Virgin Trains (West Coast) shuts down CR call centre number & uses 'LiveChat' feature

[fairysdad]

Well...

You could "chat online" with Prestel back in the 1980s with a 1200/75 combined keyboard and modem.

You must have seen a teletyper/teleprinter on TV programmes in the 1970s too?

In the 1980s I used one of the machines below to communicate with my fellow operator at the "Controller" branch...

I typed a message of up to 79 charcters and she was prompted to insert a sheet of paper in the printer to read my message and could respond similarly.

There's nothing new with "webchat".

My rolling eyes wasn't to do with that, although that is rather interesting that such was possible in the 70s (the pedant in me would say that isn't the web, but this isn't the time nor the place!).

My reaction was more down to the fact that I do know several - admittedly older - people, and doubtless there are countless more, who, as I say, do not have and have absolutely no desire to have the Internet, and the reply 'Well, join the 20th Century then' is arrogant and downright rude. There's also plenty of people who can't afford Internet access, so how are they supposed to 'join the 20th Century'? (Admittedly, in this particular situation, somebody who cannot afford Internet access probably won't require contacting VTWC as they won't be able to afford the tickets as well, but that's for another thread!)

(Needless to say, of course, this isn't all old people - there are some people I know who are in their 80s who have embraced the Internet and all that it can offer, yet there are people I know in their 60s who haven't.)

What about blind people? I know that there are screen readers and all sorts of assistive technology out there to allow blind people to navigate their way around the web, but surely it would be much easier and preferable to use a telephone call than a web chat? Are they being told to 'join the 20th Century' as well?

There are people who do have access to the Internet who would much rather make a phone call and speak to somebody than sit in front of a screen and type to - what they consider - a faceless entity. Personally, I am not one of those types of people, in fact, I really dislike making phone calls and would much rather fire off an email or use a web chat facility. (In fact, I got irritated the other day when wanting to ask a question of a company, and could find no web chat or email address option, just a phone number.)

Yet, there are people who are the other way around, and to repeat what I said earlier, the response from DarloRich was - or at least, came across as - arrogant and rude, perhaps even patronising. There are positives and negatives to what VTWC are doing / have done, but there really needs to be facilities available for all classes of people, whether they don't use the Internet through choice or circumstance, through a disability or a need.

EDIT: Just want to apologise for the tone of this post. I've had a bad couple of days with stuff going on, so wasn't quite in my usual mind when I wrote it. I'm not going to edit or delete what I've written though as I believe that once something is out there, it's out there, regardless of why or how it was written. Plus, I think I raise some good points, even if the tone of the message isn't quite as it ought!

 

[gray1404]

I think s described above, VTWC does still accept normal phone calls, just directs people to Live Chat when very busy. I would be wrong in my view for a TOC to not provide customer services by telephone and I am sure the DfT would need to be consulted before any such change could be approved.

 

[DarloRich]

Sounds like another victim of the advance of technology and automation. People should always be able to speak to a person, anything other than the personal touch is, in reality, bad manners to me. People are bound to disagree with me but I like to be treated as a person and be able to speak person to person. and not to a what amounts as a robot. Advances in technology are a great thing but they have their time and place.

You are still communicating with a human. HAL 9000 hasn't taken over the building yet. Funnily enough, live chat is almost the same as using this forum. We are managing to communicate quite easily and successfully.

43 miles from Charing Cross, we have no mobile signal from any company, and supposedly "super-fast fibre" gives us something around 4 Mbps (if the land line is not down), so you should think before you are so dismissive of people relying on telephone calls.

unlucky. I am 43 yards from my telephone exchange in a biggish town and don't have fibre broadband. However any old school dial up connection will run a live chat window.

Sounds like a fantastically arrogant attutude. Don't think everyone is like you. The stats on people who don't use the internet will surprise you.

I would think there are also major DDA issues around such a policy as partially sighted people for one are going to be severely disadvantaged.

No there aren't. IF anything live chat is easier for people with difficulties. If you are blind there are good quality screen readers available and for a deaf person or a person who cant speak it is a useful communication tool. It is helpful for people with things like autism/asperger who can find person to person contact stressful and misunderstand nuance or shade.

The biggest DDA issue is ensuring the website is accessible and works with the available assistance technology available. Not all do

Plus there is no messing about with press 1 for this or press 7 for that or waiting on hold for 17 minutes being told your call is important to us ( but not important enough to answer!) while having your mind rotted by some tinny Greensleeves effort.

And as has been mentioned already - live chat is just a rubbish tool. If you want a one word answer out of a colleague at another site it is good. Anything more and a 30sec phone call takes about 5min on live chat.

It is just a cheap and nasty way to get past the fact that offshore call centre operatives tend to have dire spoken but very good written English.

I agree that it is a move to save money. Yet TOC's are under pressure to save money and reduce subsidy. if we don't want to loose safety critical staff on the front line then the back room boys and girls will have to go.

BTW as far as i am aware the Virgin call centre is in the UK

My reaction was more down to the fact that I do know several - admittedly older - people, and doubtless there are countless more, who, as I say, do not have and have absolutely no desire to have the Internet, and the reply 'Well, join the 20th Century then' is arrogant and downright rude. There's also plenty of people who can't afford Internet access, so how are they supposed to 'join the 20th Century'? (Admittedly, in this particular situation, somebody who cannot afford Internet access probably won't require contacting VTWC as they won't be able to afford the tickets as well, but that's for another thread!)

