【英语生活】取悦顾客？别搞笑了

I shall try to keep this story brief as the details are tedious even to me – and it is my money that is at stake.

Last March I visited the EasyJet website and bought six flights to Menorca for £1,285.80. The promised e-mail confirmation didn't arrive, and on the “My EasyJet” page there was no record of the booking. So I went through the rigmarole of booking the tickets again. This time all went smoothly – until my bank statement arrived and I saw that EasyJet had pocketed the money twice.

Then began an e-mail correspondence with the EasyJet Customer Experience Team that is still going on, five months later. First they said it was my fault, as I had mistyped my e-mail address, and they owed me nothing. Then, after many protests from me, they finally agreed to repay the rather lower sum of £1,193.82.

Unfortunately, the money got lost in between leaving the cheap and nasty airline's bank account and arriving in mine. So we are still slogging it out. Or rather I'm slogging it out, and my bank, First Direct, is doing some admirable slogging on my behalf, but the airline is stonewalling.

A couple of weeks ago I cracked and sent an e-mail in which I included this as a PS. “I write about customer service in the Financial Times and this is the worst example that I have seen. I think this whole sorry story would make an interesting example on how customer value can be destroyed.”

The EasyJet Customer Experience Team was admirably unmoved by such a pompous threat. Three weeks later I got a reply from a member of the team claiming to understand my frustration, but not volunteering to do anything about it.

As a consumer, I meant it. It was the worst “service” I've ever had: my pulse now quickens with rage every time I see the hateful orange and white livery. Yet as a journalist, I commend EasyJet. Making it almost impossible for me to have my money back is entirely sensible. The company has destroyed my goodwill, but my goodwill doesn't matter. The reason I chose to fly with them wasn't that I like them. It was that they were slightly cheaper and the timing suited me better than the competition. Even though I now hate them with a passion I will fly with them again if I have to.

Ten days ago, just hours after disembarking from the (delayed) flight back from Menorca, and with the evil taste of the limp panini I'd eaten on board still in my mouth, I sat in the office looking at books that had arrived in my absence. There was a new one by AG Lafley about how he made Procter & Gamble into the consumer powerhouse it is today. His first tip was all about the consumer. The secret, he says, is to delight the customer at two “moments of truth” – when they buy the product and when they use it.

As a general rule for corporate success this does not stand up, and even in P&G's case I think Mr Lafley is over-egging it. I'm a loyal consumer of its Pantene shampoo, but to buy it doesn't delight me as it arrives automatically from my internet shopping list. Using it doesn't delight me either – although in fairness to Pantene that may say more about the indifferent quality of what I'm putting the shampoo on rather than the product itself.

Still, at least Mr Lafley is trying, which is more than can be said for many other successful companies – not just cheap airlines. A surprising number seem to thrive on disgusting rather than delighting customers.

Ikea, the most successful furniture retailer the world has ever seen, is famous for building customer despair rather than delight at both of the magic moments. It makes you walk for miles, queue for ages and then find that the legs to the table are not in stock and there is no staff member to help. Then you queue again to buy a whole lot of stuff that you don't want. Finally, you have despair all over again when you get the stuff home and set to work with the Allen key.

At Starbucks it is the same story. Buying the coffee is a disgusting experience, as the shop I visit is filthy and you have to queue twice. Disgusting, again, when you pour it into your mouth and find it is weak and often tepid.

Yet terrible service isn't confined to companies that aim at the masses. Designer shops do it best of all. I used to think this was because I looked too poor to be worth bothering with. Yet recently I went into Miu Miu in Rome with a friend who runs an advertising agency and is the best dressed person I know. Much to my surprise (and delight), the sales assistants doled out snootiness in equal measure to both of us.

These girls had clearly been taught a variant of the 6/15 customer service rule that says if a customer comes within six feet, say hello; within 15 feet, smile. Here, if the customer came within 15 feet they sneered; any closer and they wrinkled their nose as if there were a dog turd under it.

Even this makes perfect sense. If you sell dresses for €1,000 you have to persuade customers that they are buying something that sets them apart from the human race. The shop assistants are simply living the brand.

As I write these words, I have just had an unprecedentedly helpful and apologetic e-mail from EasyJet saying that I am going to get my money in three weeks. Why the sudden change of heart? Was it that someone had noticed my FT threat? Or was it that, deep down, EasyJet wants to delight its customers too?

