Twitter, Google Disappoint in an Era of Multi-Channel Customer Service

Editor’s note: Because Twitter and Google do not necessarily engage in direct transactions with all users, one is free to take umbrage with use of the word "customer." However, insofar as these users do have a relationship of mutual consideration with the organizations, often engage in commercial activity and partnerships on the networks, are the main recipients of the brands’ day-to-day service and do anticipate a certain experience, the principles of customer service and centricity are very much applicable.

Their visions helped usher in the "social era," which has revolutionized the quality and viability of human interaction.

Their platforms provided brands with a customer engagement opportunity so significant that those organization that do not seize it are immediately dismissed as anti-customer.

Why, then, are Google and Twitter so egregiously poor at effectively communicating with—and serving--today’s multi-channel customer?

These brands, the very organizations responsible for facilitating dialogue between businesses and their customers, demonstrate little interest in following suit. Their archaic, convenience-first approach to service operates in stark contrast to the notion of customer-centricity, and it is nothing short of a miracle that their shortcomings go largely unnoticed by the customer management community.

Though the rise of new, digital channels theoretically means less communication will happen on the phone, it does not mean customers no longer value live support. It does not mean their expectations regarding resolution time are relaxed or that they expect anything short of the brand’s full attention, effort and respect in all proceedings.

One would think Google and Twitter, which via their social networking utilities have helped transform online channels into live, personal support forums, would fully embrace a customer-centric notion of customer support. Their platforms, after all, have finally given customers a voice.

Why, then, are Google and Twitter so disinterested in hearing it?

Multi-Channel Is Not Simply "New Channel"

When discussing multi-channel, wise customer management thinkers are quick to clarify that they are not specifically focused on digital or social channels. Multi-channel refers to a broad philosophy, one that entails delivering a seamless experience in whichever medium—phone, email, chat, Twitter or anything in between—the customer decides is most appropriate.

Though that definition is typically used to explain why organizations must provide support outside of their telephone "call centers," it works both ways. If an organization is only providing online support and neglecting customer demand for phone assistance, it is just as guilty of undermining the multi-channel customer experience.

Based on that definition alone, Google and Twitter are guilty parties. Save for a select few lines of business, neither Google nor Twitter provides customer support via the telephone. Neither openly posts a customer service line, and the event one does locate Twitter’s phone number, he learns from the automated system that no agent exists to take his calls.

By including such a message, Twitter proves that it knows customers are seeking live phone support. Google does as well—its decision to offer live support for small business AdWords advertisers has provided an unparalleled engagement opportunity.

Since neither organization is even pretending to ignore its customers’ preference for phone support, their unwillingness to provide service in the channel is baffling. Multi-channel customer service is about resolving issues on the customer’s terms rather than the organization’s terms. Yet Twitter and Google are operating in accordance with the reverse. They choose where to provide support, and it is up to the customer to deal with it.

"You Do You"

But let’s attempt to give Google and Twitter the benefit of the doubt. Given that they operate social communication platforms, maybe they want to prove to customers—and the world--that they can deliver better support in their own channels. Proving that they could provide the same live, personal support touch in a digital channel would, in theory, serve as the ultimate marketing campaign for their products (even if it means ignoring customer preference in the short-term).

That line of thinking, unfortunately, does not hold up. Google and Twitter are not simply opposed to providing customer support over the phone but also to delivering on its central value proposition: live assistance.

Through Google Plus, G-Chat and Twitter, the two organizations have clear channels through which they could assist customers in real-time. The conversation would not necessarily be as intimate and personal as a live phone conversation, but the service could be equally efficient.

In order to do that, the brands would have to guarantee responsiveness in their support channels. They would have to empower agents to provide real-time responses to customer inquiries. They would have to make such digital customer service inquiries an absolute business priority.

They do not.

Since when is customer support a thing?

More troubling than Google and Twitter’s shared opposition to phone support is their apparent opposition to customer service in general.

