Northern's social media policy criticised by Which?

[Starmill]

What PeterC is perfectly relevant in relation to the subject of the article this thread is based on. On the Northern social media desk we welcome constructive criticism. We don't block people for complaining in and of itself - we block people for being rude or aggressive, jumping in on other people's conversations, or asking the same questions repeatedly after receiving a comprehensive answer. It just so happens that there's rarely clear blue water between all of this

Oh, I see.

I thought that the only criteria for blocking would be using bad language, being threatening or aggressive, or breaking the law.

In this case, I agree with Which that there is a problem here. Indeed, if interjecting on someone else's conversation is a blocking offence, then it is high time for me to be blocked!

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

Oh, I see.

I thought that the only criteria for blocking would be using bad language, being threatening or aggressive, or breaking the law.

In this case, I agree with Which that there is a problem here. Indeed, if interjecting on someone else's conversation is a blocking offence, then it is high time for me to be blocked!

Our social media policy is very clear about what is and isn't acceptable:

We understand that you can get frustrated when things go wrong. However, we are human beings behind our Social Media profiles, so we do ask that you don't write or post anything discriminatory, racist, offensive, abusive, obscene inflammatory or unlawful. We also ask that you don't spam ourselves or others - or deliberately disrupt a conversation. We won't tolerate this type of engagement, and the majority of our followers don't want to read inappropriate comments.

We will respond to:
· Clear questions about our current routes/timetables
· Clear questions regarding service alterations
· General enquiries
· Reports about our trains/stations (faults, cleanliness, heating etc.)

We will not respond to:
· Vague/general statements
· Insults
· Repetitive aggression
· Inappropriate comments
· Repetitive questioning by an individual once the original question has been replied to
· An account which is believed to belong to a person using multiple accounts to reiterate a message
· Hoax reports relating to your personal safety or the safety of others.
· Open advocacy of fare evasion. We take fare evasion seriously and will report any person who encourages it.

We won't respond to comments that break these rules or include swearing. Any users that are found to break these rules may be blocked from contacting us and reported to the relevant social media channel. The social media team is here because we want to help you, we just ask that our team is treated with respect.

Management of our follower base is entirely at the discretion of Northern. If an account is blocked or muted we cannot discuss the reasons for this over social media. The account holder will need to contact the Customer Experience Centre if they would like any further clarity in the decision.

While acted upon and responded to, complaints via social media are not officially logged. If you would like to make a formal complaint please contact our Customer Experience Centre on 0800 200 6060 or [email protected]

 

[mde]

At least there's one predictable thing… the person behind this tweet picked up by Richard Clinnick certainly would have been blocked under Northern's social media policy.

In essence, the tweet complains about late running services and an increase in prices - fair enough - but, it is laden with abusive language and threats of violence (bombs) - certainly not one I suspect many of us would want to receive. It's the select few who think this sort of nonsense is acceptable that tarnish the majority.

[tw: language]

 

[AlexNL]

Social Media should be used to give out information (cancellations, short forms, catering, blah blah) and capture general feedback/complaints and produce reports so heads of departments can see on any given month what people complained about the most. That's it.
Pandering to and trying to resolve a complaint via Twitter isn't ever going to work.

I've had dozens of issues resolved over social media. Not just with trains, but also with telephony, electricity, and even a worktop for my new kitchen. I've experienced quicker turnaround times than through traditional e-mail systems, and it was more effective as I could attach images or videos to help clarify the problem I was facing.

The people manning social media accounts should have the same powers as the people who handle emails, calls and snail mail. If they can only relay information to/from a customer care department they're much less effective than they can possibly be. I also think social media can help the company.

If I notice something small it's easy to send a tweet ("hey TOC, in carriage 12345 a light fixture is broken") while contacting customer care over something like that feels like a burden.

 

[jonesy3001]

which?
Is it that company that always has adverts on telly that makes you pay for booklets because they think everyone is thick has two short planks, i wouldnt listen to what they say

 

[jon0844]

which?
Is it that company that always has adverts on telly that makes you pay for booklets because they think everyone is thick has two short planks, i wouldnt listen to what they say

They do also do product reviews that are usually quite good (disclosure: I know people who worked there) and impartial because they buy all the products and don't merely get given them. This does cost a lot more money than publications they are given review kit.

 

[158756]

I was slightly wrong. You can view replies to a Tweet Northern posted by clicking on the tweet but you can't click on the 'Tweets & replies' tab and view responses Northern have given to tweets from other passengers which aren't directly replying to a Northern tweet.

You can see more if you search their Twitter handle. In my experience this works for bus operators but might not be very easy to use with the volume of tweets by and about Northern.

