Pizza IVR Telephone Orders

[petef]

I also think that it's sad that you would label me "difficult" just because I would rather speak to you than a machine.

I was not directing my comments at you, but
I can now see how sensitive you are.
You might be a hard customer to please.
That's exactly my point.

---pete---

[sourdough girl]

I was not directing my comments at you, but
I can now see how sensitive you are.
You might be a hard customer to please.
That's exactly my point.

---pete---

Nope, you've got it wrong... I'm not hard to please at all.... just TALK to me and don't make me talk to a machine!
Sensitive?  Only when business owners think they can put me off to a machine because they don't care if they get my business.
Restaurant customers talk with their feet.... I talk with my fingers on the keypad.  That's not sensitivity, that's business.

~sd

[petef]

I've never understood why any service business owner would willingly... and happily!... say they don't need more customers! 

Most service businesses won't say they don't need more customers, but they
would probably love to have a way to avoid customers who are difficult to
deal with because they can be more trouble than they are worth. For example,
customers that bounce checks, ones that don't keep appointments, people that
are too demanding or untrusting, chronic complainers, people looking to pay
less than the standard rates, people who never pickup their property after
it's been repaired, and so on. I'm talking about service businesses in general
and not just food services. A single "undesirable" customer could cost the
honest business owner thousands of dollars.

sourdough,
I had mentioned how my automated answering service partially serves
to filter out some undesirable customers, but please understand that my
comments were not directed at you becasue my business is so different
from a pizza/food service business and I took your commnets as being
were aimed towards a food ordering service.

---pete---

[petef]

Nope, you've got it wrong... I'm not hard to please at all.... just TALK to me and don't make me talk to a machine!

Ok, that sounds reasonable.
If you read my previous posts carefully you will see that I'm very concerned about
the customer who does not want to talk to a machine and I had suggested that
the opening menu of an automated pizza system offer an option to speak to a
 human.

Like this...

Hello, thank you for calling ABC Pizza.
Press 1 to place an order or speak to Joe.
Press 2 to order using the automated sytem and receive a $1 discount.

Would that be acceptable to you?

---pete---

[November]

Mike,

I don't care what you think naive means; I don't care if you think redefining the term provides you with a straw man argument; and I don't care if you think I'm trying to win anything here.  I also don't care if either of us has the business pedigree of the century.  I don't hang my hat on pedigree when it comes to knowledge.  I either know something or I don't.  I'm either provably right or I'm provably wrong.  You haven't said the first thing to prove that the view I call naive isn't naive, so whether I point out that it's naive or just point out that it's just plain wrong based on present and historical facts, you have yet to deal with the substance of my post.  So as to clear your conscience and release you from the oppression of that specific adjective, substitute the term "incorrect" where it currently reads "naive" and deal with the content of the post.  In fact, if you still aren't able to deal with a sentence that describes your view of business and society, alert a moderator to have that sentence stricken and respond to the twelve sentences that follow.  While you're at it, you can try explaining the following:

And who's going to pay for their unemployment? You. And I. And the rest of the country.

How about the businesses are going to pay for their unemployment?  Since when does the average taxpayer pay for unemployment insurance?  The last time I checked businesses have been paying unemployment taxes to the state and federal governments since the Great Depression.  In fact, the main reason businesses were made to start paying unemployment taxes was to guard against this very thing where changes in society are too sudden for businesses to deal with.

- red.november

[Essen1]

How about the businesses are going to pay for their unemployment?

RN,

You are correct, when saying that employers pay the tax:

"The Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), with state unemployment systems, provides for payments of unemployment compensation to workers who have lost their jobs. Most employers pay both a Federal and a state unemployment tax."


As a business owner however, you'd have that unnecessary burden if you were to replace parts of your workforce with an IVR, wouldn't you agree?

[November]

As a business owner however, you'd have that unnecessary burden if you were to replace parts of your workforce with an IVR, wouldn't you agree?

No, you would not.  Taxes are paid as a percentage of taxable wages.