In help files for products like AdSense (for publishers) and Webmaster Tools, Google tends to bury official email information and contact forms, instead pushing customers to use avenues like self-service and community message boards. While such resources are a valuable part of a multi-channel strategy, they often lack the specificity needed to resolve personal inquiries, a tragedy given how business-critical some such inquiries can be (if a site loses the ability to serve Google Ads or post its content on Google News, it could potentially go out of business).

Google’s policy wreaks of the mindset that customer service is a nuisance, essentially saying, "We don’t really want to help you, so we’re going to discourage you from reaching us. If you somehow do get through to customer support, it better darn well be worth our time!"

And even when one does get through—and has an inquiry that is worth the support team’s time—Google rarely responds with urgency. Some users have reported waiting weeks for a response to issues with Google’s ad and search platforms.

Twitter is no better. Recently suspended without explanation and without an obvious breach of conduct (my account has a strong followers-to-following ratio, my Tweets rarely include links or advertisements and my comments are often re-Tweeted), I was trapped helplessly in a cell of direct damage to my personal and professional reputation without any means of addressing my followers, clients and business partners.

An urgent issue given how high the stakes are with one’s social media account, suspensions—justified or not—warrant immediate attention from a customer service team. Twitter provides no means of obtaining that support; it does not provide access to a live phone or chat representative, and its "support" accounts do not seem to respond to customer issues with any urgency or frequency.

My only option was to file an appeal (a baffling notion in and of itself given that I did not even know why I was suspended) without any estimate or assurance of a response time. Worse, Twitter actually tries to kick people out of the queue by confusingly noting that you need to reply to the automatic appeal response to keep your ticket open. As in, the opposite of how email support usually works.

After five emails, my account was finally restored—about 36 hours later. For as appalling as that is (would a live phone team keep me on hold—without any agent interaction—for a day and a half?), apparently I was one of the lucky ones—some complain of delays in the 2 week ballpark.

I was so lucky, in fact, that I did not receive any correspondence from Twitter. No explanation regarding what happened. No advice on how to avoid a similar issue in the future. No apology. No warning that it would take a few hours for my followers to reappear in my account. Not even a notification that my account had been restored. Nothing.

Twitter sure knows how to make a guy feel special! Customer-centricity in action!

And we’re to blame

Particularly jarring about this situation is that both organizations—and Google, in particular—have reputations for customer-centricity. They have reputations for being driven by the user rather than greed and tradition. And as long as those reputations are intact, they face no pressure to change.

Worse, despite the constant reminders that the customer is presently in charge, the marketplace’s complacency for poor customer service remains astounding. When investigating blogs for advice, insights and best practices for dealing with a Twitter suspension, I could not believe how many apologists I encountered.

The advice was not identical from blog-to-blog, but nearly every one highlighted the following best practice:

n Be patient. It sometimes takes Twitter weeks to address an appeal.

Why is the user responsible for shouldering that burden? When one’s computer breaks, do we advise him to be patient and wait weeks for Apple to fix it? If one’s tickets were errantly printed at Disney World, do we tell him to wait until his next trip before getting a chance to go on Space Mountain?

When an account is falsely suspended, the organization’s process is broken and immediate, potentially-significant damage is being done to that user. Insofar as Twitter is the only entity capable of resolving the issue, it must act with an appropriate urgency.

Not only apologetic regarding delays, these "best practice" columns also made no mention of relief and compensation provided for the damage done. What if one’s account were suspended after he submitted a digital marketing job application? Will Twitter call up the recruiter and demand the organization give the user another chance, noting that it—not the user—made the mistake?

What if a brand was planning to use Twitter in a major product launch? Will Twitter pay for the cost of delaying the campaign due to the suspension?

We need to stop settling for poor user experiences. As customers, users, clients or whatever the nature of our engagement might be, we have to develop clear expectations for service levels and demand rectification when the actual experience falls short.

We need to stop making inane comments like, "Do you know how much it would cost Twitter to provide live phone support?" and instead ask, "Do you know how much it would cost Twitter if millions of users took their business elsewhere?"