 

[Chrisgr31]

I've had dozens of issues resolved over social media. Not just with trains, but also with telephony, electricity, and even a worktop for my new kitchen. I've experienced quicker turnaround times than through traditional e-mail systems, and it was more effective as I could attach images or videos to help clarify the problem I was facing.

In spite of all the issues and the abuse they get the GTR social media team are excellent, well within the limits they are permitted to post in anyway.

It bugs me that they no longer tweet individual cancellations (mind you possibly for the best this week!), but generally speaking they do a good job. They are experts at reuniting people with items that have been left on trains, particularly if notified quickly. They also pass issues on heating, a/c etc to fleet so the units can be booked in for repair.

However its also clear there are a number of twitter users who take every opportunity to criticise GTR, they will jump in and retweet any thread that is criticising a GTR brand. They will make a small issue appear much larger than it actually was and on that note anyone know what really happened at Gatwick last Bank Holiday weekend?

This week has actually been quite a good week for Southern, not so good for Thameslink!

 

[Camden]

There's nothing wrong with blocking people who are being offensive or aggressive, but it's definitely wrong for a rail company to block people on social media for joining in other peoples' conversations, or for repeated complaints, or for things that the company believe are "minor".

A passenger has every right to complain to a company each and every time anything goes wrong that should otherwise go right. Just because it's only social media and everyone else can see it doesn't make it wrong. I think it says a lot about the "deal with it" attitude towards customers of rail (from all sides) at the moment that it appears to be considered poor form for passengers to do anything other than shrug off daily let downs, poor behaviours and delays and cancellations.

As for blocking people for joining in other conversations. On Twitter, that's how the platform works. If the companies don't like how Twitter works, then they should leave it, rather than expect the platform's users to bend to their whim.

I actually think that, relating also to high profile cases of certain persons blocking legitimate enquiries and complaints, that Twitter ought to bring in some kind of policy around inappropriate blocking/muting, especially for corporations or politicians. In my opinion, companies and politicians shouldn't have access to these powerful tools if they're not willing to block only in accordance with the platform's policies of disallowed behaviours.

 

[Frontera2]

As someone who manages the Twitter account for a major TOC, I think it's only fair to clarify a couple of points. Whilst the social media guidelines in place across TOCs are not identikit, they are all broadly similar.

- it's not and never has been about blocking people who join in conversations. However, if users are constantly jumping on each and every interaction a TOC has with its customers, to do nothing but disrupt the conversation e.g. by taking it off topic or repeatedly tweeting a link to a petition, it makes it difficult for the operator to respond to passengers in a timely fashion. Remember, some TOCs can receive well over 1,000 tweets an hour in major disruption and if the feed is being clogged up by messages from the same user that aren't asking tangible questions then sometime she the only option is to block them.

- Blocking users isn't about supressing their right to receive information, it's about protecting the team from messages that are frankly disgusting at times. People operating Twitter accounts are generally thick skinned but even then, being told that "I hope you and your family die a slow painful death" for example ( that tweet was received fairly recently ) is not something anyone should have to put up with. If someone approached a ticket office window or a staff member on the platform and said the same thing, or worse, the police would probably be called and at best the ticket offce window would be promptly closed. Staff working social media accounts deserve the same sort of protection and support as provided to those on the front line or at the end of a phone.

- Being brutally frank, TOCs are under no franchise obligation to provide a service on Twitter, it's not regulated and it's a value added service that operators provide. Whilst it wouldn't go down well, a TOC could close its Twitter account tomorrow if it wanted. Twitter isn't the only source of information, there's websites, NRE, Customer Services, Apps etc etc. To claim that blocking users is denying them access to information is being somewhat disingenuous.

 

[Frontera2]

Just to add to this, try tweeting a company like BA, Vodaphone or another FTSE 100 company and call them a bunch of useless c***s - or worse, you would be promptly blocked. Why should rai, be any different?

 

[yorkie]

....it's extremely frustrating to see stories like this - not just for us but all the TOC social media teams who do a fantastic job in challenging circumstances

I agree that Northern's actions in blocking people (rather than muting them) - including people who have not uttered a word of abuse to the company and are merely guilty of voicing legitimate complaints or corrections - has caused frustration for all TOC social media teams.

The risk with one or two TOCs going about things in this manner is that it can bring the entire industry into disrepute.

 

[yorkie]

- it's not and never has been about blocking people who join in conversations. However, if users are constantly jumping on each and every interaction a TOC has with its customers, to do nothing but disrupt the conversation e.g. by taking it off topic or repeatedly tweeting a link to a petition, it makes it difficult for the operator to respond to passengers in a timely fashion.

But what about when TOCs give out false information and are corrected? Some TOCs will block the person issuing corrections. If the TOC really doesn't like being corrected and doesn't want to see the corrections (which is a huge shame) then they could use mute as a last resort, but they should not block.