[November]

Mike,

Here is more information to chew on that others might also find interesting.  According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average unemployment rate during the ten years prior to the invention of voice mail (1969-1978) was 5.98%.  That period was also just before the introduction of the Automated Coin Toll System which replaced lots of telephone operators.  The average unemployment rate during the past ten years (1999-2008) was 5.03%.  Is there a valid correlation to be made here?  Absolutely not.  Even if you tried to make a correlation, it wouldn't look good for the argument that machines replacing humans have much of a negative effect on employment.

- red.november

[sourdough girl]

petef,

First of all, let me use the old high school mathematics proof to explain my "sensitivity":
If a = b and b= c, then a = c.
I stated that I won't use an IVR, I hang up instead.
You stated that an IVR can filter out customers who are "difficult" because they won't use it.
Therefore, I am labeled a "difficult" customer before we have even spoken one word.
If word got out that you were using this system to profile customers before you even speak to them, you might find your business dwindling.  Word of mouth is powerful advertising, both pro and con.

Ok, that sounds reasonable.
If you read my previous posts carefully you will see that I'm very concerned about
the customer who does not want to talk to a machine and I had suggested that
the opening menu of an automated pizza system offer an option to speak to a
 human.

Like this...

Hello, thank you for calling ABC Pizza.
Press 1 to place an order or speak to Joe.
Press 2 to order using the automated sytem and receive a $1 discount.

Would that be acceptable to you?

---pete---

Your scenario seems reasonable, but I would even add: "Thanks for calling ABC pizza!  You've caught me at a busy time, so please press 1 to speak to one of us or press 2 to use the automated voice system."  That adds a more personal touch that hopefully won't turn off customers like me.

Have you considered that, by using your system to filter out supposed (but unproven!) "unwanted" types, you are keeping your business from growing and realizing its full potential?  Wouldn't it be nice if you could become SO busy (by giving your customers the personal touch of talking to YOU!) that you actually had to HIRE some of the unfortunates who have been downsized from their jobs and are on unemployment?  Do you think Bill Gates ever said "Oh, we don't want any more customers... let's just turn our backs on some of them so they will go away and not bother us!"?

Most service businesses won't say they don't need more customers, but they
would probably love to have a way to avoid customers who are difficult to
deal with because they can be more trouble than they are worth. For example,
customers that bounce checks, ones that don't keep appointments, people that
are too demanding or untrusting, chronic complainers, people looking to pay
less than the standard rates, people who never pickup their property after
it's been repaired, and so on. I'm talking about service businesses in general
and not just food services. A single "undesirable" customer could cost the
honest business owner thousands of dollars.

---pete---

I guess I don't understand how installing an IVR is going to screen out customers who do all of the above.  Your system has screened ME out and I am none of the above!  Just because someone wants the personal touch and won't talk to an IVR doesn't make them a grouchy ass who bounces checks.  There is no way to screen out those customers because you don't know they are "those customers" until they prove it down the road.  So, my point is, I think your "reason" to install an IVR is really an excuse.  Rather than screening your customers, it screens YOU from my money.  You are showing me your level of dedication to customer service with the first phone call: Zip, because you don't want to or feel the need to talk to me at the very beginning.  That's the impression that IVRs give me and it is the reason I hang up.

As for the pizza industry, I'm sure if I called Papa John's right now, an employee would answer the phone.  If anyone could afford (and not just monetarily) to install an IVR, it would be them.  So, why haven't they?  I'm guessing part of the reason is because they want EVERY potential customer and don't want to make a bad impression on ANY potential customers.

And, from my perspective (potential customer), it really doesn't matter what industry you are in... food service or laundry service... it's all CUSTOMER service.  When I asked why I would want to order food from anyone who doesn't want to talk to me, that question could apply to anyone selling me a good or service.  If you don't want to talk to me, why would I want to give you my hard-earned money?  And, if you are SO busy that you can't answer the phone yourself, then you need to hire one of those jobless unfortunates, not an expensive answering service, to do it for you.

