From Network Neutrality Squad email group:
> Google's Customer Support Dilemma Intensifies > > http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000666.html > > >Greetings. With sales support and technical support issues >surrounding Google's launch of their new Nexus One Android phone >rather vividly in the spotlight right now, this seems like an >appropriate time to revisit a recurring theme of significant interest >to me, the topic of Google's customer support in general >( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000664.html ). > >This is most assuredly not a simple matter, and any attempt to paint >this subject as suitable for easy solutions or quickie analysis is >doomed to be pretty much useless or even counterproductive. So this >is going to be a rather long piece. Sorry about that, Chief. > >Regular readers know that I've discussed this topic various times in >the past in relation to different aspects of the perceived problems. > >I'll try to avoid repeating at length here what I've previously said >and recommended in those prior postings -- here are links to a couple >of these for backstory reference: > >Google's "Failure to Communicate" vs. User Support >http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000509.html > >"Google Ombudsman" (Part II) >http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000510.html > >An initially unexpected result of my various writings on Google >support problems has been a continuing flow of Google-related issues >being sent to me by frustrated Google users, including concerns >ranging from trivial to serious. > >A common thread is that most of these users claim to have been unable >to obtain an adequate response (or in many cases, any non-automated >response at all) from Google in reaction to their concerns. These >users then start Google Searching on the topic of Google support >problems, find my essays, and start forwarding their problems to me! > >It's gotten to the point where it's rare for a day to go by without my >receiving at least one such e-mail from an upset or concerned Google >user. But this does provide me with some interesting insights. > >Obviously, I'm not in a position to directly act on Google-related >issues. But I do try to help when I can. > >Sometimes it's just a matter of clearing up misinformation. Google >conspiracy theories float around the Net like flotsam and jetsam, and >concerned users often are all too willing to buy into "assume the >worst" scenarios. > >A common example of this is persons who feel that Google is purposely >and unfairly censoring or otherwise damaging their sites' "search >ranking reputation" on Google. But at least in my experience, every >example of this brought to my attention by concerned site owners has >had an innocent explanation. > >Sites can be bumped or flagged when they become infected by malware >that Google detects. Such infections can occur in ways that the site >owner isn't even aware of, resulting in loud (but inaccurate) protests >that "my site is clean!" > >Another example is sites who have indulged -- sometimes at the urging >of less than scrupulous "Search Engine Optimization" (SEO) firms -- in >site design practices aimed at boosting their sites' Google search >results rankings, but that violate Google's Webmaster guidelines >(which are quite explicit and well documented). > >In my experience, Google tries very hard to maintain the "purity" of >natural search results and to avoid inappropriate bias in those >results. > >Anyway, you get the idea -- some of the Google problem queries that I >receive are pretty easy to deal with via just a bit of relevant >information, understanding, and the willingness to appreciate that >people get upset about situations where they can't seem to get anyone >to respond to their concerns in what they consider to be a useful >manner. > >Another class of users who come to me with Google issues have genuine >operational problems. Perhaps they've been trying to get what they >consider to be a specific, privacy-problematic photo removed from >Google Street View. Or maybe they're having an issue with Google >Voice that is causing them call problems, or perhaps merchant-related >ad or Google Checkout issues. > >In some cases I'll have information readily available that can help, >but other times I go digging for it around the Net, and occasionally >I'll need to make some direct queries via my own channels to try help >these folks. > >The bottom line is that the vast majority of them seem to be thrilled >that someone is at least paying attention to their problems. > >A key point -- nothing seems to irritate people with Google-related >issues more than the perception that they are being ignored, and that >their concerns are just falling into automated black holes when >submitted to Google Help forms. > >There are all sorts of official Google Help Forums of course, but >these seem to frustrate many people rather than help them in even >common situations. They often seem to run pretty much in an >"automatic" mode, with user contributed suggestions (sometimes useful, >sometimes just plain wrong) mixed in with everything else, and >frequently no formal Google presence other than perhaps a Google >employee who pops in occasionally with a comparatively isolated >comment. > >Again, the perception of a "black hole" related to posted or submitted >Google-associated customer service problems runs rampant in the e-mail >that I receive on Google topics, with users complaining that they have >no confidence that concerns submitted to Google will receive any kind >of useful and relevant response or resolution at all from Google in >any given case. > >There's another class of complaint that is perhaps the toughest to >deal with, people who have policy-related concerns with Google (and >often, with search engines in general). This can include (for >example) persons or firms who feel that false information about them >consistently ranks to the top of search results and that they have no >way to correct or even respond to what they feel is damaging >misinformation. > >This is a very tough nut to crack -- particularly since search engines >in general do not control the content of the