With customer service, words don’t tell the full story

The use of "weasel words" can be frustrating, writes Brett Debritz

Customer service is important when you're waiting in a queue. Pawan Singh / The National

Recently, I received a text message from my bank informing me that it was closing my local branch and transferring my account to its main office. This was being done, the SMS assured me in order “to serve you better”.

I did a double-take. Exactly how, I wondered, was it serving me better to close the branch situated a five-minute walk from my home, forcing me to use an office that was three times further away and on the other side of an extremely busy main road?

An answer, of sorts, came in a follow-up email that said the main office was larger, had more staff than the old branch and more parking spaces (which is irrelevant to me, since I don’t have a car). That may all be true, but it will also have to cope with a lot more customers who have had to travel further to get there.

Rewind 10 years and picture me running down the stairs to the platform at Central railway station in Brisbane, Australia. The timetable and station display said departure time was in three minutes, so I was confident of catching the train. Imagine my reaction when I saw it pulling away just as I set foot on the platform.

I mentioned the incident to a fellow journalist who sensed a story. He contacted the railway company and received an official response, saying that “for the efficient running of the network, it is sometimes necessary for trains to depart early”.

We were both left scratching our heads over that one – just as, I am sure, is everybody who has ever heard the ubiquitous recorded message that begins: “Your call is important to us ...”

Surely, we have all thought, if the call really was important, they’d have answered it by now.

All the above are examples of “weasel words” that are far too commonly used as an excuse not to provide a service that a customer expects.

The OED defines weasel words as “words or statements that are intentionally ambiguous or misleading”.

They are well beloved by public-relations experts and political “spin doctors” who also don’t want to tell an outright lie but don’t want to draw attention to an unpalatable truth.

In the case of the bank, there must be a reason for closing my local branch.

Perhaps the lease has expired, or an audit had shown it to be unprofitable. I can guarantee, however, that the senior managers weren’t sitting around saying: “You know how we could serve Brett better? We could close his local branch.”

In the case of the train, there must have been a specific reason for its early departure. The PR people either couldn’t be bothered finding out what it was, or they did find out and it didn’t put the railway service in a good light.

Better and easier, then, to issue some weasel words that technically address the question but shed no real light on the issue.

Lest I be written off as a cynic and pessimist who has an issue with customer service operatives, I’d like to point out that I’ve also had some excellent experiences.

For example, the staff at Etihad’s call centre have always answered promptly and politely, and have been helpful with their responses, even if they can’t always organise the upgrade I am seeking.

And when I recently flew back into Abu Dhabi airport after a holiday, I was initially annoyed when the immigration official waved forward a family from another queue despite it being my turn to be served.

When I got to the counter, he was immediately apologetic. “It is very late and they have small children who are tired,” he explained. “I thought it better to see them first.”

How could I argue? It was a perfectly reasonable decision for him to take. I wish some others whose business it is to serve customers were as empathetic, efficient and upfront about their motivations.

On Twitter: @debritz