如何應(yīng)對社交媒體上的客戶抱怨？

It is high season for customer complaints, when tourists take to social media to complain about their hotels or whine about expensive outings that failed to live up to expectations.

目前正值客戶抱怨的旺季，當(dāng)下游客們喜歡在社交媒體上發(fā)牢騷，抱怨他們住的酒店不好，或者旅行中花了冤枉錢。

For years, customer reps took comfort from the “service recovery paradox”, the counter-intuitive idea that, if they handled a complaint well, their company would emerge with an higher reputation than before.

多年來，客戶服務(wù)代表們從“服務(wù)補救悖論”中獲得了些許安慰，這種有違直覺的觀點認為，如果客服能夠圓滿處理一起投訴，他們的公司就會贏得比以往更高的聲譽。

To me, this notion has always looked as unsteady as a cheap deckchair on the beach. The proliferation of complaints on social media is bringing it closer to collapse. How people react when things go wrong surely depends on how much they suffer. Studies back my hunch. The paradox does exist but generally only when the service failure is not that severe, it has not happened before and the company had little control over what went wrong.

在我看來，這種觀點就像海灘上的一把廉價躺椅一樣不牢固。社交媒體上鋪天蓋地的抱怨令它更加瀕臨崩潰。當(dāng)出現(xiàn)問題時，人們的反應(yīng)無疑取決于他們遭了多大罪。我的這種直覺有研究印證。“服務(wù)補救悖論”的確存在，但一般僅限于當(dāng)服務(wù)的失誤沒那么嚴重、之前也沒有發(fā)生過、而且差錯超出了企業(yè)的控制范圍時。

I learnt this first-hand the other day at a screening of Dunkirk at London’s BFI IMAX cinema, run by Odeon. As we waited for the lights to go down, Mark, our host, announced: “Tonight, you will see Dunkirk as the director Christopher Nolan wanted it to be seen.” Except we did not. Instead, there was a long delay, as the projectionist wrestled with the 70mm analogue print.

前一段時間，我在歐迪恩(Odeon)旗下的倫敦BFI IMAX影院等待電影《敦刻爾克》(Dunkirk)放映時，對此有了切身體會。就在我們等著熄燈時，主持人馬克宣布：“今晚，你們將會看到以導(dǎo)演克里斯托弗•諾蘭(Christopher Nolan)想要呈現(xiàn)的格式放映的《敦刻爾克》。”我們不僅沒看到。恰恰相反，由于放映員遲遲搞不定70毫米模擬印片，我們被耽擱了相當(dāng)長的一段時間。

After 15 minutes of entertaining impromptu reflections on his hangover, his recent bad date and his favourite movies, Mark gave way to his manager, who apologised. Despite the build-up, Dunkirk would be shown in digital format. Those who had come expressly to see the 70mm version could leave and claim a full refund. Everyone else would receive a voucher for another big-screen presentation.

馬克做了15分鐘的即興演說，回顧了自己宿醉的經(jīng)歷、最近糟糕的約會以及他鐘愛的幾部電影，之后，他的經(jīng)理出面向我們道歉。即使做了宣傳，《敦刻爾克》還得以數(shù)字格式放映。那些特地趕來欣賞70毫米膠片版的觀眾可以離場并要求全額退票。其他人則將獲得觀看另一部寬銀幕電影的代金券一張。

Odeon seemed to have snatched triumph from potential disaster. I would happily return to the IMAX. The voucher was just a bonus. But of course I barely suffered. I still saw the movie. And, without Mark’s preamble, much of the audience, myself included, probably would not have noticed if it had been projected in analogue or digital. “What is ‘a print’?” was one of the audience questions Mark fielded as he valiantly busked through the delay.

歐迪恩似乎成功地完成了一次危機公關(guān)。我愿意再去那家IMAX影院。這張代金券純屬一個意外收獲。當(dāng)然，我也沒什么損失。我還是看了電影。而且，如果馬克事先不說，大部分觀眾，包括我在內(nèi)，可能都不會注意影片是以模擬還是數(shù)字格式放映的。就在馬克奮勇消磨延遲時還解答了一個觀眾的提問：“啥是印片?”。

Compare the experience of British Airways’ passengers who were stranded and separated from their luggage by an avoidable computer meltdown earlier this year. A dearth of information and an absence of frontline staff to deal with the problem exacerbated their predicament. No amount of compensation would have made those passengers overlook their ordeal, let alone recommend BA in future.

再來看另外一件事：今年早些時候，由于一次本可以避免的電腦故障，英國航空(British Airway)的乘客們被迫滯留機場，無法取回已托運的行李。不了解情況，又不見一線工作人員來解決問題，讓他們的處境越發(fā)艱難。再多的補償也無法令那些乘客對他們的遭遇釋懷，更別提今后讓他們向別人推薦英航了。

Or ask Roland Rust, founder of the Center for Excellence in Service at the University of Maryland’s business school, another sceptic about the paradox.

或者聽一聽馬里蘭大學(xué)(University of Maryland)商學(xué)院“卓越服務(wù)研究中心”(Center for Excellence in Service)創(chuàng)始人羅蘭•拉斯特(Roland Rust)的看法，他是另一位對“服務(wù)補救悖論”持懷疑態(tài)度的人。

Last year, he and his wife, frequent flyers with United Airlines, endured what they claim was a catalogue of service failures on a trip to Europe. Prof Rust turned it into a case study. For instance, United offered the couple 15,000 “goodwill” frequent flyer miles each, even though he already had 3.5m unused miles in his United account. Is the compensation offer sufficient? Prof Rust asks his students, though his own verdict is obviously “nowhere near”.

