March 18, 2008
A surefire sign of terrible service
Time for a dose of Seamus McCauley:
One sure-fire way I’ve found to spot a company or service that has unacceptably bad levels of service is that they have to put up signs exhorting customers not to assault their staff.
Coffee shops don’t seem to need these signs, presumably because their patrons are basically happy that they’re getting the coffee they’ve waited and paid for. Pubs, even though the patrons are often boisterously drunk, don’t usually need to bother; clothing stores, computer hardware retailers, sandwich emporia, candlemakers, newsagents, mobile phone shops, internet cafes…none of these feel the need for signs asking patrons not to violently attack employees.
In fact, I see these signs almost exclusively in public transport providers and banks. Given that - purely on the evidence of the placement of these signs - the same people who are seemingly peaceable customers of almost every other retailer or service provider are expected to become violently enraged when dealing with banks and public transport, it’s almost tempting to conclude that the problem is not on the customers’ end…
I think Seamus McCauley has missed something. He may be right about banks but not about public service staff. Somehow people in the UK - and even here in France - perceive public sector buildings, equipment and staff as ‘public property’ - not under the caring ownership of anyone in particular. Perhaps perceived as available to use and abuse at will: graffitti assaults on staff and, here in France arson attacks on buses on the streets.
Is this an attack, by proxy, on impersonal (uncaring) government?
Posted by: derek tunnicliffe | March 18th, 2008 at 9:11 am | Report this commentI think that Seamus made a genuinely interesting observation but it’s important not to oversimplify any implied conclusion.
Posted by: R N B | March 18th, 2008 at 1:55 pm | Report this commentFirstly the late night bus drivers and other public transport officials are abused because they tend to be lone and exposed - unlike pub landlords and bouncers. Also the nature of the situation implies an easier escape for the abuser.
Secondly, in banks or hospitals as oppposed to shops, you have fairly junior people making little decisions that fundamentally affect your life. Not getting medical treatment or being refused bank loans is a lot more likely to enrage than missing out on the opportunity to purchase a cheap consumer product.
So while I accept that lack of competition is one cause of poor customer service, Derek’s point and these others are also relevant.
Pubs often have bouncers. Clothes shops and malls have security guards.
It’s not that service is necessarily bad, it’s that the perceived consequences of perceived poor service (being late, losing money, etc.) are worse so the stakes are higher for the customer.
That being said, any argument that would increase investment in public transport would be most welcome…
Posted by: Dave | March 19th, 2008 at 9:33 am | Report this commentProf. Robert Cialdini argues that signs like this are counter-productive: the message they communicate (sub-conscious level) is that the proscribed behaviour is in fact permissible. It is a function of the principle of what Cialdini calls “social proof”). eg. People who drop litter will tend to do it (or do it more) in areas where there is already litter.
Cialidini argues that medical surgeries should not put up signs saying “100 patrients failed to keep their appontments this month”. For people who would never dream of not calling to cancel an appointment, the sign just makes them miserable or angry). People who do sometime “fail to attend” - the sign tells them that they are far from alone, and the idea that “it’s ok really” is reinforced. Cialidini’s book is excellent (new edition soon) and there are two audio files of recent lectures on the RSA site.
I think the Undercover Economist would be interested in Cialdini’s work.
Posted by: Michael, in UK | March 20th, 2008 at 5:37 pm | Report this comment