我将尽量把这个故事说得简短，因为其中的细节连我都觉得乏味——尽管这关系到我的钱。今年3月，我访问了EasyJet网站，买了6张飞往梅诺卡岛的机票，总价是1285.80英镑。我没有收到网站承诺的电子邮件确认，在“我的EasyJet”网页上也没有我的预定记录。因此，我重复了一遍繁琐复杂的机票预定程序。这一次，一切顺利——直到我收到银行账单，发现EasyJet扣了我两次款。

然后，与EasyJet消费者体验团队(Customer Experience Team)的电子邮件通信开始了，直到5个月后的今天仍在继续。一开始，他们说那是我的错，因为我错误键入了电子邮件地址，他们什么都不欠我的。然后，在我多次抗议后，他们最终同意返还1193.82英镑，低于实际总价。

不幸的是，在离开这家破航空公司的银行账户到我的账户的过程中，这笔钱不见了踪影。因此，我们仍在艰苦地努力着。更确切地说，是我在苦苦努力，我的银行First Direct正代表我做着一些令人钦佩的努力工作，但这家航空公司却在从中作梗。

几周前，我崩溃了，给EasyJet发了一封电子邮件，在信末附了一段话：“我在英国《金融时报》写消费者服务，这是我见过的最糟糕的例子。我认为，这个遗憾的故事可作为一个有趣案例，说明消费者价值是如何被破坏的。”

令人敬佩的是，面对这种虚张声势的威胁，EasyJet消费者体验团队不为所动。3周后，我得到了该团队成员的回复，表示理解我的失望，但并未主动提出要做些什么。

作为消费者，我说话算话。这是我得到过的最糟糕的“服务”：每当我看到可恶的橙白色制服，我的心跳就会因为愤怒而加速。但作为一名记者，我赞同EasyJet的做法。让我几乎不可能要回我的钱，这是完全合理的。该公司毁掉了我的善意，但我的善意本来就无关紧要。我选择乘坐该公司的航班，不是因为我喜欢他们，而是相对于竞争对手，他们的价格要便宜一些，而且时间更适合我。尽管我现在非常恨他们，但如果必须的话，我还是会再乘坐他们的航班。

10天前，在我乘坐晚点航班从梅诺卡岛返回几小时后，当时我嘴里还残留着飞机上吃的柔软的帕尼尼的邪恶味道，我坐在办公室里，看着在我离开期间寄来的几本书。其中有雷富礼(AG Lafley)出的一本新书，讲述他如何让宝洁(Procter & Gamble)变成了如今的消费者巨擘。他的第一秘诀完全是有关消费者的。他表示，秘密在于在两个“关键时刻”取悦消费者——他们购买产品时和他们使用产品时。

作为企业成功的一般法则，这并不成立，即便对于宝洁，我也认为雷富礼有些夸大其词。我是潘婷(Pantene)洗发水的忠实消费者，但购买它并没有让我感到喜悦，因为它会自动进入我的互联网购物清单。使用它也没有让我感到喜悦，尽管为了对潘婷公平起见，我也许应该更多地说一说我那质量相当差的头发，而非产品本身。

然而，至少雷富礼在努力，这总好过许多其它成功企业——不仅仅是廉价航空公司。通过令消费者反感而非取悦消费者获得成功的公司似乎达到了惊人的数量。

全球迄今最成功的家具零售商宜家(Ikea)以在上述两个关键时刻都让消费者失望（而非喜悦）而闻名。它让你步行几英里，排上很久的队，然后才发现桌腿缺货，而且没有员工帮你。然后你再排队买一大堆自己不想要的东西。最后，当你把这些东西拿回家，用艾伦内六角扳手开始工作时，你会再度陷于绝望。

在星巴克(Starbucks)也是如此。买咖啡是一件令人恶心的事，因为我去的那家店污秽肮脏，而且你要排两次队。咖啡入口时，你会再度感到恶心，因为咖啡味淡而且不热。

然而，糟糕的服务不仅局限于为大众服务的公司。最过分的是精品店。我曾经认为，这可能是因为我看上去过于寒酸，不值得人家搭理。但最近，我与一位经营广告公司的朋友走进了罗马的Miu Miu门店，我这位朋友是我见过的穿着最得体的一位。让我感到颇为惊讶（和高兴）的是，售货员对待我俩同样都是不屑一顾。

显然，这些女孩学到了6/15消费者服务规则的变体。6/15规则称，如果消费者的距离在6英尺以内，服务员要说你好；如果在15英尺以内，要报以微笑。在这里，如果消费者的距离在15英尺以内，她们会嘲笑你；再近点，她们会皱起鼻子，好像下面有一滩狗屎一样。

即便是这样也很有道理。如果你一件衣服卖1000欧元，那么你必须让消费者相信，他们买的这件衣服会让他们与人类区别开来。这些售货员只是在“实践”品牌。

当我写到这里时，我刚刚收到EasyJet一封前所未有地有帮助而且充满歉意的电子邮件。信中说，我将在3周内拿回我的钱。他们为何突然换了一幅嘴脸？是因为有人注意到了我在英国《金融时报》披露他们的威胁吗？或者是因为EasyJet在内心深处也想取悦它的消费者？

译者/梁艳裳