I do a lot of online shopping — all in the name of research, of course — and I went on a clicking and buying spree a few weeks ago. I don't restrict myself to the big e-tailers, often preferring to buy from smaller e-shops that sometimes offer more personalized service to their less sizable customer base.
Out of six transactions, two arrived fairly quickly and without a hitch; one needed some follow-up calls and e-mail to get the order processed; I am still waiting for two others to arrive; and one went horribly wrong.
This is the story of good e-commerce gone bad.
It all started innocently enough; I ordered a health and beauty product from a company I did business with before. Like many women, I am intensely loyal to the health and beauty products that I like, and I even have friends that buy lipstick in bulk if there is a hint that their favorite color may be discontinued.
When three weeks passed and my bottle of skin lotion didn't show up, I called the manufacturer who informed me that they had some governmental trouble and were severely back-ordered. I pointed out that their Web site is still citing 7 to 10 business days for delivery and they assured me that they were working very hard to fill orders and would do the best they can.
Coincidentally, later that day I received a vendor feedback form from Yahoo! where the store is a featured merchant. I used the forum to express my dissatisfaction and I suggested that the company should have sent an e-mail notice to customers or post a back-order disclaimer on the Web page.
I though that would be the end of the matter but then the president of the company sent me a detailed reply that volunteered a little too much information:
"FDA decided that [the product] is a drug and not a cosmetic. We had to dispose of all our product and all our literature because the claims we made are medical and the product was not manufactured per OTC drug specifications-FDA photographed the entire disposal process. They forced us to do a 'voluntary recall' which I think is done."
The e-mail goes on to explain that credit cards have not been charged while they waited for the FDA to complete their investigation. He then responds to my suggestions for improved customer service:
"For what it's worth, we are not Microsoft and don't have the budget of a publicly traded company. We are a 'little guy.' ...I had no choice but to furlough all but a few essential employees needed to answer phones and assist the consultant with the numerous details we had to overcome in order to get up and running. There wasn't much time to do 'mass e-mailings,' etc. There were a few moments when I almost pulled the plug, grabbed what I could from the bank accounts and said the hell with it. Who needs the aggravation."
Sounded a little suspicious to me, but maybe I just caught the guy on a bad day. After all, he went on to say that his company has spent a fortune defending patents and trademarks, he is months behind on his orders and the FDA is breathing down his neck. Who wouldn't be a little frazzled?
I wrote back, expressing sympathy for his plight and agreeing to wait for my order to be processed. I also offered some more insight into the importance of good customer service:
"It shouldn't have taken my phone call and feedback comments to prompt a personal letter from the president. I admire the personal interest that you took in my comments, but I think you would be better served by contacting your entire customer base, rather than one 'squeaky wheel' at a time.
Your company was already aware of the backlog when I placed my order on February 21. An autoresponse to my order could have notified me of the delay. Something as simple as that is a good customer service tactic.
Taking into consideration that a portion of your customers are first time Internet shoppers, your company has somewhat of a responsibility in taking the time to make these customers feel safe and trusting of the e-commerce process. Also, there are many loyal consumers who deserve superior treatment because of their lifetime value to your company."
I also identified myself as a loyal online shopper and a journalist, saying that maybe I was a stickler for good customer service because of my constant exposure to e-commerce and eCRM issues. Maybe my comments wouldn't get my order processed any faster, but hopefully he would heed my advice and spare future customers undue concern.
But the president of the company didn't exactly see it that way and sent me one more e-mail:
"Sorry. We are doing the best we can. If it's not good enough, it's a free world so go ahead and render criticism. I challenge you, however, to endure what I have and perform equally well. When you prove yourself under fire, then your opinion will carry some clout."
While poor service can sometimes be excused when there are extenuating circumstances, rudeness cannot. I quickly cancelled my order and ruminated on whether e-tailers realize how little it takes to satisfy online customers. In this case, apparently not.
This e-tailer could have avoided this communications fiasco with some pre-emptive customer service — a disclaimer on the Web site, an apologetic e-mail to customers, an autoresponse, a promise of free shipping to compensate for the inconvenience.
Customers are not mind readers and they are unsuspecting of any behind-the-scenes difficulties. Contacting a customer first when an unexpected problem strikes will typically result in patience and understanding, as it did when the company president imparted his hard-luck story to me. Customers that have to contact the Web store to inquire about their orders are already halfway frustrated and the chances of them coming back are diminished.
Every shopper deserves good customer service, whether it comes from the automated methods of a sophisticated customer relationship management application or something more basic, like personal e-mails from the president of the company.
IE 7
Firefox 2.0
