Eir, a telecom firm, got a blistering rebuke at Dublin’s District Court last Monday; however, none of its executives were present for the damning verdict. For most, this penalisation for Eir’s multitude of customer service infringements was as predictable as wet weather in Galway or overpriced stout in Temple Bar.
Currently, Eir stands out as an archetype of lamentable customer service, often ranking low on client feedback studies. It holds the dubious distinction of being the firm most frequently mentioned by individuals contacting the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission’s (CCPC) helpline. Whilst the specifics of these CCPC calls remain undisclosed, it is safe to assume callers are not applauding Eir’s outstanding service.
Several shortcomings were exposed in a lawsuit brought by the communication regulator, ComReg. It was disclosed to the court that updates to Eir’s complaint handling procedures in early 2021 made it substantially more difficult for customers to lodge complaints. For its failure to properly acknowledge and respond to these complaints within ten business days, among other violations, Eir pleaded guilty. It was penalised a sum of €750 each for ten such violations.
But the story doesn’t end there. During its investigation, ComReg requested Eir’s customer service manual. The document was produced in court to the apparent surprise of Hugh McDowell, the attorney representing Eir. Eir’s unawareness claim was rejected by Judge Anthony Halpin, who pointed out it was their own manual being used in the case. Despite the attorney’s protests, the trial proceeded. The judge branded Eir a ‘disgrace’ and called upon the company to apologise to customers, ComReg, and even its own staff that it had threatened.
One section, highlighted and boxed in red, explicitly instructed personnel not to share contact details for submitting complaints to any client. Any employee found violating this rule would face disciplinary action. The company was subsequently chastised by Judge Halpin, who ruled that Eir should issue an apology, not just to its clients and ComReg, but also to staff it had intimidated.
Following court proceedings, ComReg representatives assembled outside. Meanwhile, Eir offered a statement insisting on its absolute adherence to ComReg’s complaint handling procedures. They admitted clarity could have been improved in their instructional resources. However, they raised a stern objection to accusations made by ComReg stating it was directing its customer service team to flout regulatory obligations. These grave and unfounded accusations were rebuffed in no uncertain terms.
Their statement suggested that ComReg’s allegations were based on a misconstrued interpretation of documentation. They insinuated that dialogue prior to the court hearing could have clarified these misconceptions. They also claimed the pertinent slides were misconstrued due to their isolation from context. However, ComReg was unimpressed by these explanations, noting that no objections had been raised about the facts at the heart of the case during the legal process. They pointed to Eir’s training manual which was furnished as part of a formal inquiry.
Standing in front of the courtroom, Barbara Delany, the director for consumer and retail at ComReg, underscored that nobody who has a grievance appreciates being disregarded. She warned about the severity, and apparent intentional nature, of companies not letting consumers file any complaints whilst simultaneously inhibiting their staff from assisting these consumers, something she emphasised should be their primary function. Moreover, Delany highlighted how addressing customer complaints promptly is not an extra service but an essential part of conducting business that must not be neglected.
This advice holds particularly true for all corporations functioning in Ireland, as poor customer service is neither unique nor specific to Eir. A report named ‘Understanding Consumer Detriment in Ireland’ released last month by CCPC studied what 4,500 consumers had undergone in 2023 regarding their stressors and financial drain, and the findings summed up to €968 million in expenditure.
The study outlined that most likely to induce issues were home appliances and tools such as refrigerators, toasters, hair straighteners and more, with 13% of interviewees reporting issues linked to household goods. Telecom services followed closely, receiving complaints from approximately one in eight consumers. Travel and holiday companies and vehicles irked 11% and 10% of respondents respectively. Other sectors such as banking, digital subscriptions and medical services were also flagged up.
According to the findings, the average expense for these issues was €60 per customer, which culminated in a €968 million valuation. These costs include the initial payments and the subsequent legal and repair charges. Besides, the study revealed that rectification of issues within a day was reported by just over 10% of individuals; and a third received resolutions within a week. However, a staggering two-thirds, representing more than a million individuals, faced delays longer than a week. Even more worryingly, one in 10 people stated they were grappling with severe issues half a year since their initial approach to the seller.