- Blocking users isn't about supressing their right to receive information, it's about protecting the team from messages that are frankly disgusting at times. P

Blocking denies that user from accessing information when they are logged in.
Muting will prevent the team from seeing messages by that person.

- Being brutally frank, TOCs are under no franchise obligation to provide a service on Twitter, it's not regulated and it's a value added service that operators provide. Whilst it wouldn't go down well, a TOC could close its Twitter account tomorrow if it wanted. Twitter isn't the only source of information, there's websites, NRE, Customer Services, Apps etc etc. To claim that blocking users is denying them access to information is being somewhat disingenuous.

Are you sure none of the franchises include an obligation to use Twitter?

 

[yorkie]

Oh, I see.

I thought that the only criteria for blocking would be using bad language, being threatening or aggressive, or breaking the law.

In this case, I agree with Which that there is a problem here. Indeed, if interjecting on someone else's conversation is a blocking offence, then it is high time for me to be blocked!

Our social media policy is very clear about what is and isn't acceptable:

Can you clarify this; @Starmill is asking about what is a blockable offence; are all the items under the 'We will not respond to' heading blockable offences, or just some? If the latter, which ones?

Northern and Virgin Trains East Coast have both blocked accounts which did not contain anything abusive, threatening, or anything else that might reasonably be considered a blockable offence (though I'd still argue that mute should be used for such offences, rather than block)

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

I agree that Northern's actions in blocking people (rather than muting them) - including people who have not uttered a word of abuse to the company and are merely guilty of voicing legitimate complaints or corrections - has caused frustration for all TOC social media teams.

The risk with one or two TOCs going about things in this manner is that it can bring the entire industry into disrepute.

We've not blocked anyone just for voicing complaints. Regardless of what people may claim, we would never do that - it's anathema to why the social media team exists. We block for violations of the policies listed previously - usually it has to be multiple violations over a long period of time

I'd also add that muting for us doesn't do anything. We respond to customers through Conversocial rather than through Twitter or Facebook themselves. Muting only stops you seeing the messages in Twitter itself - Conversocial will still pick the messages up regardless. The only way to stop the messages getting through is blocking - though even then, we still have a way of seeing a lot of them, just outside our main feed. In fact, the only way to guarantee that we cannot see those messages is actually be blocked ourselves

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

Can you clarify this; @Starmill is asking about what is a blockable offence; are all the items under the 'We will not respond to' heading blockable offences, or just some? If the latter, which ones?

All of them, if done repeatedly over an extended period of time

 

[yorkie]

OK so if someone makes a few "general statements" they can be blocked. That explains why some accounts have been blocked then. I am not sure that this is in the interests of the wider rail industry for Northern to be doing this.

 

[DarloRich]

I would love to be put in charge of a TOC twitter account. I would deploy my patented aggressive rebuttal techniques. Treat in kind. Honest, direct responses. You swear at me I swear back. What fun!

 

[Frontera2]

I would love to be put in charge of a TOC twitter account. I would deploy my patented aggressive rebuttal techniques. Treat in kind. Honest, direct responses. You swear at me I swear back. What fun!

That was indirectly tried on one twitter account during the snow in March and the TOC was vilified for it, even though it was a proportionate response IMHO

 

[theironroad]

Reading some of the exchanges on Twitter and the volume of individual tweets during disruption, I'm not sure it's sustainable for big tocs in the long term to get into realtime conversations with individuals.

It certainly has its uses , but maybe more as a one way channel of dissemination of alterations etc and other useful info disruption.

 

[DarloRich]

That was indirectly tried on one twitter account during the snow in March and the TOC was vilified for it, even though it was a proportionate response IMHO

Of course they were. I may swear and be as horrible as like but you may not reply in kind. I would love it. Attack these idiots head on & give them a taste of their own medicine

 

[yorkie]

Of course they were. I may swear and be as horrible as like but you may not reply in kind. I would love it. Attack these idiots head on & give them a taste of their own medicine

Or, in the real world, just click the "mute" button.

But the issue here is that TOCs are blocking people (when muting would achieve what the TOC wants to achieve) who have not given out a single word of abuse.

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

OK so if someone makes a few "general statements" they can be blocked. That explains why some accounts have been blocked then. I am not sure that this is in the interests of the wider rail industry for Northern to be doing this.

