Category: Web/Tech

Free Webinar! A Beginner’s Guide to Call Monitoring and Quality Assessment

Your call may be monitored for quality and training purposes” is a familiar phrase in today’s business world. For growing companies interested in beginning a call recording or quality program, the process can seem both confusing and daunting. This free webinar is intended to help companies who are exploring the development and implementation of a call recording and quality assessment program.

tom head shotThe webinar will be presented by Tom Vander Well, Executive Vice-President of c wenger group. Tom is a pioneer in the call monitoring and Quality Assessment industry and has over 20 years experience analyzing moments of truth between businesses and their customers. In this webinar Tom will help participants think through basic questions you should be asking. He will provide various methods for approaching both call recording and Quality Assessment, discuss their strengths and weaknesses, and present cost effective, practical solutions.

The FREE webinar will be July 13, 2017 at 12:00 p.m. CDT. Registration is limited to 25 participants, so register today! Click the button below or visit:

http://www.videoserverssite.com/register/cwengergroup/registration

Register for Webinar Button

Five Reasons to Outsource Your CSAT and QA Initiatives

Training & Coaching

Over the past decade more and more companies have adopted an attitude of “it’s cheaper for us to do it ourselves.” We have experienced an era of increased regulation, executive hesitation, and economic stagnation. Companies have hunkered down, tightened the purse strings, and found ways to play it safe. Customer Satisfaction (CSAT) research and Quality Assessment (QA) have been popular areas for businesses to do this given technology that makes it relatively easy to “do it yourself.”

Just because your team can do these things yourself, doesn’t mean that it’s a wise investment of your time and resources, nor does it guarantee that you’ll do it well. Based on a track record of mediocre (at best) renovations, my wife regularly reminds me that while I technically can do home improvement projects cheaper myself, she’d prefer that we pay an expert to do it well (and free me to invest my time doing more of what I do well so we can pay for it).

So why pay an outside group like ours to survey of your customers, or monitor your team’s calls to provide a Quality Assessment report on how they’re serving your customers?

I’ll give you five reasons.

  1. It gets done. Analyzing phone calls, surveying customers, and crunching data require a certain amount of discipline and attention to detail. When things are changing, fires are raging, and the needs of your own business are demanding a team’s time and attention, then things like crunching data or listening to recorded phone calls become back burner issues. It’s common for people to tell me that they have their own internal QA team. When I ask how that’s going for them, I usually hear excuses for why it’s hard to get it done with all the urgent matters to which team members must attend. When you hire a third party provider, it gets done. It’s what we’re hired do.
  2. It gets done well. Our clients represent diverse areas of the market from manufacturing to retail to financial services. Our clients tend to be leaders in their industries because they are good at what they do. Developing expertise outside of their discipline isn’t a wise investment of resources and (see #1) and who has time for that? Our clients want to invest their time and resources doing what they know and do well. Measuring what is important to their customers, turning those things into behavioral attributes, analyzing communication channels, and coaching their agents how to improve customer interactions in ways that improve customer satisfaction are what we do well.
  3. You get an objective perspective. When providing audits of internal Quality Assessment teams or reviewing internally produced customer survey data, it’s common for us to find evidence of various kinds of bias. Employees at different levels of an organization have motivations for wanting data to look good for their employers, or bad with respect to coworkers with whom there are other workplace conflicts. I’ve observed supervisors who are overly harsh assessing the calls of employees with whom they have conflicts. Internal call analysts, wanting to be kind to their coworkers, will commonly choose to “give them credit [for a missed service skill] and just ‘coach them on it.'” Internal research data can be massaged to provide results that gloss over problems or support presuppositions that are politically correct with the executive team. Our mission, however, is to provide objective, customer-centric data that give our clients a realistic picture of both customer perceptions and the company’s service performance. It is our mission to be accurate and objective in gathering and reporting data.
  4. You get an outside perspective. It has been famously observed that “a prophet is not welcome in his hometown.” Internal data is often discredited and dismissed for any number of reasons from (see #2) “What do they know?” doubts about the expertise of coworkers to (see #3) “They hate me” accusations of bias which we’ve discovered are sometimes accurate and other times not. Front line managers regularly tell me that they appreciate having our group providing assessment and coaching because they can’t be accused of being biased, and as outside experts we have no internal ax to grind. In addition, our years of experience with other companies provide insight and fresh ideas for handling common internal dilemmas.
  5. You can fire us with a phone call. “Do you know why I keep you around?” a client asked me one day. I took the bait and asked him why. “It’s because I take comfort in knowing I can pick up the phone and fire you whenever I want.” He went to explain that he had no desire to hire an internal team to provide the survey data, quality assessment, and call coaching our team provided their company. Not only would he bear the expense and headaches associated with developing an expertise outside of their company’s discipline (see #2), but once employed he couldn’t easily get rid of them should they prove as ineffective as he expected they would be (See #1, #3, and #4). His point was well taken. Our group has labored for years with the understanding that our livelihoods hinge on our ability to continually provide measurable value to our clients.

