change their mind, you can at least show them that you’re listening.

I believe they call that validation. Whether complaints are legitimate or not, whether you have a way to fix it or not, you’ll always move the conversation forward by validating a complaint with some kind of positive response. That’s the hardest part of customer service, the killing-them-with-kindness part. But, you’d be surprised at how people respond. Many big complainers come back with a surprisingly contrite attitude.

Case in point: Lane, our president at Get Satisfaction, unexpectedly invited everyone from his GMail account to join him on LinkedIn. He felt like the “invite” interface on LinkedIn had deceived him. So he complained mightily on Get Satisfaction. Sure enough, the folks from LinkedIn saw his complaint and jumped right in to respond and try to find a way to fix the problem. They even said, “Thank you very much for posting this feedback.”

Lane responded: “Well, now I just feel like a jerk. :) Steve and Adam, thanks for being so responsive to my issue. First off, let me apologize for overreacting….”

And so it often goes. Not always, but much more than I ever expect to see.

I share this little customer service parable because we have a new company rep on our site who could perhaps use a little validation of his own. He’s jumped onto Get Satisfaction to represent his company, TomTom.

I’ve done my own complaining in the past about GPS device makers and how they seem to be disproportionately represented on Get Satisfaction with a wealth of unhappy customers chiming in, but no company employees brave enough to get in there and make a difference. My attempts at reaching out to these GPS companies have not been successful, but perhaps it’s because I wasn’t reaching the right people.

Since joining Get Satisfaction a few weeks ago, this GPS rep has gone in and responded to numerous complaints, some many moons old. Give him a pat on the back — or a fresh complaint — if you get a chance. I’m hoping he can change the minds of angry GPS owners; or at the very least, show them that their complaints are being heard.

Here’s to not sucking.

[LinkedIn and TomTom are both on Get Satisfaction.]

Comcast, who hasn’t exactly had a great public image in the last few years, appears to be slowly changing that.

When Comcast showed up on Get Satisfaction, they had a lot of complainers. Hell hath no fury like an Internet junkie scorned. Boy, there were some angry folks.

But then, someone from Comcast stepped in and said, we hear you and we’d like to help make it better. And they keep on saying that.

If you haven’t read about him, Frank Eliason is the man at Comcast who seems to be spearheading this new approach. He swoops in on conversations on Get Satisfaction and offers to help fix problems. Plus, he’s set up a Twitter account (follow him!) as an additional way to monitor and respond to Comcast customers who are broadcasting their cable and Internet frustrations on Twitter.

That Twitter/Get Satisfaction combo seems to be working pretty well, as evidenced by this conclusion from a Get Satisfaction user today:

Wow, I stepped out for two hours and by the time I got back I had 3 voicemails from Comcast — from Corporate HQ in Philadelphia, from the California Executive office, from the local office here. An hour later I had the Comcast tech out here, he removed the trap outside, on the street just as I expected, then phoned in to close my order and enable the boxes again. I’m all settled now.

- Get Satisfaction works. Publicity is powerful.
- Comcast listens, kudos to them (including @comcastcares on Twitter)
- The execs and techs involved in such elevated customer care are doing a wonderful job, but it’s like putting out lots of little fires. I think at one point it will rise to the level that will convince Comcast to invest more ( a LOT more) in training their support troops so that there would not be fires to put out in the first place.
- Oh, have I mentioned that Get Satisfaction works? :-)

After reading that today, I feel like I need to give a tip of the Get Satisfaction community manager’s hat to Frank Eliason for pushing for the kind of consumer change that everyone wants and needs. Keep it up, and I bet you’ll be seeing more customer outbursts like that one.

The big news this past week in Web 2.0 world: Starbucks dipped its toe into the pool where community and customers converge.

They launched a new Web site, MyStarbucksIdea. It’s essentially a Dell IdeaStorm clone designed to get feedback from customers. Give us your ideas on how to improve Starbucks, they say. Sounds fairly straightfoward, but there is monumental disagreement as to whether this idea is good, bad, or somewhere in between.

Is it merely a virtual suggestion box with voting? That’s the take of many people on Jim Romenesko’s StarbuckGossip.com, a site that’s always been critical of the company. “MyStarbucksIdea.com was clearly inspired by my site, which was created nearly four years ago to move barista/customer conversations to the Web,” Romenesko tells the Seattle Times. “My site will continue to thrive because it’s an authentic reflection of how customers and employees feel about the company. MyStarbucksIdea.com, on the other hand, is clearly a corporate propaganda site.”

He’s right about one thing. It’s missing the big detail that marks a true community: authenticity.

The way I see it, the site looks like a collection of possible improvements their marketing department already knew their customers wanted. Give us free Wi-Fi. Stop selling those warmed-over breakfast sandwiches and start serving something healthy like fruit. Give me a free cup of coffee on my birthday. I bet they’ve heard nearly all of these ideas before. I can’t help but imagine their marketing department sitting in a massive room scribbling out a giant flow-chart bracket on a whiteboard — their own version of March Madness.

