@coindeuce said:
Been a long time customer, but not a fan of venture capital ownership. When I call for customer service, I don’t expect an outgoing message to the effect that “due to high volume of calls, you may be placed on a call back list” . “Our call back list is filled for the day.”
“Please call again tomorrow”. 😡
@braddick said:
Would you prefer to be placed and perpetual hold?
What is PCGS to do with unexpected high volume of incoming calls?
And, before you state, "hire more phone operators" keep in mind the issue you came upon probably isn't a constant.
@jmlanzaf said:
I haven't really had any real CS experience with anyone but NGC - which was good.
I would like to say that it is, perhaps, unfair to compare PCGS to ANACS or CACG based on volume alone. The only peer is NGC on submission volume.
Irrelevant. Any business that does not scale its customer service function to adequately serve its volume is failing at customer service.
Period. Being busy, all the time, is not an excuse. It's a statement that they don't want to throw resources at customer service.
The fact that smaller companies need smaller customer service departments is self evident. If a huge company has the same staffing level as a tiny company, that would be a problem for a customer that needs service, no?
So no, it is not "unfair to compare" customer service response times between any TPG that charges money for service, no matter large or small it is.
For posterity, I will note that PCGS reached out to me soon after posting, asking for details about the problems I listed. Unfortunately, the coins I all have holder problems with are too expensive and too rare to ship at this time, and not worth the risk outside of a show submission.
My main concern right now was a walkthrough order, that has not progressed passed “received” since June 10th when it was logged. PCGS received the package on June 4th, and took a week to process despite the box being marked “walkthrough” on the outside. This is supposed to be a 1-2 business day service, hence the name. I’ve been calling, Emailing, both dealer desk and customer service, almost every day. Today I got word that an agent “spoke with their supervisor, who will check with the appropriate teams”….
And here’s my take-
There were TWO different subs in that shipment, both walkthrough, and one was already returned promptly. Subsequent orders already graded and returned, but lucky for me the sub with all the value and liquidity hogs are just stuck…
Wow! You actually garnered a response which tells me somebody’s listening somebody who actually cares but maybe doesn’t have the upper level executive power to actually do something about it.
Or maybe rather the chain keeps going up and when it finally reaches the top it’s quickly shunned by Thurston Howell the third having a martini on his yacht.
Either way, the service is completely unacceptable based on the purported guidelines. They should either change those timelines or hire a couple more crackers. Seems marvelous to me Lovey.
@braddick said:
Would you prefer to be placed and perpetual hold?
What is PCGS to do with unexpected high volume of incoming calls?
And, before you state, "hire more phone operators" keep in mind the issue you came upon probably isn't a constant.
@jmlanzaf said:
I haven't really had any real CS experience with anyone but NGC - which was good.
I would like to say that it is, perhaps, unfair to compare PCGS to ANACS or CACG based on volume alone. The only peer is NGC on submission volume.
Irrelevant. Any business that does not scale its customer service function to adequately serve its volume is failing at customer service.
Period. Being busy, all the time, is not an excuse. It's a statement that they don't want to throw resources at customer service.
The fact that smaller companies need smaller customer service departments is self evident. If a huge company has the same staffing level as a tiny company, that would be a problem for a customer that needs service, no?
So no, it is not "unfair to compare" customer service response times between any TPG that charges money for service, no matter large or small it is.
I think it's unfair I'll tell you why.
PCGS is the go to service for top tier consistency and reputation in the market. The other top quality service is much smaller and does not provide near the quantities of services nor handle the volumes of modern/classic submissions.
NGC is a good competitor but they do not have the top tier reputation nor consistency IMO.
It's always a matter of expertise and time and money. I'm not defending poor customer relations, but when you are the go to service the pressures on.
@Desert Moon said:
That has never been a complaint with CAC/CACG as far as I have heard...........
Not until there's a cool new grading service that grades more conservatively than CAC/CACG, anyway.
The problem with that is that not only do they grade correctly and some would say conservatively, their reputation for quality is because of the man standing behind it all - John Albanese. There is not likely another grader out there that matches the high rep of JA backing their grading service. So any attempt to try to one up CAC/CACG is likely not to happen at least in the near future or maybe even for a long time.
@braddick said:
Would you prefer to be placed and perpetual hold?
What is PCGS to do with unexpected high volume of incoming calls?
And, before you state, "hire more phone operators" keep in mind the issue you came upon probably isn't a constant.
@jmlanzaf said:
I haven't really had any real CS experience with anyone but NGC - which was good.
I would like to say that it is, perhaps, unfair to compare PCGS to ANACS or CACG based on volume alone. The only peer is NGC on submission volume.
Irrelevant. Any business that does not scale its customer service function to adequately serve its volume is failing at customer service.
Period. Being busy, all the time, is not an excuse. It's a statement that they don't want to throw resources at customer service.
The fact that smaller companies need smaller customer service departments is self evident. If a huge company has the same staffing level as a tiny company, that would be a problem for a customer that needs service, no?
So no, it is not "unfair to compare" customer service response times between any TPG that charges money for service, no matter large or small it is.
I think it's unfair I'll tell you why.
PCGS is the go to service for top tier consistency and reputation in the market. The other top quality service is much smaller and does not provide near the quantities of services nor handle the volumes of modern/classic submissions.
NGC is a good competitor but they do not have the top tier reputation nor consistency IMO.
It's always a matter of expertise and time and money. I'm not defending poor customer relations, but when you are the go to service the pressures on.
Agree to disagree. Yes, the grading is top notch. That's not a reason or an excuse for subpar customer service.
The reason is that new ownership is not prioritizing it. It's not like they are running at break even, or a loss, and simply don't have the resources. It's that that they don't have to throw resources at it if customers like you are willing to tolerate the status quo.
"Pressure" in the grading room has absolutely nothing to do with customer service staffing. Nothing at all.
And, in fact, it's not like they could not hire more graders if they wanted to. CACG stood up an entire company from scratch, including a fully staffed grading room with reasonable turnaround times.
Because they are not owned by private equity, and are actually putting reputation and service above profits. It's not complicated. Or impossible. It's just a matter of priorities.
@coindeuce said:
Been a long time customer, but not a fan of venture capital ownership. When I call for customer service, I don’t expect an outgoing message to the effect that “due to high volume of calls, you may be placed on a call back list” . “Our call back list is filled for the day.”
“Please call again tomorrow”. 😡
NGC is owned by Blackstone, a $1.2 trillion alternative asset group that owns hedge funds too.
So its not like either our host or NGC will have the personal excellence in service that JA would demand.