Yes, you can technically generate your own CSAT survey or call Quality Assessment data. Technology makes it feasible for any virtually any company to do these things internally. The question is whether it is wise for your company to do so. When calculating the ROI of internal vs. external survey and QA initiatives, most companies fail to calculate the expenses associated with ramp up, development, training, nor do they consider the cost associated with employee time and energy expended doing these things poorly and providing questionable data and  results.

Who Knew Siri Can Coach Your Employees, Too?!

siri-fail-2

We just posted last week about the rather disappointing realities two of our clients experienced in comparison to the bright promises on which they’d been sold speech analytic technology. In both cases they were sold on the idea of speech analytics replacing their human QA programs by analyzing every call and flagging calls in which there were problems. Our clients found that the technology itself took a much greater investment of time and resources than anticipated just to make it work at a basic level. The results were equally disappointing, requiring even more time and resources just to sort through the many false-positives that the software flagged.

It is with great interest then, that I received an MIT Technology Review article  from a former co-worker this week. The article reports on what the writers claim is the latest technology trend, offered by Cogito, to revolutionize contact centers. Apparently speech analytics has been so successful and popular at accurately analyzing customer conversations that the technology experts now want to sell technology to do call coaching, as well. Who knew that Siri could now offer us sage advice on how to communicate more effectively and connect more emotionally with our customers. By the way, according to their marketing they think their technology might help you with your marriage, as well.

I have noted over the years just how much big technology drives our industry. Go to any Contact Center Conference and look at who is paying big bucks, commanding the show floor, introducing the latest revolutionary advancement, and driving the conference agenda. C’est la vie. That’s how the market works. I get it.

I have also noted, however, that technology companies have often sold us on the next big thing, even when it wasn’t. Does anyone remember the Apple Newton? Laser Discs? Quadrophonic sound? Have you scanned a QR code lately? Ever heard of Sony Beta?

Technology is an effective tool when utilized for the strengths it delivers. I am more appreciative than most my colleagues with the advancements we’ve made in technology. I remember days sitting in a small closet jacking cassette tape recorders into an analog phone switch. I also know from a quarter century of coaching Customer Service Representatives (CSRs), Collection agents, and Sales representatives that human communication and interactions are complex on a number of levels. It isn’t just the customer to CSR conversation that is complex, but also the Call Coach to CSR conversations and relationship. Technology may be able to provide objective advice based on voice data, but I doubt that technology can read the personality type of the CSR. I don’t believe it can read the mood that the CSR is in that day and the nonverbal clues they are giving off regarding their openness and receptivity to the information. I doubt it can learn the communication style that works most effectively with each CSR and alter its coaching approach accordingly.

But, I’m sure they’re working on that. Just check it out at your next conference. They’ll have a virtual reality demonstration ready for you, I’m sure.

 

 

 

Three Things They Won’t Tell You About Speech Analytics

Me: “Hey Siri? I’m bleeding badly. Call me an ambulance!”
Siri: “Okay. From now on I’ll call you ‘Anambulance.'”

Most all of us have humorous, and often aggravating, anecdotes about trying to communicate with Siri, Alexa, or any of the other voice prompted technology apps available to us. I am quite regularly thankful that no one is around to hear the tirades I scream to the disembodied, robotic female voice of my car’s voice prompt technology. It amazes me, then, to know that businesses spend huge amounts of money on speech analytic technology as a way to replace their Quality Assessment (QA) programs.

Let me start with full disclosure. Our company, C Wenger Group, has spent a quarter century monitoring and analyzing our clients’ phone calls as a third-party QA provider. Sometimes our clients hire us to be their QA team, and other times they hire us to provide periodic audits and reality checks to their internal efforts. Over the past few years we have learned that speech analytic technology has become a competitor to our service. I can quickly name two clients who have dismissed our services in favor of speech analytic software.

