Comments on: Customer Service and “Reverse Justification”

By: Brian Herzog

Brian Herzog — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:33:27 +0000

Linda Braun, over on the YALSA blog, explains this more clearly than I did.

By: Brian Herzog

Brian Herzog — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:16:31 +0000

I can understand where they’re coming from – if you don’t want to change something, it’s not too difficult to spin it in such a way to call it “customer service.” And I’m not even saying that there isn’t a place or reason for restrictive policies, because sometimes they are for the best, or are the best that can be done in the situation. What alarmed me was defending them by claiming customer service, instead of just saying “it’s the best we can do for now” or whatever.

I think patrons would respond better if the library came out and said “we’re doing our best” and “we’re sorry” rather than trying to convince them they are better off. Only they can judge that.

By: Lynn

Lynn — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:32:54 +0000

They have an interesting interpretation of customer service! I was under the impression that “customer service” existed to make things easier and friendlier for the customer, but not necessarily for the ones providing the customer service – that’s why “customer service” providers get paid.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:03:31 +0000

That’s interesting that they defined customer service that way. I would view customer service as how you treat the person you are serving, rather than WHAT type of service you provide.

I can provide computers with internet access, that’s a service.

That person could plead with me for more time because it’s important, and I say no way. That’s BAD customer service.

Instead, I say yes let’s see what we can do for you. THAT’s good customer service.

How do you treat people?