March 17, 2008

SXSW: 10 Texas-Sized Memories

1. Worst Website Ever: Wired wrote about the Worst Website Ever contest, which we participated in. Although he didn’t win (almost!), Lane’s idea about over-the-top shopping experiences in virtual worlds was pretty damn funny.

2. Judo Moves: Thor gave a spirited talk on how to deal with people who try to impugn your reputation online. It had some examples plucked right from the previous day’s headlines, including a hilarious song consisting entirely of lyrics culled from angry blog comments.

3. Taking It with You: Leslie joined a packed room to talk about taking your log-in information with you as you jump from social network to social network. The “Building Portable Social Networks” panel provoked a lot of discussion about OAuth, OpenID, and related topics. The response it received from the audience really made me think that these new strategies are moving forward, and quickly. Awesome.

4. Moblogging SXSW: Welcome to a panel on using tools like Twitter and Utterz to publish words, audio, and video in real-time. But, don’t bother sitting down. We’re all going to head outside and use these tools to interview people and come back in half an hour and see what we all sent to the Internet. Fabulous idea, and one that lives up to the “interactive” label that SXSW promises. There should be more workshop-like panels like this one.

5. The Sauce: The enchiladas verdes at Las Manitas. Tomatillos done right.

6. Twittering On: Twitter proved to be just as invaluable, influential, and fun as it was last year. Good. That’s what we all had hoped and expected. By all accounts, SXSW got much bigger this year, and the parties that go along with that growth didn’t always scale, as anyone waiting in line for an hour to get into a party can attest. In a way, Twitter helped fill that gap by moving all the people who couldn’t fit into the bigger venues into smaller ones. Thanks, Twitter, for being a crowd-caller when you need to draw a crowd — or leave a big crowd for a more intimate one.

7. Big Party: The big 16-bit party we co-sponsored was covered by Yahoo’s TechTicker. Skip forward to 3:50 in the video to see Lane interviewed by Sarah Lacy. My favorite part: Lacey asks, “Do you think people get too old for SXSW?” Lane: “I don’t because I’m delusional.” That’s the spirit.

7. RVIP Lounge: A recreational vehicle that scoots you away from the downtown crowds and into a rolling karaoke partyland? Why, yes, I would like to ride on that bus. Thanks, Jonathan Grubb, of RubyRed Labs, for creating the one thing we didn’t know we needed. Delightful. Also seen on the LA Times Web Scout blog.

9. Lone Star state: Lone Star: the perfect watery, domestic choice when you’re just not sure how long the party might go on.

10. Tacos Supremely Successful: Get Satisfaction hosted an informal Meetup about what we’re up to and where we’re going. We’re happy to report that all of the breakfast tacos were scrumptious. Thanks to everyone who joined us. I’ve already noticed a few of those new faces signing up their companies on Get Satisfaction. Right on! If you’ve got any questions about getting started with us, I’m here to help answer them.

All in all, it was a stellar SXSW. New faces at SXSW = more people to learn from. Old friends at SXSW = more ways to find unofficial meet-ups. Thanks to everyone who met us, promoted us, befriended us, or otherwise shouted out to us.

By Eric Suesz | Posted in SXSW, Satisfaction, community, conferences, reputation, tacos | Comments (0)
March 9, 2008

The Kindness of Strangers

“Apparently, ‘kindness’ is a requirement for using Get Satisfaction.”

So retorted someone on Get Satisfaction this week, as he accused us of censoring him. We hadn’t censored him (he’s still here!), but we did kindly encourage him to engage with a company rep who had been reaching out to him directly, instead of simply jumping into conversations to complain and then jumping out again; and again; and again.

This Get Satisfaction user is a long-time critic of the company. In fact, when you look at their Get Satisfaction dashboard (which highlights their activity), it’s pretty much a long (very long) string of criticism and complaints about the company, with no participation in any other sections of Get Satisfaction. This person holds a singular and distinguished record in our system: 0 topics started, but hundreds of replies to other people’s topics — nearly all of them angry — and all of them about that one hated company. It makes you wonder if this person is actually a customer of the company. Who would continue to pay for a service they hate that much?

There are a lot of disgruntled people like this on the Internet. Some of them obviously relish the mask of anonymity they can adopt in online places. It allows them to engage with people in an unabashedly negative way. They’re the flamers and haters and stokers of emotion. The reason they do these things isn’t really knowable (and probably isn’t all that fascinating if you were to dig down into it), but they can really kill a conversation. Just like in real life.

But where is the line they cross that makes them a troll? And, is it reasonable to expect everyone to play nice on Get Satisfaction?

This anonymously angry poster sparked a discussion this week in that vein, both on the Get Satisfaction site and in the Get Satisfaction office. We have a public set of community guidelines for dealing with spammers and trolls, but the subject always provokes discussion. It turned into a week of pondering how to keep everyone striving toward productive solutions to their problems, while avoiding the use of that tricky sword with the sharp handle: censorship.

Our conclusion (and this is no bolt of lightning from the heavens) is that it’s really all about context. You don’t sing your favorite song out loud while you’re in the library. You respect the value you get out of that place. You accept that you have to be quiet and mindful in that setting. The trade-off — knowledge, information, entertainment, in exchange for polite, quiet behavior — is worth it. If it’s not, you probably don’t go to the library.

We want to be known as a place where people work toward being productive, where everyone participates in finding innovative ways to turn negatives around. We certainly don’t mandate kindness on Get Satisfaction, but we also don’t want to be known as a place where people simply complain. (There are a lot of those kind of sites out there already.) To shape conversation toward that kind of outcome, we do sometimes have to encourage people to be less outwardly confrontational. We don’t want to overreach on this point and end up being overly touchy-feely in our language and attitude. We’re not trying to recreate Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood over here. But we are trying to get things done, for both customers and companies.

Dealing with trolls — and deciding what makes a troll — is an ongoing process at Get Satisfaction, and we’d love to hear what you think about it. If you can spot ‘em a mile away and want to share your thoughts about trolls, join us at our SXSW Meetup this Tuesday for our 1:30-2:15 p.m. session, “The Secrets of Managing Customer Communities.”

PureVolume Ranch

323 E. 2nd Street

Austin, Texas 78701

Map it

Help us shape the discussion by bringing your troll experiences to the table. But, please: no stink bombs or bullhorns.

By Eric Suesz | Posted in SXSW, Satisfaction, community, customer service, reputation | Comments (2)
January 16, 2008

Frown Upside Down

I’m just now catching up to this stellar New York Times article, Put Buyers First? What a Concept. It details Jeff Bezos’ obsession with customer service.

The author, Joe Nocera (who’s a great business reporter), gets a free Playstation 3 for his son (mm-hmmm) shipped to him from Amazon.com just in time for Christmas — even though his originally purchased Playstation had been delivered and signed for by someone in his apartment building.

The article points out that Amazon’s focus on customer service isn’t exactly a barn-burner of a strategy when it comes to pleasing Wall Street, but that it seems to be working when it comes to repeat sales.

Best part of the piece:

“

There is simply no question that Mr. Bezos’s obsession with his customers — and the long term — has paid off, even if he had to take some hits to the stock price along the way. Surely, it was worth it. As for me, the $500 favor the company did for me this Christmas will surely rebound in additional business down the line. Why would I ever shop anywhere else online?

Then again, there may be another reason good customer service makes sense. “Jeff used to say that if you did something good for one customer, they would tell 100 customers,” Mr. Kotha said.

I guess that’s what I just did.

”

Indeed, you did, mister journalist. I believe Amazon just spent $500 very wisely.

[Amazon.com is on Get Satisfaction.]

By Eric Suesz | Posted in Judo move, customer service, news, press, reputation | Comments (0)
January 15, 2008

The DreamHost Nightmare

DreamHost overbilled their customers to the tune of $7.5 million today. Then, they joked about it.

Today, in what is surely the most readable and contentious blog posting so far in 2009 — er, I mean 2008 — DreamHost took a lighthearted approach to an undeniably serious customer service snafu.

And the blogosphere is going crazy over it.

When running a billing script to clear out their charges for the remainder of 2007 (a script which determines when and how customers of the Internet hosting company get charged) they accidentally entered a date of December 31, 2008. This resulted in nearly every account they service being charged for the rest of 2008.

Wow.

That’s a mistake of colossal, perhaps company-ending proportions. It’s every PR person’s worst nightmare and every vice president of customer relations’ death knell: the complete and utter screw up that can’t possibly be explained away.

Time to call in the PR army.

Only, DreamHost doesn’t have an army of PR flaks. They’re a small company with a lot of goodwill in their community, a decent track record, and a whole lot of lighthearted attitude. So, they relied on their strength: the funny.

With their usual tongue-in-cheek attitude, they posted an amusing blog post (“Um, Whoops”) that explained the situation, what they are doing to fix the problem, and what they have learned from the experience.

Not everyone found it laugh-out-loud funny. I did, but I’m not a DreamHost customer. I have nothing to lose from this mistake. The responses to the blog posting are riveting, hilarious, and deadly frightening from a customer service point-of-view.

If you’re in any way involved in customer service, you should spend at least ten minutes reading DreamHost’s blog post and the responses that follow.

At the time of this writing, according to an informal poll set up by one of the blog’s commenters, the answer to the question, “Will you stay with DreamHost after their billing screw-up,” is 53% yes, 31% no, and 17% undecided.

Ouch.

Did DreamHost do the right thing by being dead-set on openness and transparency? Did they simply shore up their base of dedicated customers who like to laugh, at the expense of more serious-minded customers? What about that swing vote?

DreamHost is on Get Satisfaction, and you can join the conversation about them here.

By Eric Suesz | Posted in appearances, community, company, customer service, entertainment, reputation | Comments (3)
December 11, 2007

It’s the transparency, stupid

For over a month some of the most heated issues on Get Satisfaction have been around Facebook and its enforcement policies. Many people have reported the same thing: a sudden disabling of their accounts, no substantive information about why they’ve been blacklisted, and no process for redress. More recently, people have begun posting their email correspondence with Facebook, showing the same generic form response to every inquiry. Throughout this crush of communication from users here on Get Satisfaction the company itself has remained silent.

Satisfaction is a neutral party in all this: our goal is to help customers and companies communicate better with one another. In most cases this just means providing a better platform for everyone to talk. In this Facebook issue, we’ve gone a step further by stirring the pot on behalf of the frustrated users, culminating in a heads up I sent to TechCrunch.

This isn’t because we think the company’s basic policies are wrong. In all likelihood they’re in the best interest of their core community, and we’re all for enforcing standards of behavior in online communities. We do it all the time here. However, we are and will always be tireless in advocating for open communication between companies and their customers because this is how long-term, trusted relationships are built. In this case, Facebook’s “opaqueness,” as TechCrunch describes it, is creating real alienation amongst users. We think there’s a lesson here for all companies.

We’re not so naive that we think that a company like Facebook can or should reveal everything about its internal systems, nor discuss private issues regarding individual accounts out in the open. But by reinforcing the image of itself as an impenetrable fortress, where all communication is allowed only on its terms, Facebook sends the message that it’s afraid of its own users. Now granted, some of its users may in fact be dangerous (and we’ve met a few that fit that bill, certainly), but for the rest of us who are investing in Facebook with our time we should expect more. Facebook should be speaking to us in a human voice, tell us where they’re coming from, listen attentively when we want to share, and sometimes engage with us on our terms. Because businesses depend on the goodwill of their users to make things work, they need us to build their business.

The goodhearted, hardworking customer service team at Facebook doesn’t deserve to be villainized for doing what it takes to keep their delicate business running smoothly. But it is time that companies recognize that there are hard costs incurred when they choose to only present a closed, institutional public face.

How much more productive would it be if Facebook posted a response in Satisfaction that helps people understand the company’s actions better? Perhaps something like this:

“Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to share their experiences here. It helps those of us here at Facebook to understand how we can do a better job, and we are deeply sorry when we make mistakes that inconvenience our users. Please know that we’re working overtime to protect the fun, safe environment that we’re known for. Consequently, when it comes to our terms of use we generally err on the side of enforcement, but we are careful to review each case if users appeal the action (by sending a note to appeals@facebook.com). This can take some time, of course, and we appreciate your patience if you find yourself in this position. We have every interest in getting non-offending users back into their accounts as quickly as possible.

Finally, we will try harder to communicate more frequently here about the ongoing changes we’re making to improve your experience. Even if things don’t always work perfectly we’re committed to working with you over time to make Facebook all it can be. Once again, thanks for caring enough to express yourself about Facebook!”

In the meantime, we here at Satisfaction continue to welcome Facebook’s participation in the discussion.

By Thor Muller | Posted in Satisfaction, case studies, customer service, new rules, reputation | Comments (0)