@braddick said:
Would you prefer to be placed and perpetual hold?
What is PCGS to do with unexpected high volume of incoming calls?
And, before you state, "hire more phone operators" keep in mind the issue you came upon probably isn't a constant.
@jmlanzaf said:
I haven't really had any real CS experience with anyone but NGC - which was good.
I would like to say that it is, perhaps, unfair to compare PCGS to ANACS or CACG based on volume alone. The only peer is NGC on submission volume.
Irrelevant. Any business that does not scale its customer service function to adequately serve its volume is failing at customer service.
Period. Being busy, all the time, is not an excuse. It's a statement that they don't want to throw resources at customer service.
The fact that smaller companies need smaller customer service departments is self evident. If a huge company has the same staffing level as a tiny company, that would be a problem for a customer that needs service, no?
So no, it is not "unfair to compare" customer service response times between any TPG that charges money for service, no matter large or small it is.
I think it's unfair I'll tell you why.
PCGS is the go to service for top tier consistency and reputation in the market. The other top quality service is much smaller and does not provide near the quantities of services nor handle the volumes of modern/classic submissions.
NGC is a good competitor but they do not have the top tier reputation nor consistency IMO.
It's always a matter of expertise and time and money. I'm not defending poor customer relations, but when you are the go to service the pressures on.
I don’t see NGC as being less consistent than PCGS. That aside, however large PCGS might be, doesn’t NGC grade a similar volume of coins?
And regardless of whether PCGS is the “go to service for top tier consistency and reputation in the market”, that’s not a reasonable excuse for poor customer service. You wrote that you’re not defending poor customer relations, but your post makes it sound as if that’s precisely what you’re doing.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There are small companies that become large companies because customer satisfaction is a priority. Good customer service is a part of satisfying the customer. I’ll add that poor customer service can infect other parts of an organization. It sends the wrong message to all employees.
@coindeuce said:
Been a long time customer, but not a fan of venture capital ownership. When I call for customer service, I don’t expect an outgoing message to the effect that “due to high volume of calls, you may be placed on a call back list” . “Our call back list is filled for the day.”
“Please call again tomorrow”. 😡
NGC is owned by Blackstone, a $1.2 trillion alternative asset group that owns hedge funds too.
So its not like either our host or NGC will have the personal excellence in service that JA would demand.
Not the point. NGC properly staffs a call center. PCGS does not.
@braddick said:
Would you prefer to be placed and perpetual hold?
What is PCGS to do with unexpected high volume of incoming calls?
And, before you state, "hire more phone operators" keep in mind the issue you came upon probably isn't a constant.
@jmlanzaf said:
I haven't really had any real CS experience with anyone but NGC - which was good.
I would like to say that it is, perhaps, unfair to compare PCGS to ANACS or CACG based on volume alone. The only peer is NGC on submission volume.
Irrelevant. Any business that does not scale its customer service function to adequately serve its volume is failing at customer service.
Period. Being busy, all the time, is not an excuse. It's a statement that they don't want to throw resources at customer service.
The fact that smaller companies need smaller customer service departments is self evident. If a huge company has the same staffing level as a tiny company, that would be a problem for a customer that needs service, no?
So no, it is not "unfair to compare" customer service response times between any TPG that charges money for service, no matter large or small it is.
I think it's unfair I'll tell you why.
PCGS is the go to service for top tier consistency and reputation in the market. The other top quality service is much smaller and does not provide near the quantities of services nor handle the volumes of modern/classic submissions.
NGC is a good competitor but they do not have the top tier reputation nor consistency IMO.
It's always a matter of expertise and time and money. I'm not defending poor customer relations, but when you are the go to service the pressures on.
Agree to disagree. Yes, the grading is top notch. That's not a reason or an excuse for subpar customer service.
The reason is that new ownership is not prioritizing it. It's not like they are running at break even, or a loss, and simply don't have the resources. It's that that they don't have to throw resources at it if customers like you are willing to tolerate the status quo.
"Pressure" in the grading room has absolutely nothing to do with customer service staffing. Nothing at all.
And, in fact, it's not like they could not hire more graders if they wanted to. CACG stood up an entire company from scratch, including a fully staffed grading room with reasonable turnaround times.
Because they are not owned by private equity, and are actually putting reputation and service above profits. It's not complicated. Or impossible. It's just a matter of priorities.
Smaller competitors can have some advantages. One notable, and there are many others is agility and focus.
Not defending poor service, just acknowledging the resources, staffing and expertise required to address all the different series, volume and logistics.
@braddick said:
Would you prefer to be placed and perpetual hold?
What is PCGS to do with unexpected high volume of incoming calls?
And, before you state, "hire more phone operators" keep in mind the issue you came upon probably isn't a constant.
@jmlanzaf said:
I haven't really had any real CS experience with anyone but NGC - which was good.
I would like to say that it is, perhaps, unfair to compare PCGS to ANACS or CACG based on volume alone. The only peer is NGC on submission volume.
Irrelevant. Any business that does not scale its customer service function to adequately serve its volume is failing at customer service.
Period. Being busy, all the time, is not an excuse. It's a statement that they don't want to throw resources at customer service.
The fact that smaller companies need smaller customer service departments is self evident. If a huge company has the same staffing level as a tiny company, that would be a problem for a customer that needs service, no?
So no, it is not "unfair to compare" customer service response times between any TPG that charges money for service, no matter large or small it is.
I think it's unfair I'll tell you why.
PCGS is the go to service for top tier consistency and reputation in the market. The other top quality service is much smaller and does not provide near the quantities of services nor handle the volumes of modern/classic submissions.
NGC is a good competitor but they do not have the top tier reputation nor consistency IMO.
It's always a matter of expertise and time and money. I'm not defending poor customer relations, but when you are the go to service the pressures on.
I don’t see NGC as being less consistent than PCGS. That aside, however large PCGS might be, doesn’t NGC grade a similar volume of coins?
And regardless of whether PCGS is the “go to service for top tier consistency and reputation in the market”, that’s not a reasonable excuse for poor customer service. You wrote that you’re not defending poor customer relations, but your post makes it sound as if that’s precisely what you’re doing.
If it sounds like I am defending or excusing it was not my intent. Merely stating the reality of the challenges and complexities that come with being the largest, IMO best grading service. NGC does a fine job, no disrespect, they are top tier.
Ok, then I’m sure we can also acknowledge that a higher volume of submissions and larger variety of services would be linear with the amount of revenue generated? And said revenue can then be directed back into resources and staff to preventing these issues, or at least keep them from getting out of control?
