WWE Wrestler Takes Homeless Group to Lunch: Humanity's Role in Customer Service

Is the most humane decision necessarily the most customer-centric one? Does it matter?

This past weekend, WWE wrestler Titus O’Neil earned Internet reverence for treating a group of homeless individuals to lunch at the San Diego Yard House restaurant.

Famously warm-hearted – and the winner of a Celebrity Dad competition – O’Neil doubtfully needed special motivation for the charitable, good-natured gesture.

In this case, however, he had that special motivation.

"I'm gathering homeless people to take them out to eat at @yardhouse," explained O’Neil in an Instagram post. "Last night I did the same thing and the manager seemed distant in Serving the two […] so I said instead of just posting I'll gather more and eat lunch with them at that Resturant [sic]. They need to learn how to treat All humans as such."

O’Neil’s decision to directly confront the issue was a productive one. In addition to making a louder statement about discrimination and unfair treatment, O’Neil also encountered a richer, more optimistic form of humanity.

The demeaning, distant treatment that plagued the previous night’s dinner was absent from the group lunch.

"Completely Different Response than Last night at the @YardHousein San Diego," wrote O’Neil in conjunction with a joyful photo from his lunch table. "Thanks to those that accepted Help&Those that Treated my guest [sic] at lunch as Humans,Patrons and God’s People."

O’Neil’s story offers a valuable, clear lesson in humanity.

One would have to be exceedingly naðve—and sheltered—to believe all homeless individuals are wholly responsible for their unfortunate situations. But perceptions of accountability have no bearing on the reality that such individuals are people. In the spirit of the Golden Rule – and general decency – one has no justification for treating them as anything less.

But does it present any lessons for customer service professionals? After all, the situation commenced when a restaurant provided inferior service to a group of customers.

Can Humanity Conflict with Customer-Centricity?

There is a chance – perhaps a very good one – that the initial treatment was the product of inherent discrimination.

There is also a chance the employees believed they were adhering to an (admittedly-short-sighted) form of customer-centricity.

Suppose the Yard House employees believed the homeless individuals would create a disruption. If there were merit to such a fear, the individuals’ very presence in the restaurant would diminish the experience enjoyed by the other guests.

Since those guests represent truer "customers" (and surely come with a higher lifetime value), Yard House, under the pure notion of customer centricity, possesses a greater commitment to their satisfaction. In accordance with that commitment, two directives may have theoretically emerged:

1) To compensate for the disruption, aggressively cater to the high-value customers even if such exemplary service takes resources away from the homeless individuals.

2) Provide the homeless individuals a level of service that discourages their continued presence in the restaurant.

Alienating the homeless individuals would have also cost the restaurant the support of Titus O’Neil. That loss, however, may have been seen as necessary collateral damage in the quest to retain the support of the other high-value customers.

While this particular example is an extreme one, restaurants make similar decisions on a regular basis. Within New York City, I consistently encounter restaurants that discourage patronage from homeless individuals.

And the issue extends beyond homeless patrons.

I, myself, have received inferior treatment when I did not align with a restaurant’s standard or desired demographic (such as by wearing casual clothing in a gourmet restaurant or by being a younger guest in a restaurant that skews toward executives in their 40s and 50s).

In all such cases, the restaurants were consciously deciding to unfairly dismiss the few in order to appease the many.

For all we know, the employees hated themselves for discriminating against O’Neil’s guests (consider the scene from "Knocked Up" in which Craig Robinson’s bouncer character laments the fact that he must discriminate against certain guests).

But as a customer-facing business, they, unfortunately, had to act in the manner they perceived to be most customer-centric.

Can Humanity Be Customer-Centric?

Let us assume the Yard House employees – and any restaurants that have discriminated against homeless individuals – made their decisions based on customer-centricity.

If true, it is relevant to ask whether they made the right decisions.

While O’Neil’s guests may have represented an unwanted disruption, is it not also possible that the disrespectful decision to demean those guests rendered the brand undesirable?

Today’s customers do not simply make decisions based on product – they also consider whether they like the brand itself. If the brand’s behavior misaligns with their own moral and ethical codes, customers may feel uneasy about – if not unwilling to – continue supporting that business.

Such a consideration carries particular weight in the age of social media. The ramifications of inhumane discrimination would not exclusively affect those who witnessed it; they would extend to all past, present and potential customers who heard about the incident through the digital grapevine.

Outside of the restaurant atmosphere – and thus less sensitive to experiential concepts like disruption – such individuals would likely be more judgmental of a discriminatory brand.

If customers place great importance on a brand’s moral fiber, then the most humane decision may also be the most customer-centric decision.

Consider All Ramifications

Titus O’Neil confirms that he did not share his story for the sake of damaging Yard House’s brand. He did it to prove a point about unequal treatment in today’s supposedly progressive society.

When Titus O’Neil brought his second group into the restaurant, Yard House had a chance to correct its mistake. It seized that opportunity.

When your business is confronted with a dilemma in which satisfying one customer may come at the expense of another, consider all facets of the situation. What does your brand truly represent? What do your customers truly want?

[Image via Titus O'Neil's Instagram]