In fairness, that's the one we don't block for. It's more referring to that if there is disruption going on and we're getting hundreds of messages in, we'll respond to the customers who are asking questions rather than the customers who have posted a moan and decided to tag us. We'll consider blocking if we do respond to a comment like this, and get an aggressive response back from the customer - though as I said, there would have to be many instances of this over a long period of time. If we block, it's usually a combination of several of those rules being broken - aside from the instances of abuse

An example of something like this would be a customer contacting us about a series of late trains that they are frustrated about. In this situation, we try to explain the situation as best we can and advise them to submit a formal complaint, but often customers refuse to do this and demand answers from the social media team - often with rhetorical questions that we cannot answer. If this goes back and forth several times (we usually work to an informal three-strikes rule) with the customer still demanding answers from us and refusing to follow our advice, we will block them - ultimately not only would this customer be wasting our time which we would be using to help customers who genuinely need assistance, but it's also amongst the most frustrating type of situation to deal with. I don't mind the swearing or the threats - it's the insistent, aggressive customers who just want an argument that frustrate me

The fact is the vast majority of customers who message us don't get blocked. It's a very small minority where we take action to stop them

 

[DarloRich]

Or, in the real world, just click the "mute" button.

But the issue here is that TOCs are blocking people (when muting would achieve what the TOC wants to achieve) who have not given out a single word of abuse.

My approach is always to attack rather than hide away. I suspect the blockings are those that have been identified as successor accounts from previous trouble makers.

 

[yorkie]

We've not blocked anyone just for voicing complaints.

Accounts have been blocked accounts for no apparent justifiable reason though.

I'd also add that muting for us doesn't do anything. We respond to customers through Conversocial rather than through Twitter or Facebook themselves. Muting only stops you seeing the messages in Twitter itself - Conversocial will still pick the messages up regardless. The only way to stop the messages getting through is blocking - though even then, we still have a way of seeing a lot of them, just outside our main feed. In fact, the only way to guarantee that we cannot see those messages is actually be blocked ourselves

I would advise whoever is in charge of your software procurement/management to either asks Conversocial to improve their software to include this basic functionality (which is present on the Twitter website, or alternatively seek an alternative provider that has this functionality.

 

[Starmill]

OK so if someone makes a few "general statements" they can be blocked. That explains why some accounts have been blocked then. I am not sure that this is in the interests of the wider rail industry for Northern to be doing this.

This appears to be the point that Which are trying to make. I agree with them that this isn't the best policy.

 

[TBirdFrank]

Since Arriva took over the Manchester Todmorden Accrington service, the number of cancellations that would have made my friend late for lectures has grown exponentially so I now find myself doing two Tameside Rochdale Accrington journeys up the M60 and M66 a week.

it used to be possible to get a polite letter from the old Northern, and often a compensatory ticket of some sort but since Arriva took over we don't even get a letter anymore.

I despair for the modern railway and the decent people who work for it - but when this is the perceived public face I can offer the staff no sympathy at all as it appears that - at least on this forum - if you follow a path seeking improvements - you get banned anyway, without using profanities or making threats at all.

Rebuttals of despicable and unforgivable content is one thing. Failure to even respond, or to allow spirited defence of arguments entirely another.

 

[northernchris]

it used to be possible to get a polite letter from the old Northern, and often a compensatory ticket of some sort but since Arriva took over we don't even get a letter anymore.

I despair for the modern railway and the decent people who work for it - but when this is the perceived public face I can offer the staff no sympathy at all as it appears that - at least on this forum - if you follow a path seeking improvements - you get banned anyway, without using profanities or making threats at all.

Rebuttals of despicable and unforgivable content is one thing. Failure to even respond, or to allow spirited defence of arguments entirely another.

Old Northern certainly seemed more customer focused - I think Arriva went wrong by initially outsourcing the Customer Experience Centre to Carillion. I've only contacted them once, and although they just responded within the 20 day timeframe they didn't actually answer what I'd asked, but couldn't be bothered recontacting them to wait another 3.5 weeks for a response. From looking at Northern's Twitter there's a lot of tweets chasing up Delay Repay claims or emails from Customer Experience, and combine this with the appalling performance for the best part of 12 months its no wonder some people are frustrated.

 

[507021]

What PeterC is perfectly relevant in relation to the subject of the article this thread is based on. On the Northern social media desk we welcome constructive criticism. We don't block people for complaining in and of itself - we block people for being rude or aggressive, jumping in on other people's conversations, or asking the same questions repeatedly after receiving a comprehensive answer. It just so happens that there's rarely clear blue water between all of this

I think that's fair enough, to be honest. Some of the comments I've seen directed at Northern's social media have been utterly disgraceful.

 

[Agent_Squash]

I’ve had experience with both GTR and Northern teams, and I find despite the GTR team having a much higher workload, they always seem to be more helpful than those at Northern. GTR you will get a reply in a matter of minutes, and they’ll always seem genuine about it compared to Northern where it seems so ‘faceless’.

Perhaps moving Social Media back in house, in the Control room, would be a good start?