Great, seems a bit like a circular argument but I’m glad we could acknowledge that resources will be linear with volume…and there still isn’t a valid excuse here.
@braddick said:
Would you prefer to be placed and perpetual hold?
What is PCGS to do with unexpected high volume of incoming calls?
And, before you state, "hire more phone operators" keep in mind the issue you came upon probably isn't a constant.
@jmlanzaf said:
I haven't really had any real CS experience with anyone but NGC - which was good.
I would like to say that it is, perhaps, unfair to compare PCGS to ANACS or CACG based on volume alone. The only peer is NGC on submission volume.
Irrelevant. Any business that does not scale its customer service function to adequately serve its volume is failing at customer service.
Period. Being busy, all the time, is not an excuse. It's a statement that they don't want to throw resources at customer service.
The fact that smaller companies need smaller customer service departments is self evident. If a huge company has the same staffing level as a tiny company, that would be a problem for a customer that needs service, no?
So no, it is not "unfair to compare" customer service response times between any TPG that charges money for service, no matter large or small it is.
Disagree. Somewhat.
Would you expect the same level of customer service from the mom & pop bodega on the corner as you would from Walmart headquarters? It is much easier for a company with 100 customers for the owner to answer the phone directly on the 2nd ring. It is much harder for a company with 100,000 customers to have that same level of contact.
A student will get much less hand holding at Ohio State University in classes of 1000 than they do at Roberts Wesleyan in classes of 30.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Agree to disagree. Yes, the grading is top notch. That's not a reason or an excuse for subpar customer service.
The reason is that new ownership is not prioritizing it. It's not like they are running at break even, or a loss, and simply don't have the resources. It's that that they don't have to throw resources at it if customers like you are willing to tolerate the status quo.
"Pressure" in the grading room has absolutely nothing to do with customer service staffing. Nothing at all.
And, in fact, it's not like they could not hire more graders if they wanted to. CACG stood up an entire company from scratch, including a fully staffed grading room with reasonable turnaround times.
Because they are not owned by private equity, and are actually putting reputation and service above profits. It's not complicated. Or impossible. It's just a matter of priorities.
Which is why I let my membership at PCGS expire and continued with CAC/CACG......
And regardless of whether PCGS is the “go to service for top tier consistency and reputation in the market”, that’s not a reasonable excuse for poor customer service. You wrote that you’re not defending poor customer relations, but your post makes it sound as if that’s precisely what you’re doing.
If it sounds like I am defending or excusing it was not my intent. Merely stating the reality of the challenges and complexities that come with being the largest, IMO best grading service. NGC does a fine job, no disrespect, they are top tier.
Poor customer service is a reality that does damage to any buisness over the long term.......
And regardless of whether PCGS is the “go to service for top tier consistency and reputation in the market”, that’s not a reasonable excuse for poor customer service. You wrote that you’re not defending poor customer relations, but your post makes it sound as if that’s precisely what you’re doing.
If it sounds like I am defending or excusing it was not my intent. Merely stating the reality of the challenges and complexities that come with being the largest, IMO best grading service. NGC does a fine job, no disrespect, they are top tier.
After having memberships with NGC, PCGS, and CAC/CACG over the years to current, I respectfully disagree with your opinion on who is the best grading service. Customer Service is just one aspect of where my disagreement lies for your statement. Many others.........
Yeah, I don't think there's a single clear number one for a variety of reasons: price, service, sector, etc.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Would you expect the same level of customer service from the mom & pop bodega on the corner as you would from Walmart headquarters? It is much easier for a company with 100 customers for the owner to answer the phone directly on the 2nd ring. It is much harder for a company with 100,000 customers to have that same level of contact.
A student will get much less hand holding at Ohio State University in classes of 1000 than they do at Roberts Wesleyan in classes of 30.
Hey I am a 'pop' bodega in the coin world and my customer service to my customers is full attention to anyone who needs it with quick response and as much is needed to make the customer happy. If I wanted to grow, it would not change, because first rate customer service is as important as any other aspect of running a buisness. If I transitioned to a mega company size, as CEO I would still provide the same level of customer service as I do today. Clearly IMO, mega companies that minimize CS are only hurting their buis. But honestly these days, lousy CS is the norm, that is why CAC/CACG, GC, etc. are so refreshing and why they continue to gain in market share (in part)...............
I was a professor who taught classes with 350 and classes with as little as 6. And all of those students has a much personal attention as they needed. Mostly classes of high enrollment are straightforward and routine, so very few students need that hand holding. HST, classes that large also have TAs to help with that needed personal attention so the customer service numbers also are expanded to handle the need. So not sure that analogy completely works when talking about customer service for a grading company.
Would you expect the same level of customer service from the mom & pop bodega on the corner as you would from Walmart headquarters? It is much easier for a company with 100 customers for the owner to answer the phone directly on the 2nd ring. It is much harder for a company with 100,000 customers to have that same level of contact.
A student will get much less hand holding at Ohio State University in classes of 1000 than they do at Roberts Wesleyan in classes of 30.
Hey I am a 'pop' bodega in the coin world and my customer service to my customers is full attention to anyone who needs it with quick response and as much is needed to make the customer happy. If I wanted to grow, it would not change, because first rate customer service is as important as any other aspect of running a buisness. If I transitioned to a mega company size, as CEO I would still provide the same level of customer service as I do today. Clearly IMO, mega companies that minimize CS are only hurting their buis. But honestly these days, lousy CS is the norm, that is why CAC/CACG, GC, etc. are so refreshing and why they continue to gain in market share (in part)...............
I was a professor who taught classes with 350 and classes with as little as 6. And all of those students has a much personal attention as they needed. Mostly classes of high enrollment are straightforward and routine, so very few students need that hand holding. HST, classes that large also have TAs to help with that needed personal attention so the customer service numbers also are expanded to handle the need. So not sure that analogy completely works when talking about customer service for a grading company.
I teaxh classes of 250 with no TAs. And there is little doubt you get less attention at OSU than a small liberal arts college. YMMV. My class of 12 has a very different vibe than my class if 250 and my relationship with the students is different. There is class size literature available. But, again, YMMV.
Call a large corporation, you'll get an AI or a call center. Call a mom and pop and you'll get mom or pop.
I'm not saying to accept bad CS. I just don't think it's exactly fair to compare two organizations of radically different size. And I'm not a PCGS fanboy. I use NGC more than PCGS.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Great post above. As I grew my company from zero customers to 250,000 customers nationwide I would say, and the regulators who monitored our performance did say, our customer service did not lag. If anything it improved as we had the resources to attract the best people and the tools to monitor their performance. Size is simply no excuse for poor performance.
