 |
A project to make businesses more aware of their customer experience, and how to fix it. By Mark Hurst. |
| About Mark Hurst | Mark's Gel Conference | New York Times Story on This Is Broken | Newsletter: Subscribe | RSS Feed |
Search this site:
Categories:
- Advertising
- Current Affairs
- Customer Service
- Fixed
- Food and Drink
- Just for Fun
- Misc
- Not broken
- Place
- Product Design
- Signs
- Travel
- Web/Tech
Previous: Hancock Tower sign | Main | Next: Canon battery charger warning label
May 3, 2006 12:03 AM
Broken: American Express website error message
I tried to create an account online with American Express and the site said:
We're SorryThe system is unavailable at this time. Please bookmark and visit this site later, or call customer service at 1 800- AXP 1234, for further assistance.
Is this the best American Express can do? How about "We're upgrading servers and will be done on x date," or "fill out this form and we'll get back to you as soon as we can"?
I don't think that's broken either. The message conveys that there is a problem and asks you to visit later, or call them for more information. A lot of times messages like that go away if you just try again. Telling you they're upgrading when they aren't would be lying to you. *That* would be broken.
I have to say, there's a difference between broken and inconvenient. What do I care why the webservice is unavailable? Why would filling out a form to be called back at their convenience any better than calling them directly (at a toll free number, no less)? This is merely inconvenient, and only slightly.
Well this is not broken at all.
When you're having a problem on the server, you generally don't KNOW what the problem is, otherwise it would be already fixed and the system wouldn't be down (duh!). Thus, you can't give an accurate time at which the server will be up again (it will be as soon as possible and leave it at that).
For the : "fill out this form and we'll get back to you as soon as we can" ... how about : the system is down!!! Even if there was another form it wouldn't work either because the system IS down -_-'
This isn't broken. The site is down for some reason, and the customer is being provided an alternate contact method.
American Express is supposed to be a top-tier company but I can say without question that their Web sites all stink. You can never do anything right, and everything is confusing and ugly. And, every screen looks like a totally different company. They look ghetto.
Man this is the second entry in a row where the Not Brokens were unanimous. I think it's not broken as well. Gerrard's take on the additional form is right on, but I have to say that IT's have regularly scheduled downtimes for server updates all the time. If that is the case it might be convenient for them to say so, but that's being a bit nit-picky. The only way this is broken would be if they let you spend 10 minutes entering all your info before telling you the server is down.
Now, if they had said, "Our site is currently undergoing upgrades" when, in fact, it was a site outage, *that* would be broken. Doubleplusbroken for not providing alternative contact information. I see these behaviors too frequently (including where I work). I commend American Express for not going that route and just making a clear statement of the situation.
Broken. Exact same thing happened to me yesterday
when trying to open an accout at Emigrant Bank.
Fill out 3 pages of info only to be told they can't
take my application. Seems to me if the site is having problems they should advise people BEFORE
they waste time filling out forms.
I had the same problem a couple of years ago with Amex. After trying repeatly to sign up, I finally called Amex and after much ado, they told me that my type of account, a corporate account, was not supported by the system. This from a company that heavily solicites corporate accounts. Needless to say, I no longer use Amex.
Fox beat me to it. Not very broken, for the reasons mentioned, but ironic that when "The system is unavailable" the boilerplate logo says "OPEN FOR BUSINESS."
The Only broken thing i see and this is not the only 1 that does it, is when putting a Phone number on a website, If you are going to use Letters for part of the phone number, take the extra effort to put the Full numerical equivelent as well..I'd much rather just go to the phone and say ok I need to dial 1 800- 297-1234, Instead of having to go to the phone and find out what numbers to press for A X P... From a customer standpoint not including Numbers in a phone number is very broken.. we are not in the time when we dialed a operator and asked them to get PEnnsylvania - 65000 for us..etc..not that I remember that except from the local hamburger joint that has an old ad on the wall with the number in the old way and from Andy Griffith
The Only broken thing i see and this is not the only 1 that does it, is when putting a Phone number on a website, If you are going to use Letters for part of the phone number, take the extra effort to put the Full numerical equivelent as well..I'd much rather just go to the phone and say ok I need to dial 1 800- 297-1234, Instead of having to go to the phone and find out what numbers to press for A X P... From a customer standpoint not including Numbers in a phone number is very broken.. we are not in the time when we dialed a operator and asked them to get PEnnsylvania - 65000 for us..etc..not that I remember that except from the local hamburger joint that has an old ad on the wall with the number in the old way and from Andy Griffith
Using letters in a phone number is not broken, in most cases. Think about which number you'd remember more: "1-800-COLLECT" or "1-800-265-5328"? It's more memorable, like a pre-internet version of a catchy domain name.
Now, for those of you who will insist that it's "just inconvenient..." There is no difference between inconvenience and brokenness. INCONVENIENCE = BROKEN. Inconvenience, except what's completely unavoidable, provides a bad customer experience and, according to Mark's own definition, is broken.
In this case, it is completely unavoidable (likely). It could be a bit stronger, but I'm still going to say that they did what they were supposed to do in informing the customer. Not broken.
Now please, PLEASE, PLEASE, read up the page before you post, and post something unique and interesting. Or else I will think horrible thoughts about you.
But there's no reason to not use the numbers to go with the letters on a website either.. that used to be pretty standard practice for print/websites.. not anymore it seems...
"Using letters in a phone number is not broken, in most cases. Think about which number you'd remember more: "1-800-COLLECT" or "1-800-265-5328"? It's more memorable, like a pre-internet version of a catchy domain name.
Now, for those of you who will insist that it's "just inconvenient..." There is no difference between inconvenience and brokenness. INCONVENIENCE = BROKEN. Inconvenience, except what's completely unavoidable, provides a bad customer experience and, according to Mark's own definition, is broken.
In this case, it is completely unavoidable "
Umm Arent you contradicting yourself? You say that using letters for phone numbers is not broken yet then you say it could be just inconveneint which=broken in the thisisbroken.com definition... seems like those 2 sentences don't match.
I wonder who the poor smucks who have the number people dialing 1-800-collect reach?? Most retards dial 0 instead of the 6 for o. I worked inbound telemarketing, and for a Crisco promotion, for 4 hours a day, all 5 days that week, every damn call came in on the wrong number, requiring extremely fast typing to get the correct computer screen up. It is easier to remember names instead of 7 numbers, but using the o and expecting dufuses to dial the 6 instead of that great big 0 at the bottom is broken.
Comments on this entry are closed
Previous: Hancock Tower sign | Main | Next: Canon battery charger warning label
That’s not all that broken if you ask me,
they could have been a little more helpful though.
And I have to be an idiot and say :::FIRST:::
(Although it will probably be false by the time I post this)
Posted by: Darth Ninja at May 3, 2006 12:28 AM