A few months ago I had a small kitchen fire at home. Everything is good, but for a few days, my family and I was in the warehouse and a hotel room in the home, where there is no oven (which destroyed by fire), so were forced to eat any food for several days.
On the day of the fire by two representatives from the insurance company told me that their food verblijf revenue, send it to uns Food and hacemos plus VAT. "After my employer ee again the house and settled in the back, I was in the preparation of my e-mail receipts for reimbursement of meals, and I'm a little bit to adjust to the requirement for the submission of the breakdown of Revenue per e-mail. He said that the allocation of 50% of meals and not 100%. If a partial adaptation of the sentence that reminded me mentella Claire representantessentantes two of the companies has committed to "for meals, plus sales tax."
My body is too defensive and sarcastic in his words and tone, and said: "Nobody in this company as a whole have reported that 100% of the meals. Our policy is 50%, because they are eaten, although the fire still not occurred. "
I was angry. Now it's more, it is on this principle. Some do? I have all the facts apoyand my case, an argument, thatthe Eröopening of the office quietly and methodically, and finally, a passionate and brief summary of my findings and Exit --- face away with a 100% of my life.
This is the lesson here: > if the claims adjuster, and during my first call, the company oplossenre had this problem with a simple explanation and an apology. Instead, they pay almost $ 200 more than it did and had to spend 10 minutes listening to me.
EStudents costly scenario played many times daily in the service sector, because workers do not know how to communicate with customers who do not have the diplomacy and tact, and ensures a quiet and good will.
In my case, the device responds with "water, we have tried to explain that your policy covers 50% of the meals, plus sales tax. They were the meals, even if they do not ongelukkige fire. We try to ensure their Einkommenger for ds loss of the load on your normal meals. It is the logic? We regret any inconvenience this has led to a misunderstanding. "
This approach is certainly useful, and probably three accepted the 50% policy. In contrast, the change in the attitude encouraged me, and I am determined that nothing more than a full refund. A wrong approach to a customer is angry, and often in a much Mayorga society. I do not want to pay einen U.S. Dollar more than they solltenILLP and it costs more to administer, 5 things that I do not alarming customers.
1 Do not tell customers they are wrong. Tell your customer is the customer and not want to fight with you. It is difficult, even in the most favorable change people's minds. So why do their job complicated by the fact that the exit on the left foot.
2nd Not unacliente. You can not win a debate with your customers. Clear, You can see your point, and also the last word, even in May, it was fine, but when it comes to change the mind of your customers are concerned, it is likely to be as useless as the bad.
3rd You do not speak with authority, as the clay, which has the wrong customers. Even if the result is bad, this is not the answer, because the customers in the defense.
4th Do not say: "We would never do." instead of judging, "Tell me about.
5 Do not be afraid to apologize. vonLesen you an apology, even if the customer is in default. Sorry no admission of guilt. Can be offered regret to express. For example: "I'm sorry for the inconvenience this has led to a misunderstanding."
Never forget in difficult situations, the problem is not the problem. The way the problem is the question.
0 ความคิดเห็น: