A toaster for both sides

Companies have created procedures to minimize the cost of customer interaction, and in doing so they have minimized person-to-person interactions. From automated telephone response systems to web pages, companies have efficiently automated their interaction with customers.

The drive to reduce interaction has lead to the automation of interactions. In a sense, companies now sell products but not service. Even services such as cell phone or cable TV are reduced to interaction-less transactions, with web sites to handle billing and configuration. Interaction is handled not person-to-person but person-to-computer.

It's not a bad arrangement. As a customer, I can log on to my bank's web site (or the cable TV web site, or the phone web site) and do just about everything I need to do.

In a sense, every service has become a toaster. I can walk into a store, buy a toaster, take it home, and use it, all without the assistance of a salesperson. The toaster manufacturer does not need to provide support, and I don't need it either.

So I was surprised when the New York Times sent me an e-mail in response to my review of their Android app, and asked me to contact them. (After installing the app, I had significant issues that prevented me from reading content. My review stated as much, and my evaluation was the lowest possible.)

My thought at this proposal (for interaction) was: "um, no".

The e-mail was sent from a 'noreply' e-mail address. The irony of such an e-mail asking for a reply is, at best, amusing. (To be honest, the e-mail provided a different e-mail address for responses. Which is in itself an odd arrangement: Using an e-mail address to ask for a response to another e-mail address. Why not simply use one address?)

But the larger issue is this: After years of training me to expect no interactions with a human, I no longer want them. Some of this is due, I believe, to my introvert nature. Yet some is due to the complete automation of interactions. I can sign up for a bank account without interacting with a person. I can pay bills. I can shop for goods. I can read the news and listen to podcasts. (Listening to a recorded program does not count as interaction.)

I have even stopped answering my land-line phone. I let the answering machine pick up and deal with the telemarketers. (My friends and family know to call my cell phone, which I answer when the caller is known to my address book.)

I have not only succumbed to the push for automated (efficient) interactions, I embrace them.

When a company goes "off program" and tries to interact with me, I am uncomfortable. I don't want the effort of talking with a stranger.

To some extent, the issue is one of power and ego. Who in the vendor/supplier relationship decides on the amount of interaction? How much say do I have?

It is also an issue of control. A voice phone call requires both parties to be available at the same time, and to block off other distractions. (Instant messaging imposes the "same time" requirements but eases the distractions mandate.) Shifting from automated interactions to real-time interactions places a demand on both parties.

In short, the New York Times support team wants to convert the toaster into a product that requires interaction. Which is not what I want. I want the toaster. I want the New York Times app to work, without the need to talk to a salesman or a support tech.

(To be fair, a new version of the app did resolve the problem. I am now using the app with no issues.)

Companies should think about the interaction for their products. Some might think that increasing the level of interaction will always be welcome, possibly on the theory that customers like attention. This may be true for some customers, but I know at least one customer who wants to keep interaction at the current level.