@ceasesmith wrote:
You've shopped for them for years -- never had a problem, but when you do (AND it's a problem YOU caused!) you blow up?
Wow.
Personally, I think you owe Julie an apology, and maybe the supervisor one, too. Perhaps along the line of "I'm so very sorry I was out of line! I really do appreciate the help you gave me."
@Nataliekorn wrote:
if you guys find hanging up on people acceptable behavior I wonder how you evaluate customer service on assignments
@Professional Guest wrote:
I'm with Ms. Korn.
I don't know what companies you are evaluating, and it makes no difference if it is a QSR or a five star property,but I expect interactions - whether they be over the telephone, face to face or online chat, to end with being asked, "Is there anything else I can assist you with?" Anything less would be poor customer service, not to mention a lack of good manners and courtesy.
Yeah, Julie needs a little "coaching". And good for Maritz for addressing the issue as they did.
I agree with you about telephone manners and courtesy, but keep in mind that in this instance, Nataliekorn is not the customer. Maritz is Nataliekorn's customer.
Nataliekorn in this instance is kind of like the sales rep at a store whose customer cut her short and left without smiling after she said thank you. Nataliekorn felt that her customer owed her more respect and wanted her banned from the store. Sometimes our customers do not behave exactly like we want them to, but they are still the customer and we are still the service provider.
@Jay C wrote:
Nataliekorn in this instance is kind of like the sales rep at a store whose customer cut her short and left without smiling after she said thank you. Nataliekorn felt that her customer owed her more respect and wanted her banned from the store. Sometimes our customers do not behave exactly like we want them to, but they are still the customer and we are still the service provider.
@Professional Guest wrote:
"Julie is in a position to provide customer service to, I would think, internal and external clients."
Ms. Korn is Julie's, and by extension, Maritz's internal client.
Your example above seems flawed. Ms. Korn is not the sales rep. Julie is the sales rep, and in the instance outlined above by Ms. Korn, the sales rep did not "say thank you". As a customer, you have a right to leave without smiling if you do/did not receive good customer service. You also have a right to not "shop" at a "store" that treated you in that manner. Whether or not the "store" cares, that's another story, but customer acquisition AND retention is expensive and a key metric that is measured, as is customer service.
@CoffeeQueen wrote:
I think it's pretty rude to drag a person who cannot defend themselves through the mud on a public forum over "poor phone etiquette" . That says a lot more about who you are then who she is.
@ChrisCooper wrote:
Julie is neither an editor nor a scheduler. I'll bet she has no idea that she is being publicly maligned using her real name. I'm not sure if Natalie Korn is the OP's real name or not. If it isn't, then it's truly unfair for OP to remain anonymous while denigrating someone else.
And as was mentioned above, the other party isn't being given a chance to state her side. You called her 3 times in a row. That's annoying. imo, you earned the behavior you received.
@kenasch wrote:
@CoffeeQueen wrote:
I think it's pretty rude to drag a person who cannot defend themselves through the mud on a public forum over "poor phone etiquette" . That says a lot more about who you are then who she is.
I agree. Almost everyone is taking one side of this story to be the truth. I would like to hear Julie's account of the conversation before making any judgements one way or another.
@Professional Guest wrote:
@ChrisCooper wrote:
Julie is neither an editor nor a scheduler. I'll bet she has no idea that she is being publicly maligned using her real name. I'm not sure if Natalie Korn is the OP's real name or not. If it isn't, then it's truly unfair for OP to remain anonymous while denigrating someone else.
And as was mentioned above, the other party isn't being given a chance to state her side. You called her 3 times in a row. That's annoying. imo, you earned the behavior you received.
How did Ms. Korn earn the behavior she received when Julie hung up on her the first time?
I'm going to give Ms. Korn the benefit of the doubt. Call 'em like I see/hear/read them.
@Jay C wrote:
My point is that the Customer is the Customer, and in this case, Nataliekorn is not the customer. Martiz is the customer and Nataliekorn created the problem in the first place. It should have been Nataliekorn falling all over herself apologizing for creating a problem for her customer.
@AustinMom wrote:
You have heard only Ms. Korn's side of the story, You have accepted her story totally, and, for those things that are questioned, you will allow her the benefit of the doubt. Julie hasn't told her story at all, but you believe Ms. Korn's perceptions are totally true and accurate and that everything she said about Julie is 100% true. Why should a mystery shopper bashing someone on an internet forum get "benefit of the doubt," but the person being bashed gets nothing?
Sounds unreasonable to me. Maybe you have an axe to grind?