@braddick said:
Would you prefer to be placed and perpetual hold?
What is PCGS to do with unexpected high volume of incoming calls?
And, before you state, "hire more phone operators" keep in mind the issue you came upon probably isn't a constant.
@jmlanzaf said:
I haven't really had any real CS experience with anyone but NGC - which was good.
I would like to say that it is, perhaps, unfair to compare PCGS to ANACS or CACG based on volume alone. The only peer is NGC on submission volume.
Irrelevant. Any business that does not scale its customer service function to adequately serve its volume is failing at customer service.
Period. Being busy, all the time, is not an excuse. It's a statement that they don't want to throw resources at customer service.
The fact that smaller companies need smaller customer service departments is self evident. If a huge company has the same staffing level as a tiny company, that would be a problem for a customer that needs service, no?
So no, it is not "unfair to compare" customer service response times between any TPG that charges money for service, no matter large or small it is.
Disagree. Somewhat.
Would you expect the same level of customer service from the mom & pop bodega on the corner as you would from Walmart headquarters? It is much easier for a company with 100 customers for the owner to answer the phone directly on the 2nd ring. It is much harder for a company with 100,000 customers to have that same level of contact.
A student will get much less hand holding at Ohio State University in classes of 1000 than they do at Roberts Wesleyan in classes of 30.
I have to disagree with you. It's not the size of the company but rather how the company views and deals customer service.
Take Uline Shipping supplies as example... Estimated at 7 to 8 billion in annual revenue and when I call, the phone never rings more than twice, a human picks up with zero phone tree struggles, oh and the package arrives next day!
It CAN be done!
If you're a Customer Service manager reading this thread and trying to improve your company's performance, here's one simple thing I'd suggest...
Make sure everyone who interacts with clients responds to all emails within 24 hours. Whether I'm dealing with a grader or an auction house, it is just infuriating when my emails don't get a reply and I have to follow up. I just had to follow up again this morning with an auction house on an email I sent last week that was ignored.
It seems that the customer service may not be living up to the brand that PCGS has built over the last 50 years and it doesn’t jive with the quality of product that customers have come to expect.
If PCGS does not want to hire additional staff and the volume is too much for existing staff, they could instead determine what is causing so many calls and try to remedy the top issues to prevent them from happening in the first place. The solutions may be internal process improvements or better customer communication/education etc. Easier said than done however, and it needs attention from leadership within and outside of customer service.
After writing this, I realize that I haven’t really added anything to this discussion!
@braddick said:
Would you prefer to be placed and perpetual hold?
What is PCGS to do with unexpected high volume of incoming calls?
And, before you state, "hire more phone operators" keep in mind the issue you came upon probably isn't a constant.
@oldabeintx said:
Great post above. As I grew my company from zero customers to 250,000 customers nationwide I would say, and the regulators who monitored our performance did say, our customer service did not lag. If anything it improved as we had the resources to attract the best people and the tools to monitor their performance. Size is simply no excuse for poor performance.
Would you expect the same level of customer service from the mom & pop bodega on the corner as you would from Walmart headquarters? It is much easier for a company with 100 customers for the owner to answer the phone directly on the 2nd ring. It is much harder for a company with 100,000 customers to have that same level of contact.
A student will get much less hand holding at Ohio State University in classes of 1000 than they do at Roberts Wesleyan in classes of 30.
Hey I am a 'pop' bodega in the coin world and my customer service to my customers is full attention to anyone who needs it with quick response and as much is needed to make the customer happy. If I wanted to grow, it would not change, because first rate customer service is as important as any other aspect of running a buisness. If I transitioned to a mega company size, as CEO I would still provide the same level of customer service as I do today. Clearly IMO, mega companies that minimize CS are only hurting their buis. But honestly these days, lousy CS is the norm, that is why CAC/CACG, GC, etc. are so refreshing and why they continue to gain in market share (in part)...............
I was a professor who taught classes with 350 and classes with as little as 6. And all of those students has a much personal attention as they needed. Mostly classes of high enrollment are straightforward and routine, so very few students need that hand holding. HST, classes that large also have TAs to help with that needed personal attention so the customer service numbers also are expanded to handle the need. So not sure that analogy completely works when talking about customer service for a grading company.
I teaxh classes of 250 with no TAs. And there is little doubt you get less attention at OSU than a small liberal arts college. YMMV. My class of 12 has a very different vibe than my class if 250 and my relationship with the students is different. There is class size literature available. But, again, YMMV.
Call a large corporation, you'll get an AI or a call center. Call a mom and pop and you'll get mom or pop.
I'm not saying to accept bad CS. I just don't think it's exactly fair to compare two organizations of radically different size. And I'm not a PCGS fanboy. I use NGC more than PCGS.
Flagged twice - for the next-to-last and the last sentence in your post.
😉😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@braddick said:
Would you prefer to be placed and perpetual hold?
What is PCGS to do with unexpected high volume of incoming calls?
And, before you state, "hire more phone operators" keep in mind the issue you came upon probably isn't a constant.
@jmlanzaf said:
I haven't really had any real CS experience with anyone but NGC - which was good.
I would like to say that it is, perhaps, unfair to compare PCGS to ANACS or CACG based on volume alone. The only peer is NGC on submission volume.
Irrelevant. Any business that does not scale its customer service function to adequately serve its volume is failing at customer service.
Period. Being busy, all the time, is not an excuse. It's a statement that they don't want to throw resources at customer service.
The fact that smaller companies need smaller customer service departments is self evident. If a huge company has the same staffing level as a tiny company, that would be a problem for a customer that needs service, no?
So no, it is not "unfair to compare" customer service response times between any TPG that charges money for service, no matter large or small it is.
Disagree. Somewhat.
Would you expect the same level of customer service from the mom & pop bodega on the corner as you would from Walmart headquarters? It is much easier for a company with 100 customers for the owner to answer the phone directly on the 2nd ring. It is much harder for a company with 100,000 customers to have that same level of contact.
A student will get much less hand holding at Ohio State University in classes of 1000 than they do at Roberts Wesleyan in classes of 30.
Great example. Yes. If anything, I expect the huge national store to provide better service, better pricing, more liberal returns, free shipping, etc., because it has greater resources to do so. And, for the most part, they do.
It's generally how they get to be huge national stores. Same for PCGS.
It developed a reputation by backing its grading with a guarantee, excellent consistent grading, great customer service, etc. Still led by its founders, even after it went public. Now it's a PE portfolio company, more interested in generating returns for its investors than in anything else.