The promise of speech analytics is in the ability to monitor vast quantities of phone calls. Most human QA efforts, by comparison, utilize relatively small random statistical samples. Our data over the years reveals that our team can quite capably provide an accurate reflection of service performance with relatively few calls. I remember calling one skeptical client after our initial month listening to a minimal sample of calls for sales compliance. I gave him the names of three sales people whom our call analysis identified as problems. He laughed and told me that all three had been fired the previous day agreeing that our sample and analysis was, indeed, sufficient.

Nevertheless, the idea of being able to catch the needle in the haystack has certain appeal. Random samples don’t capture every instance of irate customers, lying representatives, and forbidden behaviors. That’s where tech companies and their (big ticket) speech analytic software promise nervous executives a peaceful night sleep knowing that every phone company can be monitored by computers and flag problem calls when they occur.

Just like Siri flawlessly hears my every spoken request and never fails to provides me with exactly the answer I was looking for.

I have followed up and spoken to both clients who dismissed our company’s services in favor of speech analytics. In one case, my contact admitted that they abandoned the technology after a year of unsuccessfully investing significant resources (money and man hours) trying to get it to provide meaningful results or value. In the other case my client contact admitted that the technology never worked, but that his company continued to play the political game of pretending it was working because they didn’t want to admit that they’d wasted so much money on something that wasn’t working. I have also spoken to representatives of other companies with similar words of warning. As with most technologies, it’s important to know what you are, and aren’t, getting before you sign on the dotted line.

My conversations with those who’ve employed speech analytics reveal three key things that should be considered when considering it as a technology investment.

It’s going to require a lot more work to set it up, monitor, tweak, and successfully utilize it than you think. At one industry conference I attended a forum of companies were using speech analytics. I found it fascinating that all of the panelists admitted that the technology required far more time and energy than they anticipated when they purchased it. One company on the panel admitted that they hired five full time employees just to make the technology work and to keep it working. Many people don’t realize that you have teach the speech analytic software what to listen for, what to flag, and what to report. Then you have to continually refine it so that it’s catching the things you want it to catch and ignoring the things you don’t.

In many cases, this process is not intuitive. It’s more akin to computer programming. Operations associates who thought they were going to save themselves time having to personally analyze phone calls find themselves spending even more time mired in IT issues related to the technology.

The technology is going to give you a lot of false-positives. I love that I can say “Hey, Siri” and my iPhone will come to life and ask what I need. I have also been annoyed and embarrassed at the number of times in normal conversation or business meetings that I say something that my iPhone mistakenly hears as “Hey, Siri” only to wake-up, interrupt my conversation, and ask what I want. In similar fashion, you can expect that for every instance of speech analytic software catching the right thing, it is going make at least as many, if not more, mistakes.

One of my former clients told me that the speech analytic software they employed never worked as well as advertised. “Every time it flagged a call for us to listen to there was nothing wrong with the call,” he admitted. They quickly stopped listening to any of the calls flagged by speech analytics because they soon saw it as the proverbial child crying “Wolf!”

Speech analytics can monitor volume, pitch, and words that are said, but cannot intelligently analyze content across calls. Our team recently monitored a randomly sampled set of phone calls for a customer service team. The CSRs were articulate and professional in the words they used and the tone with which they communicated with callers. Across the calls, however, we quickly noted a pattern:

  • “Let me get you to the person who handles your account.”
  • “I don’t handle your area.”
  • “You’ll need to speak with….”

In various ways, using different words, many of the CSRs were refusing to help callers. They would immediately “pawn them off” (one customer’s words) to other CSRs or dumping callers into voice mail. In some cases we heard veteran employees claim that they didn’t know how to do the most basic of customer service functions in an effort to avoid helping callers.

Our team quickly recognized that our client was struggling with a culture on their call floor in which CSRs tried to avoid helping callers (in the most professional sounding way). Customers were being dumped into voice-mail and transferred unnecessarily as CSRs played an internal game of “that’s not my customer, that’s your customer.” We addressed it with our client, citing examples. They quickly moved to address the issue and are already making significant progress toward changing behavior on the call floor.

I tried to imagine how I would tell a speech analytics program to catch such an occurrence. The ways that CSRs communicated that they couldn’t help were as varied as the CSRs themselves and their own communication styles. Customers frustration never escalated to shouting or profanity. It was all very subtle, and required experienced analysts making connections across multiple calls to recognize the pattern of behavior. Speech analytics could never do that.

Like most technologies, speech analytics has its place and its purpose. For those companies who have the resources to successfully employ it, speech analytics can analyze vast quantities of interactions and flag, with relative degrees of accuracy, when certain words are spoken or certain levels of emotion are expressed. Those considering this technology as a replacement for a thorough and well structured QA program should understand, however, that the technology has requirements and drawbacks that the technology salesperson will be quick to ignore or minimize.

An Airplane on the Tarmac Profits You Little

Plane on tarmac: Sydney NS
Plane on tarmac: Sydney NS (Photo credit: mattjiggins)

I had an interesting conversation with a call center manager the other day over breakfast. I asked him how things were going at work. After a pause and a long sigh, I wondered if our breakfast was going to become an informal counseling session. He launched into his story. His company recently made a huge capital investment in the latest technology for call monitoring and evaluation. This is good news, right?! He’s got the latest programs that allow him to do all sorts of things in capturing, analyzing, and reporting on service quality. So, why was he looking so glum?

With all the investment in technology, there was no money in the budget to hire anyone to actually use the shiny new QA program. The marching orders from the executive suite were to use the new whiz-bang technology to work more efficiently and productively. “We bought you technology so we don’t have to hire more people,” was the mantra. He went on to make an interesting statement:

“It makes about as much sense as me going out and buying a new airplane. What can I do with it sitting there on the ground? I can stare at it. I can keep it clean. I can sit on the ground, stare at the dials, and play with the controls. But, I certainly can’t fly the thing.”

My colleague went on to explain how the corporate decision not to back-fill positions while increasing responsibilities for his call center staff meant that everyone had far more on their plate than could reasonably be accomplished. He knew his skeletal QA efforts were not coming close to utilizing the new, expensive technology, but the IT department who chose the system does not have the human resources to help the get it optimized or train the call center staff on how to best utilize it. Without human resources and human expertise, the investment in technology seemed a total waste. The company can certainly brag and feel good about having the latest technology that will allow them to fly with the best in the business world. However, without the necessary expertise and investment in human capital to actually make it fly, their team will sit on the tarmac admiring the dials on their very expensive placebo.

Enhanced by Zemanta

QA is Important: You Get What You Measure (or Don’t)

Portrait of happy female manager with business staff working in a call center

Last night I was preparing a Service Quality Assessment report for one of our clients. For years, the team was led by a strong manager who set the bar high for his team and held them accountable for their service performance. Agents had individual performance goals based on the service quality data we provided and could check their progress monthly through our on-line web portal. The manager even committed a generous monetary bonus to agents who could consistently deliver high levels of service. Then, just two months ago the manager was promoted and moved on to a new position.

Wouldn’t you know it? The team’s sevice performance plummeted after one month.

In recent years I’ve heard a cacophany of industry voices saying that QA is old school and ineffective. Most of the time, it seems to come from the technology sector who have a new widget to sell which promises to measure quality better (without actually involving humans) with the click of a mouse – or who want businesses to direct dollars spent on quality to their latest technology fad.

Last night’s report was a good reminder to me, and to my client, why the old fashioned discipline of setting an expectation, measuring behavior, encouraging, coaching and holding your people accountable works. You can set the expectation, but without the measuring, encouraging, coaching and accountability you’re not going to know if your team is delivering on that expectation (and it’s likely they won’t). It may not be glitzy. I may not be glamorous. Because it involves humans and human interaction it can even get messy at times. But, it works.

Ask my client, who this morning can go into her team meeting with the data to know how her team performed, what they did well, and what specific service behaviors they stopped demonstrating once they thought they weren’t going to be held accountable. She knows specifically what they need to do and can efficiently communicate the game plan and expectation for improvement.

Getting Started with QA: Getting Your Feet Wet

BOSCH 90303 PLUNGE ROUTER BACK JPG

On the workbench in my garage is a router and router table. I bought it several years ago. It’s a nice one. I even bought a bunch of jigs for creating different kinds of edges. In all the time I’ve had it, I’ve turned it on less than five times. The problem is, I am not very proficient with the whole carpentry thing and I don’t have a lot of time on my hands to dedicate to learning the craft. I have the desire and I have the tool, but I don’t have the time, energy or expertise. Am I alone? I imagine you have a tool, gizmo, or gadget you purchased that is collecting dust for similar reasons.

