In my earlier blog, a recent experience with Samsung in the Philippines was highlighted. In fact, after several months in the Philippines, I never received an e-mail or text message from them about the status of the product of interest. To my knowledge the Galaxy Y Pro, Duo Sim has still not been launched there or in the US.
In a recent article in the New York Times, another poor to no Customer Service experience was high lighted (attached below as well as the link). Maybe, this is a more endemic problem going back to the culture of the company? It seems to go deeper than just to one or two people.
If you do a Google search, the two top sites to check out about Samsung customer service brings up:
Samsung Customer Service - Customer Service Score Board
In this survey (the above link) they ranked #344 out of 555 companies. Pretty poor to say the least.
The second site was Amazon's and it appears to be even worse. Many of these issues, at Amazon, were concerning Large Screen TV's and customer service related to them.
Amazon's Customer Service Discussions = HORRIBLE
Sadly, it seems that Samsung has a lot of work to address in the Customer Service area. This sure will not help their new product launches, or the recent court ruling between Apple and Samsung Jury Court Case in San Jose, CA where they were fined $ 1.05 Billion (Apple did not violate any Samsung patents). Apple Wins Big in Patent Case
It seems that they are lacking training, and core values that support a culture of good Customer Service.
While the stock price has doubled in a year and a half, the question is how much more growth could they have realized without these negative customer service (CS) reports. In the Amazon Discussions (link is above) there were a number of references to people not buying a Samsung product or being aware of the problems and "hoping" that they were "lucky" not to have problems that would necessitate the need to contact customer service. If this trend continues in CS, then the stock price and valuation, and their sales may have more than a few rough spots in the coming months and years.
The Haggler
A Printer Freezes Up, and the Maker Does, Too
By DAVID SEGAL
Published: August 18, 2012
Q. In September 2010, I bought a Samsung all-in-one
laser printer. It performed well until early 2012, when Samsung changed
something in its toner cartridges. The cartridges have the same name and
product number, but they no longer work with my printer. I realized
this after buying and returning several Samsung-brand toner cartridges,
all of which produced paper-feed and other problems.
I called Samsung support, and a rep told me that I could not use the new
cartridges, and that, because my printer was beyond the one-year
warranty period, a technician would have to come to my office, at my
expense, to update the printer’s firmware. The charge for that visit, I
was told, would probably cost as much as a new printer. In other words,
Samsung made a change, without telling me or other customers about the
change, that instantly made a relatively new printer obsolete and
basically unusable.
Just as a comparison, the printer that was replaced by the Samsung was a
Hewlett-Packard laser printer that I bought in 1995 that finally gave
up the ghost after 15 years of use and many, many toner cartridges.
This seems like a case of planned obsolescence designed to enrich Samsung, does it not? Jon Showstack
Kentfield, Calif.
A. Let us stipulate at the outset that this is a
strange case. The strange part is that Mr. Showstack unquestionably has
the problem he describes — as we will later see, Samsung sends out a
technician and confirms as much. But if the company actually
manufactured lots of cartridges that did not work with printers of such
recent vintage, you would expect a lot of noise on the Internet’s many
complaint Web sites.
Instead, there is a little bit of noise, on sites like CNet. Not exactly an outpouring of rage.
When the Haggler wrote to Samsung, a woman named Rachel Quinlan, who
works for the public relations firm Weber Shandwick, sent an e-mail that
she said should be attributed to a “spokesperson” for the company. She
declined to name that person.
Really? A spokesperson — a person who speaks for a living — who wants to
be anonymous? Not only does this sound ridiculous, it also makes
Samsung seem tin-eared. Actually, that is unfair to tin, which is far
more supple than Samsung is in this circumstance. What consumers and the
Haggler want when products break is some sense that human beings are
trying to fix them. (Note to corporations: the anonymous spokesman is a
dreadful idea.)
“We are sorry to hear of the problem described by Mr. Showstack and have
investigated his concerns,” the person wrote. “Samsung printers work
with all cartridges except counterfeit or gray market cartridges. To the
best of our knowledge, the problem described by Mr. Showstack is an
anomaly; and we have received no similar complaints from other customers
on the referenced model. We have since spoken to Mr. Showstack and
offered a courtesy on-site repair, which he has accepted.”
The part about counterfeit and gray market cartridges strongly implies
that the problem here might be Mr. Showstack’s reliance on non-Samsung
cartridges. But Mr. Showstack sent photographs of the cartridges and the
boxes they came in, and they sure look like Samsung’s own. The Haggler
forwarded those photos to Ms. Quinlan. She did not comment. Nor did the
anonymous spokesperson.
As promised, Samsung sent a technician to Mr. Showstack’s office. It did
not go well. The printer did not work with a new cartridge brought by
the technician.
Ms. Quinlan then sent another e-mail from the anonymous spokesperson
repeating that Mr. Showstack’s issue appeared to be an anomaly. And
further: “Nothing indicates that there is a general compatibility
problem with this printer model and replacement cartridges. Mr.
Showstack has accepted our offer of an exchange unit so that we can
bring his printer and cartridge to our labs and conduct tests to
investigate the problem.”
The Haggler detects a lawyerly quality to the wording here. By saying
that there is no reason to think there is a compatibility problem with this printer model and new cartridges, an obvious question is raised: What about other models?
Further, in trying to look into the problem himself, Mr. Showstack says
he heard that Samsung had printed an internal bulletin stating that
there is indeed a compatibility problem with the printer and cartridges
he’s been using.
So the Haggler wrote to Ms. Quinlan: What about other models of Samsung
printers? Do they have a compatibility problem? And is it true that
Samsung has published an internal bulletin on this subject, suggesting
that this is a known problem?
Here is Ms. Quinlan’s response, in its entirety: “We have no further information to share.”
Signoffs don’t get more Nixonian, do they? A technician did return to
Mr. Showstack’s office and traded his faulty printer for a new one. The
Haggler applauds that move, but was confounded a few days later when Ms.
Quinlan wrote to say that Samsung’s tests had found that the root of
Mr. Showstack’s problem was a faulty cartridge. Huh? A bunch of
different cartridges had failed, not just one.
When the Haggler said how nonsensical this explanation was, Ms. Quinlan
replied with this: “At this point we have nothing more to share.”
Less than illuminating, to say the least. But a fitting end to Samsung’s ham-handed approach to public relations.
