In the dynamic realm of customer support, the delicate balance between providing a stellar customer experience and meeting ticket resolution time metrics can be a challenging tightrope walk. In this post we discuss a common struggle: the impact of ticket snoozing on resolution time. Today, we delve into the insights shared by some power Gorgias users and explore strategies to navigate this conundrum effectively.
The Dilemma:
Some teams using Gorgias ensure high customer satisfaction by snoozing tickets for thoughtful follow-ups. This approach, while fostering positive experiences, raises concerns about its impact on resolution time metrics. The team identified scenarios where follow-ups were crucial, such as order inquiries, product replacements, and feature requests. The aim was to create a seamless customer journey marked by proactive updates and unexpected moments of delight. But how can you achieve high customer satisfaction in situations where a follow up is required and also not have a negative impact on your resolution times? Here are some suggestions from some of the best CX teams using Gorgias.
Key Insights from the Gorgias Community:
1. Tagging for Follow-Ups:
One of the CX heads suggested an alternative approach—creating a tagging system for tickets that need follow-ups. This allows for easy tracking without compromising the conversation history. This method emphasizes the extra “touch” without sacrificing efficiency.
2. Small Team, Big Impact with a Little Sacrifice:
A lone support warrior shared their experience of being a one-person team and the value of extended snooze times for a personalized customer experience. Despite potential impacts on resolution time metrics, they prioritize customer interactions over strict adherence to metrics.
3. Resolution Time Benchmarks:
Another perspective introduced the idea of benchmarking resolution times based on the nature of the inquiry. Speed takes precedence in sales-related matters, while support-related issues prioritize quality metrics. This nuanced approach helps in identifying market-specific inefficiencies.
4. Interaction-to-Resolution Ratio:
An unconventional yet insightful metric surfaced—measuring the number of interactions required to reach resolution. Focusing on efficiency and incentivizing a higher interaction-per-day-to-resolution ratio encourages teams to close tickets naturally while keeping customers informed.
5. Government Organization Case Study:
One of the CX teams at a government organization removed resolution time as a metric due to its negative impact on agent stress and call quality. This case underscores the importance of balancing efficiency metrics with the well-being of support teams.
6. First Response Time and CSAT Focus:
The consensus leans towards valuing first response time and Customer Satisfaction (CSAT) as key metrics. While resolution time is acknowledged, it takes a back seat to ensure that the customer’s journey and experience remain the top priority.
Conclusion
Ticket Resolution Time versus Customer Experience? Who wins?
As the discussion unfolds, it becomes evident that the dichotomy between resolution time metrics and exceptional customer experiences is a shared challenge. The key takeaway is the need for a nuanced approach, leveraging tagging systems, benchmarking, and unconventional metrics to strike the right balance. Ultimately, the consensus echoes the sentiment that, in the grand scheme, customer experience should triumph over strict adherence to resolution time metrics. As we navigate this landscape, it’s crucial to evolve metrics in ways that reflect the true essence of outstanding customer support—where every interaction counts and every resolution brings satisfaction.