In der Schweizer Telekommunikationsindustrie ist die Zahl der Online-Beschwerden heute deutlich unter den Erwartungen der Unternehmen. Einen wichtigen Erklärungsbeitrag leistet hier die Reaktionsgeschwindigkeit. Aus Kundensicht geht es zu lange, bis die Online-Beschwerde beantwortet ist. Während Kundendienstverantwortliche zwei bis drei Arbeitstage für angemessen halten, erwarten die meisten Kunden eine Antwort innerhalb von einem Arbeitstag. Aufgrund der negativen Erfahrungen sind Beschwerdeführer zurückhaltend beim Nutzen von Online-Beschwerde-Lösungen. Aus der empirischen Untersuchung sind einfach umsetzbare Massnahmen abgeleitet worden, welche die wahrgenommene Erfolgswahrscheinlichkeit von Online-Beschwerden – und somit die Zahl der Online-Beschwerden – steigern.

Online Complaining – an Advantage for both Companies and Customers

Nowadays, many companies offer an online complaining (OC) possibility, which is an efficient and convenient way of handling complaints for both customers and companies. But according to customer care managers in the Swiss telecommunications industry, the use of online complaint management is under average. Yet, if the current quality le­vel of OC ser­vices is considered, then it is no surprise that complainants are reluctant to use it.

A Comprehensive Analysis Provided by Three Qualitative Studies

Based on an extensive literature review, a conceptual framework explaining a customer’s propensity to complain online has been developed.¹ In order to examine the determinants of this construct, three qualitative studies in the Swiss telecommunications market were conducted.²

In the expert interviews, the perspective of cus­to­mer care managers of the four most important Swiss telecommunications companies and scholars in the field of complaining behaviour has been examined. As a second da­ta source, 126 com­plaints by letter and 135 online complaints have been analysed. Mo­re­over, a com­pany pro­vid­ed a complaint statistics encompassing 5’616 complaints. Finally, se­ven interviews with on­line complainants have provided insights into the customer per­spec­tive.

As a result, the conceptual framework explaining the propensity to complain online has been re­fined. Here, the pro­vi­ders’ responsiveness has turned out to be a key determinant.

Providers’ Responsiveness – a Key Inhibition Factor

On what level a provider’s responsiveness should be, is assessed differently by managers and customers. For managers, a reaction time within two to three working days is ap­pro­priate. According to the experts of company B and C, they try to handle simple complaints (by both let­ter and Internet) within this time frame. „Im Normalfall haben die meisten Teams – wenn es um einfache Dinge geht – zwei Ta­ge. Egal ob es mit Brief, Fax oder Email. Zwei Arbeitstage sind der Service-Level, auf dem wir die Sache bearbeitet haben wollen.“

Scholars expect to get an ans­wer within one day, like Moshe Davidow. “If I am going to complain by email, I am going to expect you to answer within one business day. And if you answer the other bu­si­ness day, you know what: I expect you to answer that business day. If you are going to offer me the ability to email you, then you better have someone answering these emails.” While they do not expect to get an answer immediately, they want to get it within a day. The scholars’ opinions correspond with the customer statements. Except one customer, all in­ter­viewees expect to have the complaint solved at least within 24 hours. „Also, da erwarte ich eigentlich den gleichen Tag wenn es nicht am Abend ist, das muss ich schon sa­gen. Also 24 Stunden Maximum.“ They are well awa­re that today, the reality is different. Consequently they as­sess the providers’ responsiveness mostly as dissatisfying.

Online Complaints: Processed like Letters

Even though the managers are well aware that a fast answer is expected and has positive ef­fects on customer satisfaction, online complaints are still treated like letters. Expert B explains that the­re is no difference in the handling of the two communication channels; all textbased com­plaints are treated “normal”, which means like letters. „Wir haben sehr schnell, sehr einfach diese In­for­mationen bei uns. Aber in der Verarbeitung behandeln wir sie wie wir sie auf Papier be­kom­men hätten.“ Yet, the customers expect to get the reply faster than by letter.

Due to the negative experiences online complainants have made in the last few years, only a minority of dissatisfied customers complains online today. This is a vicious circle: As long as the share of online complainants is low, customer care managers think it is not justified to invest in OCM, e.g. in real-time online customer care. „Da behaupte ich, haben wir doch noch recht viel Potential. Das ist so. Aber das Problem ist genau, warum investiert man nicht mehr in sol­che Projekte? Weil einfach weniger als 10% der Kunden dieses Medium nützen über die­sen Kanal. Oftmals hat man dann keinen Anreiz, das effektiv auszubauen.“ As a con­se­quen­ce, it is not possible to reply to online complaints as quick as customers expect. This in turn, reduces the perceived probability of success and makes customers choose another chan­nel.

While customer expectations are rather high, they are not un­justified. It lies in the nature of Internet that the communication velocity is high. In their pri­va­te lives, customers are used to this immediateness. To avoid dissatisfaction, it is ti­me for companies to reconsider their online complaint management concept. At least a con­fir­ma­tion should be sent within a few hours, informing that the problem will be solved by ti­me x. By in­crea­sing the transparency, most customers will better accept the waiting time. In the long run, companies have probably only two alternatives in or­der to avoid dis­sa­tisfaction with OC: Either they are able to react within 24 hours to on­li­ne feed­back or they do not offer OC services at all. Otherwise, they risk annoying their – already dissatisfied - customers un­ne­ces­sa­rily.

Measures to Increase the Use of OC Services

It is possible to increase the perceived probability of success – and hence the number of online complainants - by simple, often inexpensive measures. Based on the empirical findings, specific re­com­mendations can be de­rived:

• Offer an easily accessible feedback form or email address (straightforward click path).
• Do not use mandatory fields for information that is not required in order to process the feed­back
• Send a confirmation that the feedback has been transmitted.
• Announce how long it will presumably take to process the feedback.
• Include a ticket number which allows to track and trace the complaint.
• Communicate online contact possibilities.
• “Personalise” the OC experience by presenting the customer care team and / or the customer care manager on the website.

Literature

Zaugg, A.D. (2007)
A Conceptual Analysis of the e-Channel’s Multifaceted Nature in the 21st Century, Workingpaper No. 204, Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Abteilung Informationsmanagement, Universität of Bern, Bern 2007.
Access: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1123411

Zaugg, A.D. (2008a)
Online Complaint Management at Swisscom: A Case Study, Management Online REview (2008) June, n.p.
Access: http://www.morexpertise.com/view.php?id=93

Zaugg, A.D. (2008b)
Why Express Complainants their Dissatisfaction Online? Determinants Explaining the Propensity to Complain Online, in: Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior Conference, Las Vegas, 2008-06-23 to 2008-06-26, pp. 215-239.
Access: http://www.im.iwi.unibe.ch/publikationen/pdfs/ConceptualFramework_CSDCB_Conference.pdf

1. The conceptual framework can be found in Zaugg (2008b). Further information about e-channel choice determinants and the nature of communication channels is discussed in Zaugg (2007). [↩]
2. As a prepration for the qualitative studies, a case study of Swisscom’s online complaint management has been conducted, see Zaugg (2008a). [↩]