JMHO.

~sd

ETA:  I guess judging people or businesses based on IVRs works both ways, doesn't it?

[sourdough girl]

No, you would not.  Taxes are paid as a percentage of taxable wages.

red.november,  I guess I need some clarification on this....

If there is no financial burden on the employer when workers file for UI, why do companies fight the system to keep from paying UI to the former employee?  This actually happened to me and I had to fight to get the employer to pay my UI.  I prevailed, but felt the fight was unnecessary because I was entitled to the benefit from the git-go.  If it makes no difference to them financially, why do they fight it?

~sd

[Pizza_Not_War]

If there is no financial burden on the employer when workers file for UI, why do companies fight the system to keep from paying UI to the former employee?  This actually happened to me and I had to fight to get the employer to pay my UI.  I prevailed, but felt the fight was unnecessary because I was entitled to the benefit from the git-go.  If it makes no difference to them financially, why do they fight it?

SD

I will put my old accounting hat on and help you out. An employer usually pays State & Federal Unemployment Insurance. For the federal you take a credit of what you paid to the state and this drastically reduces the amount paid to the fed. I don't remember if all states have UI, but I would think so.

Basically an employer has an account with the state and your contributions are added in minus the amount paid out to ex employees who collect from the fund. Your tax (insurance) rate is based upon a formula taking those numbers into account and the more money taken out the higher rate you pay in. At some point you max out on the rate and the excess comes from the pool of funds. In a bad economy that pool gets drained rapidly.

That's why employers fight like the devil to not pay out money.

PNW

[November]

This actually happened to me and I had to fight to get the employer to pay my UI.

Probably because you weren't being replaced with a machine.

It definitely helps to be an accountant, a lawyer, or even both when examining tax laws and unemployment insurance fee structures.  It could be simply understood that insurance is insurance in any context, and everybody likes to avoid claims whenever possible for fear of higher premiums.  PNW summarized it fine, but more specific to this discussion there would really only be an unnecessary burden if one employee was being replaced by another employee.  That's why I said taxes are paid as a percentage of taxable wages.  Machines aren't paid wages, so even if an employer had to pay a higher premium rate (which I don't think is guaranteed to always happen), this would be more than generously offset by the reduction in total wages paid, thereby reducing the contributions paid to the state.

This begs the broader point concerning employment in a technologically advanced society.  Machines don't get paid.  People get paid.  Until the day comes when all the money in the world mysteriously disappears, there will always be something for people to get paid for.  That's why the unemployment rate does not increase proportionally with technological advancement.

- red.november

EDIT: Of course your employer could have also just been greedy.  Employers, like employees, will always try to find ways to pay less to the government, but that doesn't always mean it's a burden otherwise.  I don't know your employer's circumstances.

[sourdough girl]

PNW,
Thank you for putting that hat back on!  I understand better now why I had to fight every step of the way... both with UI and also with L&I.  I think they both know that you are already stressed out (and in pain) and hope that you will just cave in and say "whatever".  Not this girl!

red.november,
I understand your argument better now, especially concerning the replacement of humans with machines.  However, I also see Mike's points and, since he owns and runs a retail business, I think his points are also valid.

Humans have been, as you have pointed out, replaced by machines for centuries, but I'm not convinced that disconnecting us even further is necessarily a good thing.  I guess it just comes down to personal preference:  If you don't feel uncomfortable doing business with someone who represents themselves with a machine, fine.  If you do, move on to the next business owner who doesn't.  In the final picture, they will all still do business and cater to the people who are comfortable with their MO.  Being of the "certain age" generation, I prefer not to deal with mechanized "human" interaction.  But I'm sure that the younger generation think nothing of it and, since their prefered method of communication is texting, all human face to face communication will soon (but hopefully not in my lifetime!) disappear.  There's an old show, I believe it was Star Trek, where all the inhabitants of a planet are disembodied brains in glass jars, communicating with each other... is that where we're headed?

