Amazon's Customer Centricity Lessons: It is Not Your Fault, But He is Your Customer

Customer service is the victim of one of the biggest—and most unfortunate—misconceptions in the business world.

Contrary to common belief and practice, it is not about addressing an issue affecting a customer. It is about resolving an issue affecting a customer.

Information regarding what went wrong and why it went wrong is important insofar as it can help the agent diagnose and remedy the situation. It should not, however, play any role in transforming or defining an agent’s commitment to providing resolution.

A customer is not calling a business for a report on what went wrong. He is not calling to determine who was responsible for it going wrong. He is calling for his issue to be made right. The second a customer service team forgets that reality is the second its customer service effort is failing.

Inherent to this philosophy is the notion that a business’ role in the issue has no impact on its responsibility to remedy the issue. Whether or not a business is solely—or even primarily—responsible for causing a problem, if its customers demand resolution, it must provide that resolution.

Attempts to blame the issue on a distribution partner, a freak accident or even the customer himself are futile. Of course one or more of those contributed to the problem. One would certainly hope that no organization is in the business of actively (or even passively) making life miserable for its customers.

But accountability for resolving the issue lies not with who caused it but with who is in the best position to fix it and who gains the most by fixing it.

If an individual sees himself as a customer of the organization rather than of its distribution partners, he depends on that organization to make it right. The organization with whom he directly did business is the one that took his money. It is therefore the organization best positioned to refund his money or provide the relevant support and compensation.

That organization, meanwhile, stands to most notably benefit—or suffer—by virtue of its actions. If it impresses the customer with its resolve, it will create loyalty and potentially secure future business. If it disappoints the customer, it could permanently jeopardize its lucrative relationship.

Since a customer does not often have the autonomy to determine the intermediary parties used by a business, such parties do not have the same stakes. FedEx might have technically been to blame for a Verizon purchase going awry, but the disgruntled customer will doubtfully have the leverage to convince all mobile phone carriers to stop using FedEx. He does, however, have the power to blame Verizon for the experience and seek service from a competitor if left unsatisfied.

If, for some reason, your organization suffers from a fundamental inability to separate blame from accountability, prohibit your agents from even considering that facet of the issue. Let them know that their only responsibility is to deliver a suitable resolution.

If they routinely want to know who is to blame, fine. If they let that knowledge impact their resolution efforts, they are poor performers.

Amazon’s customer service agents might not actually be prohibited from considering fault, but they serve customers as if they are.

While I have run into many past problems with Amazon, I am finally beginning to see proof of its commitment to building "Earth's Most Customer-Centric Company." Here are three key takeaways:

It stands by its promise

As I found out all too well in my recent interaction with Verizon, organizations cannot control for all variables in the shipping process. If a shipping partner UPS or FedEx delays a delivery due to an unforeseen issue like weather, there is little the business can do to expedite the delivery time.

On a few recent occasions, items for which I purchased one day delivery were delayed due to snowy conditions in New York. They arrived after two or three days.

Amazon, which processed the orders on schedule, did nothing wrong. The delays were entirely attributable to the weather and to UPS.

Recognizing me as their customer, however, the Amazon agents instantly offered me refunds on the one-day shipping charges. There was no debate or investigation required. Their company promised me a product in one business day; I did not receive that product. Amazon was not responsible for the issue, but it was accountable for making good on the situation.

If your business would attempt to deny its obligation to provide resolution on the grounds that it did not cause the situation, it does not understand customer service.

It understands customer effort

Willing to mercilessly criticize others, I also criticize myself. I, like every other imperfect person, make mistakes.

I made one when purchasing a belt from Amazon. For whatever reason, I neglected to consider waist size when making my purchase. I ended up ordering a tiny one more suitable to functioning as a headband than as a belt.

I, unfortunately, did not realize my error until after the product shipped. And that was a problem –in addition to now having to order the correct size (and waiting for that to ship), I would also now have to go out of my way to bring the incorrect product to the post office. What a shame.

Hoping for some empathy, I connected with an agent on Amazon’s live chat system. With minimal resistance, the agent agreed to call the USPS and have the product held. After a set period of time, it would be returned to sender. Upon receipt, Amazon would issue the refund. I would not be affected at all.

This was clearly my mistake. In addition to ordering the wrong product, I waited far longer than I should have to alert Amazon to the issue. Aware that I would be required to put forth effort to resolve it, Amazon instead opted to handle the effort on its own. It was in a better position to solve the problem (it knew the process and had all the tracking details) and was in position to gain my loyalty as a result of the experience.

It does not judge

Conspicuously absent from the recent Amazon interactions was a discussion regarding who was to blame. The Amazon agents not only agreed to rectify the issues to the best of their abilities but did so without any snide remarks or assertions of fault.

Instead of using the shipping issue as a platform for throwing its distribution partners under the bus, Amazon simply worked to provide the best resolution possible.

Instead of using the belt issue as an opportunity to make me feel guilty (and lucky that Amazon was willing to help), Amazon simply worked to provide the best resolution possible.

Your customer does not care who is to blame. He cares about getting a resolution.

Give it to him.