A proposal
In the interests of honesty, transparency and the reduction of homicidal tendencies in the wider population, I propose that 90% of organisational websites should re-name their "contact us" section to "don't contact us, we're not listening". This should be a statutory requirement unless said organisation can demonstrate that the relevant page displays at least one and preferably both of the following:
1. An email address (preferably one which will reach actual human people, who have been trained in actually reading email and replying to the questions asked therein, not copy-pasting chunks of documents based on certain keywords that may be mentioned in the email, regardless of context)
2. A phone number for a line that includes, within the first menu level, an option for "speak to a human being". Emphatically NOT a number that takes you through approximately 7 layers of menu before spewing you back to level 1 if you haven't managed to fit your personal, unique (probably that unique, but not actually accommodated in The System) problem into one of the categories for which recorded responses can be given.
Any organisation found, say, to be using links like "email us" to generate a choice of automatic forms that do not in fact include an option for a general email should immediately lose its licence to operate menu-based phone systems and the like. Yes, a licence should be required.
3 comments:
I concur with your views and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Unrelated, possibly, is the fact that the captcha word for this is "fockendu" which is making me snigger. I thought the captcha was designed to stop that sort of thing.
Do I wish organisational websites were less craptacular? I fockendu.
Seems perfectly fitting to me.
Hooray! You say it, I agree with it.
I'd like to go further; namely an element of Smiting for those failing to comply.
A fine of, say £1,000, for the first offence.
Second offence would cost £10,000. The third and subsequent offences would cost £100,000 per case, plus lead to suspension of the licence for four weeks.
Sounds draconian, but frankly the amount of generalised annoyance and misery that would be avoided would justify such a level of Smiting.
50% of any fine would go to the offended party as direct compensation. The other 50% would go to the state, in its role as keeper of the common purse.
XXiii
(my word verification thingie is "spinge")
Post a Comment