Live from Call Center Week: How Do You Say "No" to Your Customers?

It is a fact of life. All organizations must occasionally say "no" to customers. Even the Ritz-Carlton.

It is the organization’s strategy and philosophy for delivering that no—rather than the "no" itself—that dictates whether or not the organization is customer-centric.

Forget limitations caused by bureaucracies and internal inertia. There are some situations, perhaps due to legal, compliance or technical complications, in which the organization simply cannot give the customer what he is requesting.

Since not even the most pro-customer company can overcome all such barriers, all must recognize that they will not maintain an unblemished record of meeting the customer’s precise demand.

Delivering a successful customer experience, therefore, comes down to what can be done. What can a business guarantee every customer in every interaction, and how does that guarantee align with what the customer demands from every brand interaction?

Essentially, whether the brand is forced to say "yes" or "no" to the customer’s precise demand, what must it do to assure the customer experience is stellar and the call is successful? Knowing that they cannot always have the world, what does a customer require in order to leave a conversation satisfied with what he received from the organization?

In a masterclass presentation on day one of the 14^th Annual Call Center Week, Diana Oreck of the Ritz-Carlton Leadership Center revealed how her iconic organization tackles the "no" challenge.

The key? Make sure an acknowledgement of—and a connection with—the customer’s sentiment is at the forefront of the interaction.

Even though the outcome is the same, there is a massive customer experience difference between saying, "Nope, sorry, our policy doesn’t allow that" and "I completely get why you’re looking for it, and I would love to be able to offer it. For this specific reason, I unfortunately cannot offer that specific solution, but I am able to offer the following alternative to provide you with the best experience possible."

Neither scenario is perfect—and both, plausibly, could result in a lost customer—but one remembers that the human connection is the most essential part of the brand-customer relationship. When customers come to like, trust and respect an organization (and its agents), they find themselves wanting to say yes in the short- and long-term. They find themselves searching for any excuse possible to continue doing business with the organization.

On the other hand, when one does not sense any attachment to an organization, his loyalty, if it exists at all, is entirely driven by only the most tangible and impersonal of factors. Favorable price and consistent product quality might keep him hooked through disappointing service, but once a more admirable organization becomes competitive with that offering—or once his current provider fails and (gasp) is forced to say no—he will be on the first train to the competition’s client roster.

Human connection is a critical driver of the customer experience, and when the brand will knowingly offer an imperfect experience—by saying no—it could be the only saving grace against disappointment. It is the brand’s opportunity to show that the business is built first and foremost around the customer…an opportunity to demonstrate that answers in the negative come in spite of the business’ best effort to listen, understand, engage, satisfy and retain its audience.

As organizations build their service initiatives and recognize the inevitability of saying no to customers, they must never mistake—and never let customers mistake—their negativity as a temporary break from customer-centricity.

Showing legitimate appreciation for what the customer wants, what he feels, why he feels the way he feels and that the onus is on the organization to do the best it can to improve that emotional state is the only way to serve a customer, whether the final answer on the customer’s request is "yes" or "no." If, at any point, a brand finds itself out-of-sync with that customer connection and willing to substitute policy and curtness for appreciation and respect, it has failed at far more than the transaction: it has failed at customer management.