external sites that they >index. I've discussed this particular class of policy concerns >previously (including in "Search Engine Dispute Notifications: Request >For Comments" - http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000253.html ) and >won't go into it more now, since in my opinion the topic resides at the >outer edge of more conventional customer support issues, but that's >not to diminish its importance in any way. > >The folks over at Blendtec ( http://www.blendtec.com/willitblend ) >run a really fun site, with a vast collection of videos showing their >"nuclear" blenders pulverizing an incredible range of objects. >"Will it Blend?" is their very appropriate slogan. ("iPhone smoke. >Don't breath this!") > >Over at Google, it could be argued that the slogan "Will it Scale?" is >equally venerated -- and with good reason. > >Google is dealing with unbelievably vast numbers of users, most of >whom pay exactly zero to Google -- nuthin' -- to use Google services. > >I have long sensed that Google is aware at various levels of their >customer support problems, but has felt stymied about deploying >solutions given perceived cost and scale issues, particularly when >dealing with a mostly non-paying user base. That's just my opinion, >of course, I'm certainly not speaking for Google. > >The issue of paying vs. non-paying users is an interesting one. To be >sure, most Google users don't pay Google in the same sense that they >authorize a payment to their ISP every month. Yet Google's primary >ad-supported business model is based on the concept that those >non-paying users still represent a revenue stream via their ad clicks. >And Google is now a central part of many millions of lives -- whether >paying customers or not -- so simply because so many Google services >are positioned as "free" to most users does not obviate Google of >reasonable and effective support responsibilities. > >Is it practical to offer the vast universe of "free" Google users the >same level of support as received by, say, paying Google Apps users? > >Perhaps not, but I would argue that the current state of Google >customer service is increasingly unacceptable to Google's users in >general, and damaging to Google as well. > >The apparent lack of foresight in this sphere relating to the Nexus >One launch seems surprising -- direct sales of a complex physical >product can easily be predicted to need significant consumer >hand-holding. But Google can fix the most obvious aspects of this >particular issue pretty easily, even if they need to resort to >contracting with outside customer service phone banks to help with >pre- and post-sales Nexus One (and future direct sales devices) >issues. > >In contrast, the broader Google support issues beyond the immediate >Nexus One story are likely not so easily solved. But I do feel that >they are solvable in practical ways. > >At the macro level, a "triaged" approach to user concerns is crucial. >The "Ombudsman" concept that I have previously explored (as linked >above) could be an important aspect of this. > >Another critical element of a successful customer service structure is >a formalized system for dealing with queries of all types that >reduces, or ideally eliminates, the "black hole complaint form" effect >that is so incredibly upsetting to users with Google-related issues. > >This would require the allocation of significant manpower and the >spending of not insignificant amounts of money. So be it. Trying to >finesse around this matter indefinitely is likely leading to even more >problems for everyone involved. > >There are various ways to structure such an improved support >environment to help keep the scaling issues under control. One >possibility -- and I'm not necessarily recommending this, but only >pointing it out as perhaps worthy of discussion -- would be to charge >a small "per incident" fee (to otherwise non-paying Google users) for >expedited responses to problem issues. This would encourage such >users to use available self-help resources when possible, but still >provide a practical path for more assistance as appropriate. > >Google has attracted some of the best technical talent in the world. >In many ways it's the new Bell Labs of its day, and I've long held >Bell Labs in very high esteem indeed. > >Google's employees include among the most intelligent and perceptive >persons I know -- individuals who are also genuinely concerned about a >broad range of issues and how Google impacts them. It's a popular >misconception to assume that Google is all about money. They're a >very powerful business to be sure, but the Google corporate ethos -- >as I perceive it -- genuinely is concerned with a much broader range >of humanistic concerns beyond the financial bottom line. Perceptions >of Google skewed by negative customer service experiences is likely >acting to obscure this fact -- and that's a genuine shame -- but not >an intractable one. > >If Google tasks its collective talent with the challenge of providing >world-class customer service, I have absolutely no doubt that they can >set an extremely positive example in this regard for the entire >Internet. > >No, it won't be easy. But it's very much worth doing, not just for >the sake of Google's users, but for Google itself, and for the broader >Internet community as well. > >--Lauren-- >Lauren Weinstein >[email protected] >Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 >http://www.pfir.org/lauren >Co-Founder, PFIR > - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org >Co-Founder, NNSquad > - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org >Founder, GCTIP - Global Coalition > for Transparent Internet Performance - http://www.gctip.org >Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com >Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy >Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com >Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein > > > >__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus >signature database 4762 (20100111) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > >http://www.eset.com Owner of the bwfc yahoogroup and Co-Moderator of MiniDisc and amithlonopen yahoo groups.