And customer service is overhead, not revenue generating. At least not until customers get annoyed and start diverting business elsewhere. Which won't happen as long as customers don't care about turnaround times and customer service.
Your university example is flawed. I went to a very large national university, and received as much hand holding as I requested. Lots of excellent resources for me, from department chairs to the dean. It's easier to get lost in a big crowd, if that's what you want, but administrators at big schools are not unapproachable or unavailable if you seek them out. Same with professors. They had office hours, and generally stayed after class as long as people wanted to talk to them. Whether the class had 20 people in it or 200.
Again, argue for the sake of arguing. If PCGS cannot provide ANACS level customer support, it should seriously consider scaling back its operations. Because, at the prices they charge, there is absolutely no excuse for bad customer service.
@braddick said:
Would you prefer to be placed and perpetual hold?
What is PCGS to do with unexpected high volume of incoming calls?
And, before you state, "hire more phone operators" keep in mind the issue you came upon probably isn't a constant.
@jmlanzaf said:
I haven't really had any real CS experience with anyone but NGC - which was good.
I would like to say that it is, perhaps, unfair to compare PCGS to ANACS or CACG based on volume alone. The only peer is NGC on submission volume.
Irrelevant. Any business that does not scale its customer service function to adequately serve its volume is failing at customer service.
Period. Being busy, all the time, is not an excuse. It's a statement that they don't want to throw resources at customer service.
The fact that smaller companies need smaller customer service departments is self evident. If a huge company has the same staffing level as a tiny company, that would be a problem for a customer that needs service, no?
So no, it is not "unfair to compare" customer service response times between any TPG that charges money for service, no matter large or small it is.
Disagree. Somewhat.
Would you expect the same level of customer service from the mom & pop bodega on the corner as you would from Walmart headquarters? It is much easier for a company with 100 customers for the owner to answer the phone directly on the 2nd ring. It is much harder for a company with 100,000 customers to have that same level of contact.
A student will get much less hand holding at Ohio State University in classes of 1000 than they do at Roberts Wesleyan in classes of 30.
Great example. Yes. If anything, I expect the huge national store to provide better service, better pricing, more liberal returns, free shipping, etc., because it has greater resources to do so. And, for the most part, they do.
It's generally how they get to be huge national stores. Same for PCGS.
Your university example is flawed. I went to a very large national university, and received as much hand holding as I requested. Lots of excellent resources for me, from department chairs to the dean. It's easier to get lost in a big crowd, if that's what you want, but administrators at big schools are not unapproachable or unavailable if you seek them out.
It developed a reputation by backing its grading with a guarantee, excellent consistent grading, great customer service, etc. Still led by its founders, even after it went public. Now it's a PE portfolio company, more interested in generating returns for its investors than in anything else.
And customer service is overhead, not revenue generating. At least not until customers get annoyed and start diverting business elsewhere. Which won't happen as long as customers don't care about turnaround times and customer service.
Again, argue for the sake of arguing. If PCGS cannot provide ANACS level customer support, it should seriously consider scaling back its operations. Because, at the prices they charge, there is absolutely no excuse for bad customer service.
Absolutely not. Stating my belief and experience is not "arguing for the sake of arguing". You can disagree, but you also shouldn't expect everyone to simply accept your viewpoint Nevada you stated it. I'm not arguing the point any more than YOU are. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@braddick said:
Would you prefer to be placed and perpetual hold?
What is PCGS to do with unexpected high volume of incoming calls?
And, before you state, "hire more phone operators" keep in mind the issue you came upon probably isn't a constant.
@jmlanzaf said:
I haven't really had any real CS experience with anyone but NGC - which was good.
I would like to say that it is, perhaps, unfair to compare PCGS to ANACS or CACG based on volume alone. The only peer is NGC on submission volume.
Irrelevant. Any business that does not scale its customer service function to adequately serve its volume is failing at customer service.
Period. Being busy, all the time, is not an excuse. It's a statement that they don't want to throw resources at customer service.
The fact that smaller companies need smaller customer service departments is self evident. If a huge company has the same staffing level as a tiny company, that would be a problem for a customer that needs service, no?
So no, it is not "unfair to compare" customer service response times between any TPG that charges money for service, no matter large or small it is.
Disagree. Somewhat.
Would you expect the same level of customer service from the mom & pop bodega on the corner as you would from Walmart headquarters? It is much easier for a company with 100 customers for the owner to answer the phone directly on the 2nd ring. It is much harder for a company with 100,000 customers to have that same level of contact.
A student will get much less hand holding at Ohio State University in classes of 1000 than they do at Roberts Wesleyan in classes of 30.
Great example. Yes. If anything, I expect the huge national store to provide better service, better pricing, more liberal returns, free shipping, etc., because it has greater resources to do so. And, for the most part, they do.
It's generally how they get to be huge national stores. Same for PCGS.
Your university example is flawed. I went to a very large national university, and received as much hand holding as I requested. Lots of excellent resources for me, from department chairs to the dean. It's easier to get lost in a big crowd, if that's what you want, but administrators at big schools are not unapproachable or unavailable if you seek them out.
It developed a reputation by backing its grading with a guarantee, excellent consistent grading, great customer service, etc. Still led by its founders, even after it went public. Now it's a PE portfolio company, more interested in generating returns for its investors than in anything else.
And customer service is overhead, not revenue generating. At least not until customers get annoyed and start diverting business elsewhere. Which won't happen as long as customers don't care about turnaround times and customer service.
Again, argue for the sake of arguing. If PCGS cannot provide ANACS level customer support, it should seriously consider scaling back its operations. Because, at the prices they charge, there is absolutely no excuse for bad customer service.
Absolutely not. Stating my belief and experience is not "arguing for the sake of arguing". You can disagree, but you also shouldn't expect everyone to simply accept your viewpoint Nevada you stated it. I'm not arguing the point any more than YOU are. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Arguing for the sake of arguing is saying a large enterprise simply cannot provide the same level of service as a small one, so the comparison is "unfair." Because many large enterprises provide great customer service. Including NGC in the TPG space.
And you know this. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, and pulling n=1 examples out of the air to make points.
@oldabeintx said:
Great post above. As I grew my company from zero customers to 250,000 customers nationwide I would say, and the regulators who monitored our performance did say, our customer service did not lag. If anything it improved as we had the resources to attract the best people and the tools to monitor their performance. Size is simply no excuse for poor performance.
Not always true in all markets. In this market you still need human capital to grade coins and expertise on services, to answer phones and address issues. Cannot always spread the costs out or make it up on volume in all cases. 10 graders cannot grade 100 coins in the same timeframe as 1000 coins. Profitability is not always linear. Variable costs need to be taken into account, etc.