Technology has made the ability to record and monitor phone calls simple for business. Many companies have the ability through the suite of services they purchased along with their phone system. However, like me and my router, the things that keeps many companies from entering into a Quality Assessment (QA) or Call Coaching program is the lack of time, energy or experience. Starting a QA program can seem like a daunting task for the executive or manager who has plenty of other daily fires that urgently require her/his attention. Resources are scarce and we don’t have the staff to dedicate to it. If that describes you, you’re not alone.

I may not be ready to build a fancy looking entertainment system with the unused router in my garage, but I could certainly pay a competent woodworker friend a few bucks to spend one evening helping me finish that one shelf for my office. Not only do I get the shelf done, but I can also learn a few things to build my knowledge and confidence so I might tackle another small project on my own.

The same principle can apply to your QA aspirations. You don’t have to create an entire QA program to benefit from the available technology. One of the ways our group serves companies who are new to world of QA is by providing a one-time pilot assessment.  The investment and risk are minimal. The process is simple. The value and ROI are potentially huge. 

Here’s how it works: We work with our client of QA novices to define their goals and develop a QA scale unique to their particular business, brand, customer, and call types. Our experienced call analysts then analyze a relatively small yet statistically valid sample of phone calls over a period of a few weeks. A few weeks later we deliver a detailed QA report that details:

  • Customer types (Who is calling?)
  • Call types (What are they calling about?)
  • CSR skill performance (How did our team do at serving the customer?)
  • Resolution rates (How many calls were unresolved? Why?)
  • Training priorities ( What do we need to work on?)
  • Policy/Procedural Issues (What policies & procedures are negatively impacting resolution and the customer experience?)
  • Brief call summaries of every call assessed (What did your team hear in each phone call?)

In addition, we always provide a follow-up session with management to review the data and discuss recommendations. We also provide a front-line training session(s) designed to effectively communicate the SQA data to your team and provide key service skill training based on the results of the assessment. In some cases, we also work with a company’s internal training/coaching personnel and help them leverage the data to set training priorities.

The Service Quality Assessment (SQA) Pilot Assessment is a great way for a company to get their feet wet in the world of QA, to help companies who have struggled to successfully implement a QA program, or to give executives/managers an outside perspective with which to audit and compare their internal efforts. You walk away from the SQA with:

  • a QA scale designed for your team which can be utilized/amended for future internal efforts
  • an objective benchmark of your current team’s service performance
  • a prioritized list of training/coaching opportunities which will help you maximize your training dollars
  • effective communication of pertinent data and training for your management team and front line CSRs
  • a knowledge of policy and procedural issues that are negatively impacting customers and/or needlessly wasting resources
  • a blueprint of how QA works and a hands on participation in the process which will increase your knowledge/confidence and can help you realistically proceed in jump starting those internal QA efforts you’ve been putting off
  • a low risk experience to measure the cost/benefit using a third-party to do QA for you.

You don’t have to dive into call monitoring or Quality Assessment and risk drowning. You can easily and reasonably get your feet wet. If you’d like to explore what an SQA Pilot Assessment would look like or cost for you and your company please give us a call or drop us an e-mail.

Now, does anyone know a capable woodworker in my area who has a free evening?

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Social Media Buzz; Time for Decaf?

I was part of a great ACCP event last week sponsored by Avtex and hosted by Pella Corporation at their headquarters. There was a wonderful presentation made on the subject of monitoring and responding to customers through social media by Spindustry and their clients from Omaha Steaks. Then, this morning, the Wall Street Journal dedicated an entire section to the subject of Social Media and IT.

In case you’ve had your head buried in the sand for the past year or two, the buzz in the call center world is currently “social media.” The very mention of the term seems to get call center personnel wound up like they’ve just swigged a triple-shot-chocolate-sugar-bomb-espressiato with a Red Bull chaser. Everyone wants to talk about it. The big call center conferences have been scrambling for the past two years to fill their keynotes and workshops full of social media gurus, how-tos, and software vendors. All the buzz has prompted great conversation with clients and colleagues.

