Speech Technology - June 2008 - (Page 7) SUSAN HURA INTERACT Psych! Don’t Send Callers to a Web Site They used their phones for a reason, so don’t redirect them elsewhere some level that they’re not providing the best service, but they choose to do it anyway. The arguments I hear most claimers, or having to repeat information once transferred often are that it’s too expensive to speech-enable everyto a live agent. I hate them all, but my number one com- thing on the Web, and that some functionalities are bad fits plaint is navigating through an interactive voice response for speech technologies. (IVR) system only to be told, Sorry, if you want to do this To me these are both bad excuses that we stupidly you’ll have to visit our Web site at www-dot… accept. Can you imagine navigating several clicks into a Nothing is more infuriating to me—and to many end Web site only to get to a page that tells you, Sorry, you have users—than playing nicely with an IVR only to be rudely to call our IVR to do that, and getting no other options? turned away. The cost of offering some functionality via the IVR is I recently encountered several applications that use this less than the cost of lost customers. Vocalabs has data that pitiful technique, and it made me wonder why it’s so shows a single bad interaction with an IVR is enough for endemic to IVR interactions. First, let’s customers to consider taking their busiconsider the pragmatics of this situation. ness elsewhere, and these interactions cerThe cost of The user, either a customer or potential tainly qualify. offering some customer, has chosen to pick up the phone As to the notion that not all functionality functionality via in an attempt to contact an organization. is a good fit for speech, this is true to a certhe IVR is less than the cost of When the call goes through, she is contain extent, but there is room for us to do lost customers. fronted with an IVR that presents her with more. If the fit is imperfect for speech, the various choices via a menu. She cooperates current strategy is to throw up our hands in and provides the appropriate responses to reach some ter- despair and tell people to go to the Web site. Let’s follow the minal point in the application, when she is suddenly con- pattern set by our friends who design Web pages: If you fronted with a message that tells her, We can’t help you with can’t do it on the Web, offer another mode of interaction, that. This has that slap-in-the-face quality for a couple of like live chat or email. Consider these recommendations for distinct reasons. First, this is Grice’s Maxim of Relevance providing better service within the IVR: at work—cooperative speakers only say things that are rel• For status lookups: If you can show it on the Web, you evant to the conversation, so when the IVR offers order staought to be able to read it out in the IVR. If the infortus, for example, and then can’t provide it, it breaks one of mation is long or complex, present a summary version the fundamental unwritten rules of conversation. first, then offer details if the user wants them. The second reason is that We can’t help you here is • For forms that are downloadable via the Web: Offer to rightly perceived as rude. I’m not talking about the particemail or fax them. (Collecting an email address is ular wording of the prompt because many prompts used in tough, so I recommend avoiding it here.) this situation contain ridiculously, overly polite language. It • Offer to email, text, or fax a printed version of any stadoesn’t matter how you say it; it’s just plain rude to tell custus readout, instructions, or other information that tomers who have chosen to call and cooperated that you’re users might want as a hard copy. not willing to help them in their chosen modality. It’s a • If you’re absolutely unable to service customers in the classic psych out: provide a phone number for users to dial, IVR, always offer the option to speak to an agent. present them with an option, and when they choose Remember—they chose to call rather than go online, it…Psych! Fooled you, we don’t do that here! and probably for good reason! I’m not suggesting that organizations are mean-spirited in I urge you to look for creative solutions that remind cusdirecting callers to their Web sites, but I think we under- tomers how great our most convenient and ubiquitous techestimate the damage done by turning customers away. I nology, the telephone, can be to do business with us. recently heard a phone user spontaneously burst out with, Susan L. Hura, Ph.D., is founder and principal at SpeechUsability, a VUI design “I can’t go online because I don’t have my computer!” consultancy firm. She can be reached at susan@speechusability.com. So why do organizations do this? They understand at our pet peeves W e all haveads for stuff we with automated telephone systems: don’t want, long legal dis- www.speechtechmag.com JUNE 2008 Speech Technology | 7 http://www.speechtechmag.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.