Would you expect the same level of customer service from the mom & pop bodega on the corner as you would from Walmart headquarters? It is much easier for a company with 100 customers for the owner to answer the phone directly on the 2nd ring. It is much harder for a company with 100,000 customers to have that same level of contact.
A student will get much less hand holding at Ohio State University in classes of 1000 than they do at Roberts Wesleyan in classes of 30.
The difference is no matter the class size there is only a single professor. Six students or 1,000- still a single professor.
As companies grow so does the level of employees. A small Bodega might have a couple of family members working there yet Walmart employees thousands.
As a company grows, such as PCGS, so does the infrastructure. This would include employees staffing the mailroom all the way to Graders and administration. This should also include those who field telephone and email inquiries. Apparently, this is one area PCGS is still in need of growing into.
@braddick said:
Would you prefer to be placed and perpetual hold?
What is PCGS to do with unexpected high volume of incoming calls?
And, before you state, "hire more phone operators" keep in mind the issue you came upon probably isn't a constant.
@jmlanzaf said:
I haven't really had any real CS experience with anyone but NGC - which was good.
I would like to say that it is, perhaps, unfair to compare PCGS to ANACS or CACG based on volume alone. The only peer is NGC on submission volume.
Irrelevant. Any business that does not scale its customer service function to adequately serve its volume is failing at customer service.
Period. Being busy, all the time, is not an excuse. It's a statement that they don't want to throw resources at customer service.
The fact that smaller companies need smaller customer service departments is self evident. If a huge company has the same staffing level as a tiny company, that would be a problem for a customer that needs service, no?
So no, it is not "unfair to compare" customer service response times between any TPG that charges money for service, no matter large or small it is.
Disagree. Somewhat.
Would you expect the same level of customer service from the mom & pop bodega on the corner as you would from Walmart headquarters? It is much easier for a company with 100 customers for the owner to answer the phone directly on the 2nd ring. It is much harder for a company with 100,000 customers to have that same level of contact.
A student will get much less hand holding at Ohio State University in classes of 1000 than they do at Roberts Wesleyan in classes of 30.
Great example. Yes. If anything, I expect the huge national store to provide better service, better pricing, more liberal returns, free shipping, etc., because it has greater resources to do so. And, for the most part, they do.
It's generally how they get to be huge national stores. Same for PCGS.
Your university example is flawed. I went to a very large national university, and received as much hand holding as I requested. Lots of excellent resources for me, from department chairs to the dean. It's easier to get lost in a big crowd, if that's what you want, but administrators at big schools are not unapproachable or unavailable if you seek them out.
It developed a reputation by backing its grading with a guarantee, excellent consistent grading, great customer service, etc. Still led by its founders, even after it went public. Now it's a PE portfolio company, more interested in generating returns for its investors than in anything else.
And customer service is overhead, not revenue generating. At least not until customers get annoyed and start diverting business elsewhere. Which won't happen as long as customers don't care about turnaround times and customer service.
Again, argue for the sake of arguing. If PCGS cannot provide ANACS level customer support, it should seriously consider scaling back its operations. Because, at the prices they charge, there is absolutely no excuse for bad customer service.
Absolutely not. Stating my belief and experience is not "arguing for the sake of arguing". You can disagree, but you also shouldn't expect everyone to simply accept your viewpoint Nevada you stated it. I'm not arguing the point any more than YOU are. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Arguing for the sake of arguing is saying a large enterprise simply cannot provide the same level of service as a small one, so the comparison is "unfair." Because many large enterprises provide great customer service. Including NGC in the TPG space.
And you know this. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, and pulling n=1 examples out of the air to make points.
Disagree with obscenities.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Would you expect the same level of customer service from the mom & pop bodega on the corner as you would from Walmart headquarters? It is much easier for a company with 100 customers for the owner to answer the phone directly on the 2nd ring. It is much harder for a company with 100,000 customers to have that same level of contact.
A student will get much less hand holding at Ohio State University in classes of 1000 than they do at Roberts Wesleyan in classes of 30.
The difference is no matter the class size there is only a single professor. Six students or 1,000- still a single professor.
As companies grow so does the level of employees. A small Bodega might have a couple of family members working there yet Walmart employees thousands.
As a company grows, such as PCGS, so does the infrastructure. This would include employees staffing the mailroom all the way to Graders and administration. This should also include those who field telephone and email inquiries. Apparently, this is one area PCGS is still in need of growing into.
But, again, the point is that the infrastructure is different. A call center is not the same as the owner picking up the phone. So comparing a large entity to a small one seems TO ME unfair. That's not the same as saying PCGS couldn't do better. But NGC is, to me IN MY EVER HUMBLE PUCKING OPINION, a "fair" comparison while throwing in much smaller entities is not. You don't have to agree, but I'm not sure why that is such a controversial position.
Even if the larger entity expands staff or employs a call center or AI, it has still introduced a later of separation that doesn't exist at a small operation where the phone may well be answered by a decision maker and not simply a gatekeeper or message taker.
You disagree, fine. My lived experience is my lived experience. And my opinion is my opinion. I call the bodega and I get mom. I call Walmart, I might never get to the decision maker. And Walmart has excellent customer service, but it is colder and more distant than the mom and pop shop. And the original ANACS mention referred to Paul Defelice answering the phone himself. That almost never happens at large entities.
FWIW IMHO YMMV
Time for a vacation
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@oldabeintx said:
Great post above. As I grew my company from zero customers to 250,000 customers nationwide I would say, and the regulators who monitored our performance did say, our customer service did not lag. If anything it improved as we had the resources to attract the best people and the tools to monitor their performance. Size is simply no excuse for poor performance.
Not always true in all markets. In this market you still need human capital to grade coins and expertise on services, to answer phones and address issues. Cannot always spread the costs out or make it up on volume in all cases. 10 graders cannot grade 100 coins in the same timeframe as 1000 coins. Profitability is not always linear. Variable costs need to be taken into account, etc.
I do see instances when a company has evident growing pains and they have to play catch-up. Certainly talented graders are probably tough to find and processes/IT may need redesign to reflect added volume. I would ask whether a company has seen unexpected growth and ask
how they are addressing the problems often associated with such.
@oldabeintx said:
Great post above. As I grew my company from zero customers to 250,000 customers nationwide I would say, and the regulators who monitored our performance did say, our customer service did not lag. If anything it improved as we had the resources to attract the best people and the tools to monitor their performance. Size is simply no excuse for poor performance.