~sd

[November]

SD,

I wish I had more time to explain this right now (I'm already late for a human gathering), because anthropology is one of my favorite fields of interest.  It's actually a discipline I apply to some of the work I do in CI.  If you want to know more about that though I'll discuss it in private.  You could reduce this discussion to equations like you did with petef.  What it really comes down to is the differences between humans and machines.  Applying boolean logic for the moment, if humans (A) aren't machines, and machines (B) aren't humans, B can't do what A does.  However, applying fuzzy logic (logic of reality), if machines can do 10% of what humans can do, you can say that they are 10% human.  Likewise you can then say humans are 10% machine because of what they have in common.  So when interacting with humans, you have to ask yourself, am I interacting with the 10% of the human that is machine, or am I interacting with the 90% that is purely human.  If a machine can completely take over the role of a human, i.e. pass the Turing test, one has no basis for saying that humans would perform any differently.  That's why I keep raising the point that order taking is not the same as customer service.  Order taking only fulfills the 10% of the human that represents machine qualities.  If a machine can do it as well as a human, you shouldn't be able to tell, much less care about the difference.  I believe that was petef point when talking about implementing the system so as to avoid losing customers.  I don't believe IVRs pass the Turing test for the skill they employ, so they do not offer adequate human replacement.  I expect that to change, but that is not today's reality.

- red.november

[petef]

Have you considered that, by using your system to filter out supposed (but unproven!) "unwanted" types, you are keeping your business from growing and realizing its full potential?  Wouldn't it be nice if you could become SO busy (by giving your customers the personal touch of talking to YOU!) that you actually had to HIRE some of the unfortunates who have been downsized from their jobs and are on unemployment?

Yes, I have considred that, but my goal is not to grow a large business with employees.
I'm not even striving to make large sums of money. My goal is to charge very reasonable
rates and provide superior service as compared to my competitors. I don't need a huge
number of customers to survive because I don't need much money to keep myself happy
and I don't want to work long hours. What this all boils down to is an ability to select
the nicest people to work for. From there, it boils down to freedom and happiness.

I guess I don't understand how installing an IVR is going to screen out customers who do all of the above.  Your system has screened ME out and I am none of the above!

Ok, first off, I never said that an IVR system would effectively screen out "all the above".
When I listed all those negative customer traits, I was answering your question about
why any business might want to turn away certain kinds of customers.

You stated that my system screened you out. Well, judging by all the things you've
said in this thread to me and others, your personality is shining through. I'd now
classify you as one of those customers who would be hard to please.

So.. NO PIZZA FOR YOU! YOU ARE BANNED 1 YEAR! (Pizza Nazi)
Hehehe. Just kidding, Sourdough Girl.

And, from my perspective (potential customer), it really doesn't matter what industry you are in... food service or laundry service... it's all CUSTOMER service.  When I asked why I would want to order food from anyone who doesn't want to talk to me, that question could apply to anyone selling me a good or service.

All the above is true, but in reference to IVR systmes, it's not that simple because
the nature of some service businesses allows them to use IVR systems effectively.

For example, using an IVR system to place custom orders for pizza is a very bad
idea because of all the key presses or voice commands that would be required
and for the potential problems that could occur during that long tedious process.

On the other hand, using an IVR system to handle a plumber's customer calls
could be quite effective. Customers could call the IVR system to get some
general prices of services offered and the ability to leave their name
and phone number so the the plumber can call them back.

A large corporation with millions of customers could effectivley use an IVR
system to handle routine calls which would benefit the customer by keeping
the costs down. One example of this is a credit card company that utilizes
an IVR system to validate the customer's identity and provide information
about the account.

Bottome line, the use of IVR systems for customer service is a complex
issue depending upon the type of business and the kind of service being
provided.

---pete---

[petef]

Humans have been, as you have pointed out, replaced by machines for centuries, but I'm not convinced that disconnecting us even further is necessarily a good thing. 