A report provides insight into the longstanding struggles experienced by the Pricewatch section, achingly described as a monotonous cycle of complaints enduring over two decades. Consumers sign up or purchase a product or service, only to be disappointed later, leading to a series of unsuccessful attempts at contacting the provider to solve the issue.
The process is incredibly exasperating, as companies appear prepared – even systematically predisposed – to push their customers towards exasperation, driving them to approach a national news agency, rather than address and solve the problems, which our accomplishments have frequently demonstrated are readily solvable if there’s a genuine will to do so.
So, what exactly transpires behind the scenes?
Delving into the matter, Michael Killeen, the chairperson of the CX Company, a body responsible for examining the quality of customer experience from various businesses around the country and for publishing annual rankings in several sectors. According to him, businesses that excel are those who genuinely prioritise their customers, but a stark and unfortunate contrast can be observed in sectors like telecommunications, utilities, and some airlines in Ireland, which are all predominantly shareholder-focused.
Highlighting the results of his decade-long research, Killeen remarks that credit union has invariably led the rankings, owing to their not-for-profit driven nature. Five pharmacies follow closely, demonstrating great concern for their customer base. However, the situation is quite the contrary when delving into the lower ranks, which are predictably occupied by three telecommunication companies and an airline. These entities may claim to be customer-centric, but their attention invariably redirects back to the shareholders. As one ascends the ranking, this trend is seen to reverse.
In his remarks, he emphasises the importance of companies prioritising the needs of their existing clients instead of constantly seeking new ones. He claims that businesses often neglect their loyal customers, taking them for granted and primarily focusing on acquiring new ones. He believes that a shift in this approach can greatly enhance customer service.
Stressing on the fact that the stock market values customer acquisition more than loyalty, he suggests that alterations in this perspective could lead to significant improvements in customer service.
He observes that the ones handling customer care—the front lines—are usually inadequately paid, with promising employees moving away from customer care as they receive promotions. He asserts that if businesses prioritise providing their existing clients with exceptional experiences more than acquiring new clients, these loyal clients could turn into strong brand proponents.
Commenting on the best practices of customer service in Ireland, he praises the credit union. David Malone, their spokesperson, explains that they make customers the focal point of their operations. Contrary to other financial institutions that are becoming automated and closing down branches, credit unions take pride in their local community embedded personnel, easy accessibility, physical locations and caring staff. They offer round-the-clock customer service through branches, online and phone, with minimal waiting times.
The foresight of large businesses following the credit union’s service model remains doubtful. An article in the 2019 Harvard Business Review cited a research conducted by Anthony Dukes and Yi Zhu, which revealed that poor customer service often arises from the profitability motive. Their study involved interviewing call-centre managers who often used a rigid hierarchical system, which made the client-facing employees least empowered to provide solutions.
Companies often place minor barriers in front of their customers from the outset, with the expectation that a large number of them will quit and absolve them of the need for further compensation. Authors Dukes and Zhu contemplated in their article the impact of such customer frustrations on client retention and the long-lasting reputation of the organisation. Intriguingly, contrary to popular assumptions, the consequences are not significant.
The authors observed that some businesses, particularly those controlling significant parts of the market, show a lack of concern for their public image. They drew attention to sectors such as airlines, Internet, cable, and telephone service providers, where consumers faced the most dissatisfaction.
Despite the public humiliation suffered by many businesses for poor customer treatment, they continue to be highly lucrative without any evident decrease in market percentage. The authors concluded that, disappointingly, businesses with limited competitors see the benefit in disregarding disgruntled customers to save on compensation expenses. This could explain why the most despised companies in America are substantially profitable and why customer service remains regrettably disheartening.
Ultimately the responsibility lies with the consumers. If businesses see no merit in doing the right thing, their customers should hold them accountable for their shortcomings. Until we choose to actively and decisively spend our money with companies that genuinely concern themselves with us, there will be no substantial change in the norm.