Spend the $400. Not because it's right but because it's the right thing to do, and for not enough money to matter.
Then figure out what the process failure was that caused these people to get a different room than they expected. Using that information, either fix customer expectations for the future or fix the process that is failing those expectations.
Is it strictly reasonable for people to expect compensation for being in a "holding pattern" you put them in? Probably not. But you have nothing to gain from sticking up for yourself when the circumstances are this fuzzy. They're "right enough" to win the argument, or make it not worth winning for you.
At the point at which you have to spend money to keep them happy, you should be looking at the whole situation as an opportunity to turn them into evangelists. Counterintuitively, it is the people who have experienced things going just a little bit wrong who you are best positioned to impress, since they've stumbled into a high-touch relationship with you.
There are people who make a professional game out of extracting as much money from CSRs as possible. You go broke if you try to appease these people. The dirty little secret of every "we provide exceptional customer service" companies is they all have exception clauses for these types of people.
From the scant information provided in the article, this seems like it could be one of those people.
There are those people indeed. So, pay these specific people their trivial $400, and then (a) figure out what your site did to create an 'exploitable' gap in expectations, or (b) figure out what your process is doing to create an 'exploitable' failure to meet those expectations.
The answer to this problem could be as simple as a banner stating something like "in the event your room cannot be booked, you will be notified and a [comparable room] will be provided if you'd like to continue with your trip".
Or, it could be that the reliability of property managers becomes a business metric, and managers who are overly casual with reservations are either (a) paid less to offset refunds that will be generated, or (b) excluded from the service.
In the meantime, there's one (1) of these parties here; why not do what you can to make them evangelists?
3 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 15.2 ms ] threadThen figure out what the process failure was that caused these people to get a different room than they expected. Using that information, either fix customer expectations for the future or fix the process that is failing those expectations.
Is it strictly reasonable for people to expect compensation for being in a "holding pattern" you put them in? Probably not. But you have nothing to gain from sticking up for yourself when the circumstances are this fuzzy. They're "right enough" to win the argument, or make it not worth winning for you.
At the point at which you have to spend money to keep them happy, you should be looking at the whole situation as an opportunity to turn them into evangelists. Counterintuitively, it is the people who have experienced things going just a little bit wrong who you are best positioned to impress, since they've stumbled into a high-touch relationship with you.
From the scant information provided in the article, this seems like it could be one of those people.
The answer to this problem could be as simple as a banner stating something like "in the event your room cannot be booked, you will be notified and a [comparable room] will be provided if you'd like to continue with your trip".
Or, it could be that the reliability of property managers becomes a business metric, and managers who are overly casual with reservations are either (a) paid less to offset refunds that will be generated, or (b) excluded from the service.
In the meantime, there's one (1) of these parties here; why not do what you can to make them evangelists?