Yes I do understand your point. About 6 months ago I had a shoppng experience that
made me think about our future. First I went to Home Depot where they installed
self-service check out. As I walked by, I could hear the automated voice instructing
customers how to process their items and payments. 

Next I went to Walmart and as I was shopping, I could hear the automated
voice informing customers of various sale items.

Next I went to the Acme for groceries and I could hear the same female
automated voice instructing customers at the check out line.

This was the first time I noticed that the same female voice was being used
on all these automated systems and that all the stores I regularly deal with
were now using them. It was kind of scary. People are being phased out.
Everywhere we go, we can hear that same female automated voice in
the background telling us what to do.

What will life be like 20 years from now? 
I'm thinking humanoid robots.

---pete---

[petef]

  That's why I keep raising the point that order taking is not the same as customer service.  Order taking only fulfills the 10% of the human that represents machine qualities.  If a machine can do it as well as a human, you shouldn't be able to tell, much less care about the difference.

One way to tell if the IVR system is better than the human is to measure
each system quantitatively. We could setup both systems and have
customers call in to place identical orders while we measure the following
parameters.

* Elapsed time of the call.
(rate overall efficiency)

* Number of steps required to place the order.
(rate complexity)

* Number of errors that occur. For voice, it would be having
to repeat or correct something spoken. For IVR, it would be
having to correct a voice command or key press selection.
(rate vulnerability to errors)

* Ask the customer if they would rate the system from
1(best) to 10(worse) on general customer service.
(rate customer satisfaction)

Perform various tests using multiple customers and various
typical kinds of orders and the numbers should reveal the
truth. If I got everything right, the lower number wins.

---pete---

[November]

One way to tell if the IVR system is better than the human is to measure
each system quantitatively.

That won't be necessary.  There is a substantial parametric disparity between humans and IVR systems in their current form.  The only way an IVR system could even come close is if the human is already familiar with the IVR system.

[November]

Humans have been, as you have pointed out, replaced by machines for centuries, but I'm not convinced that disconnecting us even further is necessarily a good thing. [...] But I'm sure that the younger generation think nothing of it and, since their prefered method of communication is texting, all human face to face communication will soon (but hopefully not in my lifetime!) disappear.

I can't stress enough that there are nearly 7 billion people on this planet.  We are not becoming more disconnected, and if you think young people focus mainly on texting, check out sites like MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube for all the videos people post of themselves for their friends.  Then take in the recent multitude of dating services that strive to bring people face to face in relationships.  People certainly aren't getting STDs online, so if STD occurrences are on the rise (http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/STDs/7388), it isn't because people are avoiding face-to-face contact.

To further put this into perspective, before the Ford Model T, families typically did not travel much beyond a few miles from their homes.  Before the Pony Express, telegraph, telephone, television, cell phones, satellites, email, Internet, (you get the picture), there were fewer options for people to connect with other people.  So what pattern do you really see here?  It isn't one of progressive disconnectedness.  The primary things humans invent in a post- industrial revolution society revolve around communication; because as machines replace human labor in industry involved in producing consumer goods, people seek to economize information involved in producing more efficient human and capital goods.

Without going into a full-length essay on the subject, humans are generally social creatures.  We will always find ways to socialize with each other, and the frequency of face-to-face socialization hasn't decreased a bit relative to our own local surroundings since humans first walked the earth.  Hundreds of years ago people saw their neighbors and that's about it.  Now we see hundreds of people (face-to-face) and potentially thousands in a day if we just perform a few basic community-centered tasks like grocery shopping or walking to a park.  The perception of a growing disconnectedness is just that: a perception.  I wish I had more time and a more appropriate forum for discussing this, because unrestrained, this could get a whole lot deeper.

People are being phased out.
Everywhere we go, we can hear that same female automated voice in
the background telling us what to do.

