Live Answering Service or Automated Answering Service? Which is Better?
Monday, December 6, 2010
One of the common issues concerning customer service deals with what type of answering service must be used. Some say live answering service provides better results. Others argue that automated answering service incurs lower costs. Well, let us dissect one from another.
Live answering service employs a live agent to directly cater the needs and demands of customers. Utilizing this means generating high costs of hiring, training and paying every agent. The expenditure remains the same regardless of time. Automated answering service, on the other hand, is also expensive, but on its installation alone. As time goes by, costs go down. By this reason, automation edges live answering service in terms of expenses.
On the contrary, live answering service can solve complex issues while when it is automated, only common and frequently asked questions are explained. Unlike the latter, live answering service encourages customer interaction, making them feel convenient and valued. Moreover, talking with a live operator conceives a belief for prospects that their needs are taken care promptly.
Which is better? It is appropriate to say that it is more favorable to have a combination of the two. A firm can use automated answering service to entertain common and easy problems but it can still have live operators to talk to. For perplexing queries, a live answering service is suitable and effective. This mixture has been practiced and, so far, has been received as another breakthrough in customer service support.