拉斯特和他太太都是美國聯(lián)合航空(United Airlines)的?？停ツ?，在一次歐洲之行中，拉斯特夫婦遭受了他們所說的一連串服務(wù)失誤。拉斯特教授將這次經(jīng)歷整理成了一個研究案例。美聯(lián)航給他們夫妻每人賠償了1.5萬英里的“善意”?？屠锍蹋m然在他的美聯(lián)航賬戶里還有350萬未使用的里程。這樣的補償夠嗎?拉斯特教授問他的學(xué)生們，盡管他自己認為“遠遠不夠”。

One lesson (apart from the self-evident one: never upset a customer service professor) is that many companies have become too “operationally oriented”, putting efficiency ahead of customer service. Another is that the power of cash compensation is overrated. A third is that what Prof Rust has dubbed the social media “echoverse” has eroded traditional measures of consumer sentiment — and changed how companies should respond.

一個教訓(xùn)(除了不言而喻的這個：永遠別招惹一位研究客戶服務(wù)的教授)是許多公司變得太過“以經(jīng)營為導(dǎo)向”，將效率置于客戶服務(wù)之上。另一個教訓(xùn)是現(xiàn)金補償?shù)淖饔帽桓吖懒?。第三點是，拉斯特教授所說的社交媒體“回聲效應(yīng)”(echoverse)削弱了過去提振消費者信心的那些舉措的效用——也改變了企業(yè)的應(yīng)對方式。

Assessing word-of-mouth customer comments on Twitter since its launch in 2006, he and other researchers found that, in the early years, positive comments on service generated more upbeat posts. But, as the echoverse matured, users fell into a “negativity spiral”, sharing more and more bad experiences. Contrast that with the pre-internet age, when it was estimated that between 70 and 95 per cent of customers never bothered to complain.

自2006年推特上線以來，拉斯特和其他研究人員就開始對推特上消費者的評論進行評估，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)，在頭幾年，對服務(wù)的正面評價會引發(fā)更多的正面帖子。然而，隨著回聲效應(yīng)日趨顯著，用戶陷入了“消極的漩渦”，越來越愛分享負面的經(jīng)歷。這與“前互聯(lián)網(wǎng)時代”形成了反差，據(jù)估算那時有70%到95%的消費者從不抱怨。

When things do go wrong, companies now try to “bundle” their responses to complaints. One 1999 study by Amy Smith, Ruth Bolton and Janet Wagner found “process failures” such as inattentive waiters, left customers more dissatisfied than “outcome failures”, such as waiters not being available. If your airline now pesters you with an online survey asking how you rate “your check-in experience”, not just whether your flight was on time, this is why.

當(dāng)出了差錯時如何應(yīng)對客戶的抱怨，商家們現(xiàn)在試圖“歸納整理”對策。1999年艾米•史密斯(Amy Smith)、露絲•博爾頓(Ruth Bolton)和珍妮特•瓦格納(Janet Wagner)的一項研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，“過程失敗”，如侍者粗心大意，會比“結(jié)果失敗”，如找不著侍者，更令顧客感到不滿。如果你的航空公司正纏著你做一項在線調(diào)查，讓你評價“你的登機體驗”，而不只是問你航班是否準點，就是這個原因。

Some modern solutions to customer complaints remain resolutely old-fashioned, verging on the obvious. Get it right first time, suggest some so-called experts.

處理客戶抱怨的一些現(xiàn)代解決方案仍然固守傳統(tǒng)套路，其中的道理幾乎是顯而易見的。一些所謂的專家建議，從第一次就要處理得當(dāng)。

Companies have started trying to turn the echoverse to their advantage, however, by replying to individual gripes. The tactic means some corporate social media channels read more like “sorry media” with their litany of apologies, but it works in two ways. Direct responses damp down the initial complaint, and stay on the record for future customers hunting for online guidance.

不過，商家們已經(jīng)開始試著利用回聲效應(yīng)，他們的做法是逐一回應(yīng)客戶的抱怨。這一策略意味著，因為不停地道歉，有些企業(yè)的社交媒體賬戶看起來更像“致歉媒體”，但這種做法也在兩方面奏效。直接的回應(yīng)平息了客戶最初的不滿，同時也讓客戶將來尋求在線指導(dǎo)有路可循。

The days when companies could rely on the service recovery paradox are long gone. But why not assume it still applies? There was no fighting on the beaches after my Dunkirk screening and, as far as I could tell, nobody asked for their money back. Even if there is little to gain in offering a sincere apology, applying a human touch and resuming good service, there is certainly nothing to lose and potentially a lot to learn.

商家們可以依賴“服務(wù)補救悖論”的時代早已一去不復(fù)返了。但何不假設(shè)它仍然適用呢?在我看完《敦刻爾克》后，并沒發(fā)生什么爭端，而且據(jù)我所知，沒有人要求退款。即使真誠致歉、有人情味的安撫以及繼續(xù)提供優(yōu)質(zhì)的服務(wù)不能為企業(yè)帶來什么好處，但肯定也不會造成什么損失，而且企業(yè)還有可能從中學(xué)到很多。