I'm glad you mentioned this because it serves to illustrate why many perceive a human disconnect.  This is merely an artifact of society.  In the larger sense, nobody was phased out.  The job of making announcements is relatively ad hoc.  The need (purpose) for making announcements didn't exist until supermarkets came along, and as information begins to reach the consumer directly through a display on the shopping cart, it won't be long before announcements are once again non-existent.  Purposes evolve in society, and unless tools spontaneously evolve with them, humans will always have something to do.  If we humans, the smartest beings on the planet, require all manner of control through management and government to conduct our lives, a product of our invention isn't going to control us with any more resourcefulness.

There's an old show, I believe it was Star Trek, where all the inhabitants of a planet are disembodied brains in glass jars, communicating with each other... is that where we're headed?

What will life be like 20 years form now? 
I'm thinking humanoid robots.

Humanoid robots are very likely.  Disembodied brains are very unlikely.

- red.november

[petef]

That won't be necessary.  There is a substantial parametric disparity between humans and IVR systems in their current form.  The only way an IVR system could even come close is if the human is already familiar with the IVR system.

That's a nice theory, but lets talk reality. The HUMAN versus
IVR system I have in mind for a pizza shop would test like this..


================

1. Customer calls in an order to a human...

Hello ABC Pizza, can I help you.

2. Yes, I'd like to order a large pie with sausage and mushrooms.

Is that for here or pickup or delivery?

3. I'd like to have it delivered.

4. Also, can you cook that extra crispy?

Sure. no problem.

Ok, what is your name?

5. John Smith.

What is your address?

6. I'm at 123 Fourth St. in Newtown.

Ok that's 1234 what street?

7. Fourth St.

Ok that's 1234 Fourth St.

8. No, it's 123 Fourth st.

Ooooooooooooh Ok, I got it now, Sorry.
(10 second pause while he writes it all down.)
Ok, that will $14.83 and it will be delivered in about 30 to 45 minutes.

9. Ok, thank you, goodbye.

Overall rating... 1 error in communications and  60 seconds to complete the order
in 9 steps. Customer rates the service a 3 (1 to 10 scale, 1=best),  maninly due
to the human not listening well which caused problems with the address.
Customer *hopes* he got the rest of the order right.


================

1. Customer calls in an order to an IVR system...

Hello, thank you for calling ABC Pizza.
Press 1 to place an order or speak to Joe.
Press 2 to order one of your favorites using the automated sytem and receive a $1 discount.

2. Customer presses 2

Hello John Smith, select one of your favorites as follows.
Press 1 for a medium sized Italian Hoagie as with extra mayo, and hot peppers.
Press 2 for a large pie with sausage and mushrooms, cooked extra crispy.
Press 3 for a large cheese pie with extra cheese, cooked extra crispy.
Press 4 to add a 1 large bottle of coke.

3. Customer presses 2

Press * to continue or press 1 thru 4 to add an other favorite.

4. Customer presses *

Ok that's 1 a large pie with sausage and mushrooms, cooked extra crispy.
Total is $13.83 and you saved $1.00 today by using this ordering system.
It will be delivered to 123 Fourth St, in Newtown within 30 to 45 minutes.
If all that is correct press 1, otherwise press 2 to speak to Joe to
add something or make a correction.

5. Customer presses 1

Overall rating... 0 errors in communications and  50 seconds to complete the order
in 5 steps. Customer rates the service a 1 (1 to 10 scale, 1=best) because it went
so smoothly and he is confident the order is 100% accutate. Customer is extra
happy because he took the easy method of ordering and saved $1.00 in the
process.

================

IVR system beats the HUMAN for ordering favorites!
IVR system takes less time.
IVR system is less complex.
IVR system is more accurtate.
IVR system provides more customer satisfaction.
 
HUMAN is on standby to take over where the IVR system is inadequate.

Again, I reinerate, this same IVR system would NOT likely
beat the HUMAN for special orders or more complex orders.
It's only practical use is for ordering favorites that the HUMAN
pizza shop owenr has entered into the system for his regular
customers.

---pete---