The Intermission

<Jedi hand wave> This is not the Jeff Stevenson you’re looking for.

In the past few weeks, I’ve received 3 emails from people who think I’m Jeff Stevenson. Ordinarily, they would be correct. However, they think I’m this Jeff Stevenson. Although working for Google would be great, I am not a technical program manager, and I don’t live in Charleston. Also, I do not need your help with additional recruiting at Google, nor do I wish to review your non-conventional resume, nor do I wish to accept your clearly disingenuous congratulations. In fact, where did you find my email address anyway?

In case my Charleston doppelganger finds this post, I’d be happy to forward your junk mail to you. Some of it is pretty funny! Just leave a note in the comments.

Recently, I’ve observed some interesting customer service behavior from Apple and Google that suggests an approach to customer service I would not have thought about on my own. Consider these two cases:

Case #1 - Google Cancels Its Video Download Service

On August 10, I received an email from Google informing me that they decided to cancel their video download service. Since Google’s video download service works by streaming videos to you every time you watch them (unlike Apple’s iTunes store, in which you download videos permanently), canceling the service means the videos I bought will not be playable.

To make up for canceling the service, Google gave me (and everyone else who bought videos) a credit for the cost of the videos that I can use at any Google Checkout store. To me, this seemed okay. I buy a lot of stuff online, so I was pretty sure I could find something I wanted. Even so, I never feel great about the “store credit” approach to refunds.

Lo and behold, on August 21 (11 days later), Google sent me another email saying that they’re sorry for only giving store credit, and they’re now also refunding everyone’s money. This made me very happy! I got $15 to spend online, and I got $15 refunded to my credit card. (And, to be honest, I never watched those videos much anyway.)

Case #2 - Apple Reduces the iPhone Price by $200

Only 2 months after the release of the iPhone, Apple slashed the price of the 8 GB model from $599 to $399, ostensibly to make the phone more appealing for holiday buyers. At the time, Steve Jobs basically just said “too bad” to all the early adopters. The technology world changes quickly, and prices change too. There was an outcry of angry bloggers.

A day later, Apply announced that it would be offering a $100 Apple Store credit to everyone who bought an iPhone before the price drop. Generally, people still aren’t thrilled, but they feel better.

Conclusion

Perhaps the lesson to be drawn from all this is that, in customer service, it’s sometimes better to disappoint, and then over-compensate, than it is to simply satisfy the customer. Satisfactory service is good, but it generally goes unnoticed. In contrast, bad service that gets quickly remedied is very memorable. Honestly, Google did a much better job of this than Apple did. The disappointment (store credit) was more mild and the over-compensation (full refund) was much more satisfying.

But consider what would have happened if Apple announced the $100 rebate at the same time as the price drop. There still would have been an outcry of unfairness, but Apple would have had nothing left to offer. By letting people complain first, and then satisfying them, they were able to squelch most of the bad sentiment.

In college, I had a marketing professor with a background in hotel guest services (I think he worked with Four Seasons). I remember him once explaining that the reason Four Seasons has a great reputation is not necessarily for the service, although it’s good, but for the way they over-compensate when there is a problem. If you do complain about the quality of the room or the service, they have a whole system that springs into place to shower you with special services and treatment intended to overcome any bad impression you might have gotten.

I’m going to try to remember this “disappoint then over-compensate” technique. Seems like it might be useful. I don’t suppose this is already documented somewhere in research on customer service? Anyone know for sure?

I read an interesting article today. The Creative Director at frog design, Robert Fabricant, critiqued the iPhone for already showing it’s age. He picked out five “mistakes” in the iPhone, I think primarily pointing out that Apple wasn’t able to foresee some user interface and technical developments that have occurred since they started designing the iPhone who knows how long ago.

Some of his points don’t interest me too much, like when he says the TV icon for YouTube and the camera shutter animation are outdated. I would tend to think those were conscious design decisions that Apple made to give the device a warmer, more human feeling. But one of Robert’s points really hit home with me. He pointed out that the iPhone forces you to view your contacts as a feature of the phone tool. It would have made more sense, he argues, to let users see a list of contacts, and then choose any of the available methods to communicate with that person. For example, you would click on the name of a friend, and then choose to call, text, or email that person.

I’ve been thinking along the same lines for a new web application. In my head, I’ve been calling this application “Google Social” but it’s important that I point out that this is in no way affiliated with Google. I’m using their name as a conceit, because when I dream of web apps I dream in Google (and sometimes 37 Signals).

So what is Google Social? It’s a web tool that shows you a list of all your friends who are on the web. You click on a friend to view the social networks that they belong to (e.g. Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, etc.), and then you see a list of that person’s recent activity on that social network. It’s nothing terribly new — you can probably do most of this today through RSS and email notifications.

The important thing to me is the change in mindset. I’m no longer thinking “I’d better check LinkedIn to see what my contacts are doing.” and “Now I need to log in to Xanga to check my friends’ blogs.” and “Now I need to go to my friends’ Flickr accounts to see if they’ve posted new photos.” Instead, I go to Google Social and think “I wonder what Chris has been doing.” It’s a human-centered approach to social networks, instead of a platform-centered approach.

This web application interests me so much that I couldn’t help but design it in wireframes. So I invite you to look at Google Social, as presented in beta clickable wireframes.

These wireframes aren’t great, but I hope they communicate what I was thinking. You’ll notice some red dots around the pages. Not everything is clickable yet, so you’re mostly limited to what has a red dot by it. It’s like a Choose Your Own Adventure wireframe.

There are two ways to add friends in Google Social. First, you can search for people who have already created Google Social accounts. When you find someone, you can invite them to be your friend (very similar to LinkedIn). If they accept your invitation, then that person gets added to your friends list. Alternately, you can create a friend from scratch. This involves entering a fair bit of information. For example, if you have a friend who is a user on YouTube, you would need to enter her YouTube user name. Then Google Social monitors YouTube for any activity by that user and pulls it in for you to see. I’m hoping a lot of this kind of activity can be handled by RSS feeds that social networks are already putting out.

I know some things are still missing. I haven’t designed the sign up process yet, but it will be very important. It’s also missing a notification center for viewing invitations you have sent and received. It’s probably also missing a lot of other important stuff. But, hey, it’s only beta!

Please let me know what you think. Is this a compelling way to keep track of your friends online? What would make it better? Do you see any interaction problems?