Not always true in all markets. In this market you still need human capital to grade coins and expertise on services, to answer phones and address issues. Cannot always spread the costs out or make it up on volume in all cases. 10 graders cannot grade 100 coins in the same timeframe as 1000 coins. Profitability is not always linear. Variable costs need to be taken into account, etc.
I do see instances when a company has evident growing pains and they have to play catch-up. Certainly talented graders are probably tough to find and processes/IT may need redesign to reflect added volume. I would ask whether a company has seen unexpected growth and ask
how they are addressing the problems often associated with such.
The first thing they do is not make the graders answer the phone.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@braddick said:
Would you prefer to be placed and perpetual hold?
What is PCGS to do with unexpected high volume of incoming calls?
And, before you state, "hire more phone operators" keep in mind the issue you came upon probably isn't a constant.
@jmlanzaf said:
I haven't really had any real CS experience with anyone but NGC - which was good.
I would like to say that it is, perhaps, unfair to compare PCGS to ANACS or CACG based on volume alone. The only peer is NGC on submission volume.
Irrelevant. Any business that does not scale its customer service function to adequately serve its volume is failing at customer service.
Period. Being busy, all the time, is not an excuse. It's a statement that they don't want to throw resources at customer service.
The fact that smaller companies need smaller customer service departments is self evident. If a huge company has the same staffing level as a tiny company, that would be a problem for a customer that needs service, no?
So no, it is not "unfair to compare" customer service response times between any TPG that charges money for service, no matter large or small it is.
Disagree. Somewhat.
Would you expect the same level of customer service from the mom & pop bodega on the corner as you would from Walmart headquarters? It is much easier for a company with 100 customers for the owner to answer the phone directly on the 2nd ring. It is much harder for a company with 100,000 customers to have that same level of contact.
A student will get much less hand holding at Ohio State University in classes of 1000 than they do at Roberts Wesleyan in classes of 30.
If PCGS cannot provide ANACS level customer support, it should seriously consider scaling back its operations. Because, at the prices they charge, there is absolutely no excuse for bad customer service.
There is an excuse though. They care about making the most money possible and will cut expenses as much they can get away with while maintaining those profits. And it's worked. Understaffed and unempowered call centers, horrific TVs, poor quality holders....yet, we're still going there and business (seems to be) booming.
We already see long time members here stating they are not doing business with our host because of poor customer service and other issues. If they are vocalizing it here, then you know others are doing the same quietly.
There are apparently issues that should be addressed. We don't see psa's like we used to on such topics so I'm sure if anything is being done, it will remain internal.
@braddick said:
Would you prefer to be placed and perpetual hold?
What is PCGS to do with unexpected high volume of incoming calls?
And, before you state, "hire more phone operators" keep in mind the issue you came upon probably isn't a constant.
@jmlanzaf said:
I haven't really had any real CS experience with anyone but NGC - which was good.
I would like to say that it is, perhaps, unfair to compare PCGS to ANACS or CACG based on volume alone. The only peer is NGC on submission volume.
Irrelevant. Any business that does not scale its customer service function to adequately serve its volume is failing at customer service.
Period. Being busy, all the time, is not an excuse. It's a statement that they don't want to throw resources at customer service.
The fact that smaller companies need smaller customer service departments is self evident. If a huge company has the same staffing level as a tiny company, that would be a problem for a customer that needs service, no?
So no, it is not "unfair to compare" customer service response times between any TPG that charges money for service, no matter large or small it is.
Disagree. Somewhat.
Would you expect the same level of customer service from the mom & pop bodega on the corner as you would from Walmart headquarters? It is much easier for a company with 100 customers for the owner to answer the phone directly on the 2nd ring. It is much harder for a company with 100,000 customers to have that same level of contact.
A student will get much less hand holding at Ohio State University in classes of 1000 than they do at Roberts Wesleyan in classes of 30.
If PCGS cannot provide ANACS level customer support, it should seriously consider scaling back its operations. Because, at the prices they charge, there is absolutely no excuse for bad customer service.
There is an excuse though. They care about making the most money possible and will cut expenses as much they can get away with while maintaining those profits. And it's worked. Understaffed and unempowered call centers, horrific TVs, poor quality holders....yet, we're still going there and business (seems to be) booming.
Correct. And whose fault is that? Hint: Ours. If we are willing to accept it, can't blame them for taking advantage.
@oldabeintx said:
The registry is perhaps key. Creates a lot of inertia. I no longer like my house but the thought of moving….
For better and worse, I really enjoy the Registry and, for the coins that go in my sets, it definitely is a component of continuing to send coins to PCGS for grading.
@gtstang said:
We already see long time members here stating they are not doing business with our host because of poor customer service and other issues. If they are vocalizing it here, then you know others are doing the same quietly.
Every coin that I can send to CACG (mostly moderns and non-T$ classic US) I do and will. However, the majority of my grading events are still trade dollars so, like @oldabeintx said, the inertia will keep me going back for more.
Comments
Overgrade based on what? Their own standards or someone else's?
Not until there's a cool new grading service that grades more conservatively than CAC/CACG, anyway.
USN & USAF retired 1971-1993
Successful Transactions with more than 100 Members
I haven't really had any real CS experience with anyone but NGC - which was good.
I would like to say that it is, perhaps, unfair to compare PCGS to ANACS or CACG based on volume alone. The only peer is NGC on submission volume.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I’ve never had to contact PCGS for customer service but I’ve contacted NGC, CAC, and CACG before and someone has answered my phone call immediately.
Actually, I appreciate the honesty.
Official PCGS account of:
www.TallahasseeCoinClub.com
Irrelevant. Any business that does not scale its customer service function to adequately serve its volume is failing at customer service.
Period. Being busy, all the time, is not an excuse. It's a statement that they don't want to throw resources at customer service.
The fact that smaller companies need smaller customer service departments is self evident. If a huge company has the same staffing level as a tiny company, that would be a problem for a customer that needs service, no?
So no, it is not "unfair to compare" customer service response times between any TPG that charges money for service, no matter large or small it is.
For posterity, I will note that PCGS reached out to me soon after posting, asking for details about the problems I listed. Unfortunately, the coins I all have holder problems with are too expensive and too rare to ship at this time, and not worth the risk outside of a show submission.
My main concern right now was a walkthrough order, that has not progressed passed “received” since June 10th when it was logged. PCGS received the package on June 4th, and took a week to process despite the box being marked “walkthrough” on the outside. This is supposed to be a 1-2 business day service, hence the name. I’ve been calling, Emailing, both dealer desk and customer service, almost every day. Today I got word that an agent “spoke with their supervisor, who will check with the appropriate teams”….
