Skip Navigation
52 comments
  • I have to take an expensive medication (Humira) to be able to walk. If I don't take it for long enough, I will be unable to work and therefore unable to afford the medication, and therefore unable to get back to work effectively. It's illegal to discriminate for disabilities but it would legitimately make it very difficult to do my job with severe arthritis symptoms. CVS Specialty Pharmacy, in conjunction with CVS Caremark makes me spend 20+ hours a year on the phone getting this medication, overcharges me, and has intentionally built all of their systems to be as inefficient as possible, even when it doesn't really benefit them to do so. One time I was pissed off enough about an issue that I looked up a list of executives and sent every permutation of all of their names @ cvs.com an email explaining my displeasure about this and with them as human beings who should be ashamed of themselves. It accomplished nothing except getting me in contact with an "executive care coordinator" who was just another useless customer service drone who wasn't actually allowed to do anything to fix anything. I have been dealing with this for years at this point. I am not able to switch to another pharmacy or benefit manager due to how my employer's insurance works, and realistically the only other alternative in this space if you work for a big company is United Healthcare, and they are apparently just as bad. I have tried to complain to my employer about the unacceptable state of their health insurance benefits and they don't give a shit. I have contacted my government representatives. They don't give a shit. I have done literally everything I can think of and nothing has changed, nothing will change, and I don't think that in the current system that anything can change.

    So yeah, when I saw what a particular beloved Mario brother did, I laughed my ass off and cracked open a beer when I got off work to celebrate. I am legitimately surprised it took so long for someone to lose it and do something drastic. Every time I have to deal with these fuckers I just think about how much angrier and more desperate I could be if my medical issues were worse or if it was my kid I was fighting for. It was inevitable that someone would be driven to violence, and unless something changes, it will happen again. I don't really condone violence like this because I don't think it's good for society or for the person committing the violence, but when the system is designed in this way, these companies are effectively committing violence against all of us disguised as bureaucracy and hidden behind human shields of front line customer service staff. It is, therefore, completely understandable, and in my opinion, inevitable, that some people are going to respond with violence of their own when faced with such hopeless injustice. I'm just glad he got the right guy in this case and didn't go off the deep end and decide to shoot up a call center or hospital.

  • I design contact centers for a living. I have done so for almost a quarter century now, until very recently I only had worked for Fortune 200 companies (moved to the public sector which is a nice change of pace).

    A quick bit of jargon definition: We refer to various means of communication as "channels". A contact center is multi-channel if you can reach it by more than one channel (i.e. phone, SMS, chat, email, etc.). It is considered omni-channel if you can switch between these channels (supposedly seamlessly, but see below).

    This article gets several points dead on and misses several more. Here is my professional take, make of it what you will.

    1. Call centers are expensive. Licensing and software costs are very high. There are few vendors who offer scalable omni-channel offerings and the licensing costs end up being exorbitant. And you need omni-channel contact centers because:
    2. Phones are the least efficient way to service customers. An agent can only be on the phone with a single customer at a time, but they can staff around 6 chat or email sessions simultaneously. For a customer, this devoted attention is a boon, but for a company it's very costly because Agents, even poorly paid ones, are the most expensive part of your contact center if you are paying benefits, and if you aren't you will not get good agents.
    3. Agent turnover is very high. Agents are poorly paid and their job sucks. They are driven by metrics that are poorly thought out, intended to drive efficiency but ultimately create poor behavior; the article gets this very correct. A lot of poor service you get is caused by agents trying to hit impossible metrics. Don't blame the agent, the managers are the problem here.
    4. The technology has gotten better - and worse. VOIP infrastructure radically reshaped contact center design and the migration to CCaaS reshaped it again, with some good sides and a lot of bad sides. Telephone technology is an aging tech with a substantial demographic issue. I am consistently the youngest member of my teams and I have been doing this for almost 25 years. Expertise is aging out of the field and taking a lot of knowledge with them. Further, the number of disciplines you need for expertise has dramatically increased. It is no longer enough to just know CCNA-level networking, wiring, PSTN tech, linux and windows servers administration, codecs, basic related legal knowledge (wiretapping laws, Ray Baume's Act, TEHO laws in India, etc.), design and infrastructure theory (like Poisson distribution), but now you also need to know Kubernetes, docker, ESXi (or equivalent), AWS, Azure, etc. It's a lot and nobody can know it all, the complexity of modern design and no education program to get there means there's just a lack of comprehensive understanding of the technology at a pretty fundamental level for most people trying to design and maintain this stuff. The result? A system designed around 99.999% uptime is now failing to meet that SLA, hell some vendors won't even promise it anymore but most will just lie and claim that they do. So there are reliability issues.
    5. AI. This one hits pretty closet to home for me because of a personal experience so a quick anecdote: at one job, I had a spirited discussion with the head of our IVR technology group over how effective AI would be at reducing call volume into the center. He initially had great success, reducing call volume by ~30% in the 6 months. He received accolades and commendations, a big bonus, he was riding high and honestly he deserved to be. The problem, and what prompted my attempt to intervene, was his promise to continue that trend, predicting that his AI tech could reduce human-required calls by 60% within the next 2 years. To me, this was madness. His initial success was because he moved the payment system into the IVR instead of having agents do it. This is a no-brainer. Computers are quite capable of taking payments or listing basic account information, but more complex tasks involve a much greater up-front cost in technology development and we didn't have that budget, it was a massive over promise and I told everyone who I could to not take his estimation seriously. Unfortunately, he had a PhD and I am a college dropout, so they listened to him and cut 50% of their agent count via attrition. The results were predictably disastrous and the company hasn't yet been able to fix it years later (thankfully, I left that place).
    6. I don't think this is intentional per se. Having been in numerous meetings with leadership about contact center issues, I can say that they are just as upset by poor customer service as you are. There is no top-down effort to make your life suck. But line must go up and contact centers are always cost centers which means companies hate them, they don't view customer service as integral to making money despite understanding that angry customers will leave them so there is a constant budget short-fall. The issue isn't someone at the top thinking "If we treat our customer poorly enough they will stop calling and we'll save money!" It's just standard corrosive capitalism creating perverse incentives that make everything worse. It's a systemic problem.

    Anyway, that's my view for whatever it's worth. I am glad to be in the public sector now, which has its own issues, but at least everyone is focused on actually providing service because the service is the value.

52 comments