But, it may be unduly harsh to call it propaganda. Yes, it’s censored and filtered, and yes, it’s wearing a grass-roots disguise, but it is doing one thing right: involving customers in conversations about Starbucks’ products. Whether you love or hate Starbucks, I think they deserve some credit for this relatively bold step. They need to lose their impulse to control the conversation if they want to be seen as legitimately caring about what their customers have to say, but it is a step in the right direction.

I’m betting that Starbuck’s new foray into customer feedback is an idea that nearly every media-savvy Forbes 500 executive will be pondering this week. If this idea gets co-opted and adopted by others, here’s hoping they get the other half right — the true community involvement — and not just ladle in an extra helping of marketing.

Starbucks is on Get Satisfaction.]

The back story: Someone added a company to Get Satisfaction this week and began a conversation designed to warn prospective customers away from an online eyeglass seller. Fair enough.

And, to make it as fair as can be, I sent a friendly note to the company to let them know that someone had started this conversation. I do this a lot. It’s part of my job to encourage companies to engage with people who are talking about their products on our site, whether that talk is positive or negative. Most companies find out that even supremely angry customers will do a 180-degree turn when they see that the company is actually responding to them and trying to help them fix the problem. We see a lot of these “wow, I can’t believe you responded” moments on Get Satisfaction, and it’s always a pleasure to see it happen.

This time that did not happen. Instead, the proprietor of the business shot back an e-mail to me with a clip-art image of a businessman shooting me the bird. This message, in fact:

Rude and crude, to be sure, and it certainly doesn’t live up to the motto in the sender’s e-mail signature: “Customer Service at its Finest”. It’s business suicide to engage with people like this, especially since the Internet allows customers to amplify and broadcast their discontent.

Sure enough, a Google search of the company’s name turns up a lot, including numerous accusations of selling fake sunglasses and a Better Business Bureau search turns up reports of “aggressive and harassing behavior” from the company’s owner. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.

It made me wonder about other ways to research questionable companies online. One way to see if people have reported a business as fraudulent is to check with Ripoff Report. It’s worth noting, though, that even Ripoff Report has been accused of questionable business practices.

It’s hard to pinpoint a positive in this kind of experience. One comfort I think people can take in this online reseller’s behavior is that the business probably won’t last very long. The power of customer discontent on the Internet is mighty strong. Indeed, as I was researching this company, I saw this entry on Reseller Ratings, a Web site that helps consumers locate the best (and worst) online sellers:

“I almost purchased sunglasses until I saw this post.”

Two weeks ago, Rackspace, the San Antonio-based IT hosting provider, announced their Fanatical Support Promise.

Sounds like a PR campaign, huh?

Only, it’s not. These folks mean it. As they put it:

“It’s the no excuses, no exceptions, can-do way of thinking that Rackers [Rackspace employees] bring to work every day. Your complete satisfaction is our sole ambition. Anything less is unacceptable. Working hard 24×7x365 to support you is more than our job. It’s who we are. Our driving purpose is to take care of your business, to make sure things go as smoothly as possible. And if for some reason they don’t, you’ll be surprised at the lengths we go to make things right. Any issue you have is quickly taken care of by your own expert Rackspace Support Team, so you’ll never have to worry about it again. Ever.”

Did they just say, “Your complete satisfaction is our sole ambition?” That’s just about the most forceful customer service attitude I’ve ever heard, and I wanted to call it out as an example for anyone else who’s planning on being known for their support. You should steal their idea — but only if you mean it.

This is a great strategy, but they’d better be able to back it up because the long and short of this promise is that Rackspace will break any contract their customers have signed with them if those customers are unhappy. That’s a pretty impressive stance for an IT host. It basically kills the contract, but it extends a big hand to potential customers. It also means they will actually have to perform for you, which is the way I personally like my subscription-based services. I like to be able to cut them off if I’m unhappy. I’m petty like that.

What makes this promise really impressive to me is that it empowers customer service reps to step up and provide authentic help — to do whatever needs doing to get things done. That’s a key detail that most stodgy corporations get very wrong: They prefer their reps to be nameless and faceless and by-the-book. I wasn’t surprised to learn, then, that Rackspace is also on the 2008 list of Money magazine’s 100 best places to work. I also notice that Rackspace recently announced their 4,000th customer. Sounds like they’re doing a heck of a lot right.

Is it possible to actually be this awesomely incredible at customer service? Probably not, but it’s certainly possible to try, and they are apparently willing to try harder than anyone else.

This sounds like more than just customer service to me. It sounds like marketing. Smart marketing.

[Rackspace is on Get Satisfaction.]