For years, I’ve been advocating that every client listen to what customers are saying on the internet and through social media outlets. There is a huge leap, however, between keeping your ear open and diving into a full scale social media task force within your customer service team complete with the latest, greatest social media monitoring software. One of the questions that came up in the ACCP meeting last week was whether our group was doing Customer Satisfaction research for customers who use social media to contact a client company. The reality is that, for most of our clients, the number of customers using social media as a means of communication is still very small. So small, in fact, that they must be regarded as outliers and not representative of the general population of customers.

That does not mean that social media will not grow in importance and influence. It definitely is growing in importance and influence (But, how far will it grow? How influential will it become?). It does not mean that social media is not a critical piece of the marketing and customer service picture for some companies. I simply want to make the point that the time, energy and resources that an individual company invests in social media efforts should be considerate of how many customers they have actively engaged in the medium. Our group is helping some clients determine that very fact. By investing a little money in a survey to find out how important social media is to their customer population as a whole will help them wisely steward their resources when it comes to making an investment in their overall social media strategy. I begin to fear that clients will throw a lot of money and resources to engage a small number of customers in the social media arena when a much larger segment of customers are still encountering significant service issues through traditional channels (as boring and old school as those traditional channels may be).

In the meantime, I’m sure the social media buzz will continue unabated. In the call center industry there always seems to be a buzz where there is software, hardware and/or workshops to sell. Please do not misunderstand me. I’m not against social media in any way. I’m a blogger, tweeter, texter and Facebook junkie. I think social media is great and have led the charge in getting clients to “listen” to what customers are saying via social media. Social Media is here to stay and will continue to evolve. I am, however, dedicated to helping my clients make wise, measured decisions when it comes to their customers and their resources. So, when it comes the social media buzz, make mine decaf, please. Remember, there was a lot of buzz about betavision, too.

Creative Commons photo courtesy of Flickr and thetrial

The Call Center as Social Media Outpost

Customers talk about you on Twitter. At ICMI's ACCE 09 conference last month, the buzz was around expanding the call center to become a social media outpost. It is rapidly becoming clear that interacting with customers is no longer just through phone calls. Interacting with customers must happen through the emerging communication channels like Facebook and Twitter.

I recently had an article come across my desk from Keith Fiveson of ITESA. He agrees:

Agents can outreach and act as a “social media outpost” casting their net to capture conversations, hear, and deal with hearts, minds, problems and people that impact your business products or services. Problems are inherent, in any business and it is essential that you are diligent in addressing and resolving them. Using a contact center as a “Social Media Outpost” is a good strategy to address concerns, bad press or consumer affairs issues that can plague the best brand management strategy.

Here's the entire article: Download The New Frontier Your Call Center as a Social Media Outpost

Are you preparing your call center for the new frontier of customer communication?

How Customer Service Should Respond to Social Media

Whenever I hear someone in the blogosphere or Twitter railing against one of my clients, I immediately bring it to their attention. In most cases, I've witnessed my clients responding immediately and appropriately to the situation in an attempt to rectify a problem. After sending a handful of negative posts to one of my clients, however, I received a polite email back saying, "Thanks for sending these to me, but I just don't know what to do with them!"

For all of you companies who are reading this and asking yourselves the same thing, here are a couple of things you should think about:

  • Consider the issue. Is this an isolated case of one customer who had a problem spiral out of control? Or, is it a policy or procedural problem that is much bigger than one blogger on a rant? If it's the former, you should be able to quickly address the issue, satisfy the customer, and hopefully get a few props from the customer on his/her next post. If it's the latter, then you're wasting your time chasing a bunch of individual consequences from the root problem in your control. Fix the problem, then go out and address the social media outlets.
  • Email the person. Put your Customer Service skills to work immediately. Tell the person that you're sorry to hear about their negative experience and you'd like the opportunity to look into it and make it right. You will quickly learn if the person sincerely wants the issue resolved or if they are determined to be an unsatisfied customer on a rant. Communicating directly and discreetly with the author allows you to quickly address the issue without being viewed as trying to aggrandize your response or without getting into a spittting match with the blogger/tweeter.
  • Don't demand a retraction. If you have successfully resolved the issue and the customer is satisfied, it's acceptable to politely ask that they share the experience with their readers. Don't demand, and don't black mail ("I'll do this for you if…"). Just do the right thing for the customer.