I know several - admittedly older people - who love the internet, especially how it makes life easier and are glad they got over the whole new technology might blow up thing we all have.

When i was out of work and had no money so couldn't afford the internet i went to the library and used their computers free. There are many publicly available internet sources although libraries are sadly closing in many areas.

In any event it is MUCH cheaper than relying on your phone for everything. An 0333 number ( via BT) is 10p per minute

What about blind people? I know that there are screen readers and all sorts of assistive technology out there to allow blind people to navigate their way around the web, but surely it would be much easier and preferable to use a telephone call than a web chat? Are they being told to 'join the 20th Century' as well?

yes, as set out above and they are! So much better than the old mega button phones my partial sighted relative has to deal with. An accessible website will work wonderfully with a screen reader.

There are people who do have access to the Internet who would much rather make a phone call and speak to somebody than sit in front of a screen and type to - what they consider - a faceless entity. Personally, I am not one of those types of people, in fact, I really dislike making phone calls and would much rather fire off an email or use a web chat facility. (In fact, I got irritated the other day when wanting to ask a question of a company, and could find no web chat or email address option, just a phone number.)

Yet, there are people who are the other way around, and to repeat what I said earlier, the response from DarloRich was - or at least, came across as - arrogant and rude, perhaps even patronising. There are positives and negatives to what VTWC are doing / have done, but there really needs to be facilities available for all classes of people, whether they don't use the Internet through choice or circumstance, through a disability or a need.

I was being slightly factious. OF COURSE there are issues that need to be deal with by phone and that facility should be available to those unable to use live chat. However, lets consider the types of calls I imagine this type of line receives:

1. Complaints
2. service enquiries
3. booking enquiries
4. assistance requests
5. station information

I think most of those questions will relatively simple and easily answerable. By freeing up the telephones for major/complex problems you can provide more people with the simple information they are after AND serve those with complex issues more easily.

I wonder how many calls these centres take per day?

 

[jayah]

Did my post get deleted or something, or was my opinion discounted because it didn't suit the 'rubbish tool' argument.

I am not sure when I last had a 30 second call to customer services. Besides the need to get through to the right department, you then have the security checks and so on - and often have to hold just so they can give recorded announcements to give information that might get a percentage of callers to hang up and go online for information.

A live chat is usually near instant to start. Sure you need to do the security stuff, but after you can get straight down to business.

PLUS as I said, the big advantage is you can get over your point very clearly and if it's not understood or there's a later issue, it's VERY easy to prove what was said. Far easier than digging out a phone call and having to interpret what was said, especially if there's anything that sounds ambiguous.

If you're negotiating a discount or dealing with a billing problem, having it in writing is MUCH better. It doesn't even matter if you spend more time on the chat.

And when I'm on a live chat, I can be doing other things. No need to hold a phone or use speaker. Chances are the person won't even know I'm doing something else, and yet I won't miss anything that's said to me.

There is a lot of comparing going on here using badly managed services with a dismal experience. I dread to think how long it would take to get that out via live chat. When I worked in a call centre our target was 16per hour and these were complex billing queries. If the call centre is busy you would be daft to direct anyone to live chat, direct the agents to calls. There is no way they are closing 16 queries an hour, even wasting your time chatting to 5 customers at once.

There are a few good points - yes you can capture what has been agreed but modern mobiles can record calls too. As for DDA a screen reader and then the hassle of needing to concentrate on the keyboard. I am not partially sighted, but I can't see how that can possibly be easier. Hard of hearing yes.

But I am standing by my guns - live chat is the workaround for offshore call centres where robotic scripts and poor spoken English have enraged customers. A cheap and nasty workaround for cheap and nasty offshoring.

 

[jon0844]

Recording audio is far more time consuming than a simple text record surely?

I've had some complex billing issues sorted in 15-20 minutes (and I wouldn't say either of us were conversing that quick) so perhaps targets are a bit more flexible on account of the fact that one person can now deal with multiple people at once - which wasn't possible before.

 

[Agent_c]

Recording audio is far more time consuming than a simple text record surely?

The Better webchat systems automatically ask you if you'd like a copy sent to your email address.

 

[jon0844]

The Better webchat systems automatically ask you if you'd like a copy sent to your email address.

Yes they do. I think it's far better to avoid later arguments, especially on the occasions that they lose the recording as happened to me not so long ago (the recording showed they had offered a deal they reneged on). In that case, escalating to the executive office got me through to a department that found the recording (funny that) and sorted it.

A simple forwarding of an emailed transcript would have been considerably easier and quicker, if I'd even needed to escalate a complaint at all.

 

[jayah]

Recording audio is far more time consuming than a simple text record surely?

I've had some complex billing issues sorted in 15-20 minutes (and I wouldn't say either of us were conversing that quick) so perhaps targets are a bit more flexible on account of the fact that one person can now deal with multiple people at once - which wasn't possible before.

The targets are more flexible because the call handler is in the UK and the live chat person probably isn't. Most of these complex billing problems are caused by things not being done right the first time and not being properly fixed at the 2nd 3rd and 4th try.

 

[RAPC]

The Better webchat systems automatically ask you if you'd like a copy sent to your email address.

Indeed and the VT service does exactly that, plus was proactively offered up along with an email address for the CS person In the UK I was speaking with last week.