This problem is much less problematic with chat-based support, as you can hop between a few separate conversations without leaving customers waiting.
My company has maintained <60 second response times on our support 24/7 for a few years now, and although obviously it does require some level of additional staffing to cover peaks in demand, it's significantly less than you might imagine - I'd say maybe 1.5-1.7x.
We did optimise this by filling the lower demand periods with other tasks which can comfortably be completed more slowly - eg reviewing identity documents for KYC, etc.
I see it as being that the overall bandwidth you need being pretty close to the same, just choosing to have very low latency for specific tasks, and making sure constant context switching is manageable.
I absolutely detest most chat-based support. 60 seconds is way too long for an interactive medium. I'd rather be waiting for a sound from a phonecall than waiting for a browser tab. If I'm going to be using a keyboard, don't make me wait there by my computer or on my phone browser. Just let me send an email.
This sounds like an opportunity for an audio in a chat feed where between lines the computer spits out typing sounds and a virtual agent saying please hold on while I look into that.
Of course a better fix would be a combination of the two. Have some agent read your original email sent through some secure internal site and build and classify a case in the system with email attached and then reply to let you know there is a secure reply with a chat link to the complete case detail with time frames reserved for high responsiveness.
I am fine with it when the chat happens on a platform I am already using. I often use Facebook Messenger to contact companies as I have realised a lot of them actually have chat support there, even though it is not listed anywhere and their website only mentions calling (and they usually answer way faster than email!).
But if I am having to stay on your website and use your chat widget I expect a faster reply!
It’s intended for people who are in meetings or doing work to have a disjointed brief conversation that may span a half hour or more - eg, feature support.
This is a great comment. It's full of business knowledge and explains the reasons behind the technology. Nonetheless, if you've actually experienced this type of technology as a customer, you're super frustrated with the exactly 60s response times to every single chat message, and the useless back and forth to actually get the task accomplished. The task which, usually, costs the company money, so they're reluctant to make these interactions faster.
Should have been more specific. Current stats are 51s to the first response, typically more like 40s for subsequent ones, 2.7 responses required in total to fully resolve the issue.
My company has maintained <60 second response times on our support 24/7 for a few years now, and although obviously it does require some level of additional staffing to cover peaks in demand, it's significantly less than you might imagine - I'd say maybe 1.5-1.7x.
We did optimise this by filling the lower demand periods with other tasks which can comfortably be completed more slowly - eg reviewing identity documents for KYC, etc.
I see it as being that the overall bandwidth you need being pretty close to the same, just choosing to have very low latency for specific tasks, and making sure constant context switching is manageable.