Think Customers: The 1to1 Blog

It's possible that Orbitz responded to the tweets first because of the public nature of the network. Or perhaps the staffing-to-complaint ratio enables a faster response through that channel. The question my colleague had is why its service team didn't respond further to the complaint sent via the website--even if it was a simple autoresponse that noted that the issue was being handled through another channel. Could it actually be because the company has an integrated service operation, so those who respond to tweets know when complaints are made via more traditional channels? (And felt it unnecessary to give my colleague any indication that they knew she had also complained via the website.) Or, is it possible that Orbitz's channels aren't connected, and their website response is lacking. Unless Orbitz responds here, we may never know.

The bigger question for me, though, is whether customers are being "trained" to complain in a social forum because they know that they're more likely to get a quick response and satisfactory resolution in that venue. (And will this cause a major shift in contact center staffing over the next few years?) Or is it simply that there is such a lack of issue resolution and customer satisfaction through more traditional channels that customers are taking their grievances public to get resolution by any means necessary--or at least get the satisfaction of airing their complaints to the largest group of listeners possible? Perhaps. Perhaps some customers are trying to game the system to get a better resolution (e.g., a refund versus an apology) by going social with their complaints. I'm sure it's a mix of all these.

So how should companies respond? Obviously, they can't ignore social channels. Do they just shift with the changing tide; do they try to "train" customers to stick with traditional channels by improving the service delivery in those channels? What do you think?