The Amex surcharge, sometimes up to 3%, is something that really aggravates me as a customer, and I’m not alone, I’ve seen countless numbers of staff abused by customers because of this.

Once the exclusive realm of the rich or well-travelled businessperson, American Express is a credit card with a challenge in Australia – use it and in many establishments, you get charged a fee. So why is this?

Short sighted shopkeepers, hotel chains and restauranteurs seem to think it gives them a bit extra margin (because they certainly charge more than the difference between the Amex fee and the bank backed cards).

Bargaineering.com hosted a forum started by a member titled: ‘Why do merchants dislike American Express?’

An reply from Blaire Moore stated that: ‘There are a few reasons.
First and foremost, most people have a Visa card, and if they don’t then they have a Mastercard. Both cards are processed on the same network.’

Therefore if you are a business you only need one merchant account, which means Visa and Mastercards are cheaper to accept. This is the short sighted approach.

Scott Sanders disputes the above argument. As he argues, ‘A savvy merchant will understand….and appreciate the economics.’

According to Sanders, An American Express customer might enter a store, browse for 45 minutes, talk to some of the staff and leave after spending $400. The profit for the retailer after a 2.75% Amex fee ($11.00) is $389, probably $294.50 as a net transaction.

A typical Visa customer may enter the store, spend the same amount of time and finally spend $150. The retailer pays Visa 2% ($3) and makes a $147 profit, probably $73.50 as a net transaction.

So, obviously Amex customers are harassed through ignorance without retailers understanding how important these clients really are.

Perhaps establishments should consider adding the surcharge into prices. This would make Amex customers happy and leave many innocent staff relieved at not copping it for something they they can’t change.

What do you think? What annoys you most as a business customer?

Like most of you, I’m really getting sick of poor customer service. So it was no surprise to read a recent global Online Shopping Report by the Nielsen Company has found that local Asia-Pacific consumers are the most active online shoppers in the world with many spending 11% of their monthly budget online.

Why?

If you think about it, online shopping is easy, comfortable, time-saving, price competitive and eliminates the need to be aggravated by hassled staff with poor attitudes.

For retailers paying big rents in Australian shopping centres this spells disaster. Sluggish growth at the cash register has been blamed on the rise of online outlets. (Naturally the retailers don’t think lack of customer service is to blame.)

Research group, Forrester, has estimated that online retail sales will be up 17.5% from last year to $28 billion, $7 billion of which is spent on overseas products.

So my message for retailers is keep up with technology or die. Because I can’t see you winning in the service stakes.

In Stanley Kubrick’s 2001 A Space Odyssey, the nemesis of the movie was a computer called HAL. Its voice sounded exceptionally friendly and it made all the right noises and if it had possessed a face it would have been smiling inanely. Yet all the time it was trying to kill the humans it was meant to serve.

Call me cynical, maybe even a conspiracy theorist, but it seems that some companies have been able to replicate the essence of HAL and insert it into their “Customer Service Specialists”.

These people are not literally trying to kill you, of course, merely destroy your will to live whilst dealing with the company they represent. They speak in reassuring tones, nodding and smiling at everything you say, and then they hit you with their pre-programmed responses defined by the system within which they have been ordered to operate.

I think customers become annoyed because they believe the descriptions pinned to the lapels of these people. If you went into the bank with an enquiry and the counter clerk said to you: “Yes, you need to go and talk to the robot over there,” you would have little expectation of a favourable outcome because you would know the robot’s parameters were limited. Instead, you are actually informed that you should speak to the “customer service specialist”, and herein lies the misconception.

“Customer” – You

“Service” – Providing appropriate assistance

“Specialist” – Highly trained

Put all those together and you naturally believe that this person will be able to listen to your particular request or gripe and then use their knowledge and most importantly, their discretion, to tailor a personalised solution.

A human should be able to do this, but not when they are working within strictly imposed company guidelines. When you remove the option of discretion, you often also remove the entire concept of customer service and you effectively end up with a robot. You can almost see the confusion behind their smiling eyes.

We are not talking about complex customer requests here. The other day, I asked my bank (the Commonwealth) if they could split my personal credit card limit, and allot one half to a new business credit card.

Apparently this was impossible!

The only solution was that I would have to stand around and wait for someone to carry out the necessary paperwork to apply for a new card. And I mean stand around, as there were no chairs.

I asked why this person couldn’t just take all the details the bank already had about me, complete the form and send it to me for signing, but this data option was not pre-programmed into my CBA “customer service specialist”. I left!

Later when I called to offer feedback, I was informed that what I had asked could have been carried out, but that it wasn’t company policy. This person further admitted that it would have been within the realms of possibility to direct my backside towards a chair whilst I waited. Obviously, because robots do not have muscles that tire, they cannot grasp the human need to take the weight off.

In reality, to blame the individual “customer service specialist” is a little harsh. The real problem is with the management who do not allow the human factor to come into play with their customer-facing staff. The only genuine reason why this might be good business practice is if the people they are employing are not very bright and cannot be trusted to think for themselves lest they make a reckless decision that triggers a whole host of problems.

If this fear is preponderant, then they should pay higher wages to attract brighter employees. The payoff would be a much happier clientele, and increased revenue through an enhanced customer service reputation.

Fortunately, some companies do get the point. I have experienced quality customer service on a couple of occasions recently, where the specialist really deserved their title. Then again, all they had to do was listen to what was being said, and possess the freedom to act unilaterally to resolve the issue.

It is a sad reflection of the state of play, however, that when you have such a positive experience with customer service personnel, you’re left feeling that something strange has just happened.

Companies need to give their employees the opportunity to provide the best customer service where it matters – on the ground with the customer. They have to be given the go-ahead to become human again, and to stop behaving like robots.

PS The partly completed form arrived in the mail a couple of days after my “feedback” and after I had arranged a business card somewhere else!