And here’s my take-
There were TWO different subs in that shipment, both walkthrough, and one was already returned promptly. Subsequent orders already graded and returned, but lucky for me the sub with all the value and liquidity hogs are just stuck…
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Wow! You actually garnered a response which tells me somebody’s listening somebody who actually cares but maybe doesn’t have the upper level executive power to actually do something about it.
Or maybe rather the chain keeps going up and when it finally reaches the top it’s quickly shunned by Thurston Howell the third having a martini on his yacht.
Either way, the service is completely unacceptable based on the purported guidelines. They should either change those timelines or hire a couple more crackers. Seems marvelous to me Lovey.
I think it's unfair I'll tell you why.
PCGS is the go to service for top tier consistency and reputation in the market. The other top quality service is much smaller and does not provide near the quantities of services nor handle the volumes of modern/classic submissions.
NGC is a good competitor but they do not have the top tier reputation nor consistency IMO.
It's always a matter of expertise and time and money. I'm not defending poor customer relations, but when you are the go to service the pressures on.
The problem with that is that not only do they grade correctly and some would say conservatively, their reputation for quality is because of the man standing behind it all - John Albanese. There is not likely another grader out there that matches the high rep of JA backing their grading service. So any attempt to try to one up CAC/CACG is likely not to happen at least in the near future or maybe even for a long time.
Agree to disagree. Yes, the grading is top notch. That's not a reason or an excuse for subpar customer service.
The reason is that new ownership is not prioritizing it. It's not like they are running at break even, or a loss, and simply don't have the resources. It's that that they don't have to throw resources at it if customers like you are willing to tolerate the status quo.
"Pressure" in the grading room has absolutely nothing to do with customer service staffing. Nothing at all.
And, in fact, it's not like they could not hire more graders if they wanted to. CACG stood up an entire company from scratch, including a fully staffed grading room with reasonable turnaround times.
Because they are not owned by private equity, and are actually putting reputation and service above profits. It's not complicated. Or impossible. It's just a matter of priorities.
Yikes, walkthrough? They should refund your fees down to economy for that level of effort.
I guess that I'm lucky I have cheap coins that I can send FedEx 2 day and feel comfortable. :'(
NGC is owned by Blackstone, a $1.2 trillion alternative asset group that owns hedge funds too.
So its not like either our host or NGC will have the personal excellence in service that JA would demand.
I don’t see NGC as being less consistent than PCGS. That aside, however large PCGS might be, doesn’t NGC grade a similar volume of coins?
And regardless of whether PCGS is the “go to service for top tier consistency and reputation in the market”, that’s not a reasonable excuse for poor customer service. You wrote that you’re not defending poor customer relations, but your post makes it sound as if that’s precisely what you’re doing.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There are small companies that become large companies because customer satisfaction is a priority. Good customer service is a part of satisfying the customer. I’ll add that poor customer service can infect other parts of an organization. It sends the wrong message to all employees.
Not the point. NGC properly staffs a call center. PCGS does not.
Smaller competitors can have some advantages. One notable, and there are many others is agility and focus.
Not defending poor service, just acknowledging the resources, staffing and expertise required to address all the different series, volume and logistics.
If it sounds like I am defending or excusing it was not my intent. Merely stating the reality of the challenges and complexities that come with being the largest, IMO best grading service. NGC does a fine job, no disrespect, they are top tier.
Ok, then I’m sure we can also acknowledge that a higher volume of submissions and larger variety of services would be linear with the amount of revenue generated? And said revenue can then be directed back into resources and staff to preventing these issues, or at least keep them from getting out of control?
Great, seems a bit like a circular argument but I’m glad we could acknowledge that resources will be linear with volume…and there still isn’t a valid excuse here.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
There's a valid excuse, just crappy.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Disagree. Somewhat.
Would you expect the same level of customer service from the mom & pop bodega on the corner as you would from Walmart headquarters? It is much easier for a company with 100 customers for the owner to answer the phone directly on the 2nd ring. It is much harder for a company with 100,000 customers to have that same level of contact.
A student will get much less hand holding at Ohio State University in classes of 1000 than they do at Roberts Wesleyan in classes of 30.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Which is why I let my membership at PCGS expire and continued with CAC/CACG......
Poor customer service is a reality that does damage to any buisness over the long term.......
Yeah, I don't think there's a single clear number one for a variety of reasons: price, service, sector, etc.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Hey I am a 'pop' bodega in the coin world and my customer service to my customers is full attention to anyone who needs it with quick response and as much is needed to make the customer happy. If I wanted to grow, it would not change, because first rate customer service is as important as any other aspect of running a buisness. If I transitioned to a mega company size, as CEO I would still provide the same level of customer service as I do today. Clearly IMO, mega companies that minimize CS are only hurting their buis. But honestly these days, lousy CS is the norm, that is why CAC/CACG, GC, etc. are so refreshing and why they continue to gain in market share (in part)...............
I was a professor who taught classes with 350 and classes with as little as 6. And all of those students has a much personal attention as they needed. Mostly classes of high enrollment are straightforward and routine, so very few students need that hand holding. HST, classes that large also have TAs to help with that needed personal attention so the customer service numbers also are expanded to handle the need. So not sure that analogy completely works when talking about customer service for a grading company.
I teaxh classes of 250 with no TAs. And there is little doubt you get less attention at OSU than a small liberal arts college. YMMV. My class of 12 has a very different vibe than my class if 250 and my relationship with the students is different. There is class size literature available. But, again, YMMV.
Call a large corporation, you'll get an AI or a call center. Call a mom and pop and you'll get mom or pop.
I'm not saying to accept bad CS. I just don't think it's exactly fair to compare two organizations of radically different size. And I'm not a PCGS fanboy. I use NGC more than PCGS.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Great post above. As I grew my company from zero customers to 250,000 customers nationwide I would say, and the regulators who monitored our performance did say, our customer service did not lag. If anything it improved as we had the resources to attract the best people and the tools to monitor their performance. Size is simply no excuse for poor performance.
I have to disagree with you. It's not the size of the company but rather how the company views and deals customer service.
Take Uline Shipping supplies as example... Estimated at 7 to 8 billion in annual revenue and when I call, the phone never rings more than twice, a human picks up with zero phone tree struggles, oh and the package arrives next day!
It CAN be done!
If you're a Customer Service manager reading this thread and trying to improve your company's performance, here's one simple thing I'd suggest...
Make sure everyone who interacts with clients responds to all emails within 24 hours. Whether I'm dealing with a grader or an auction house, it is just infuriating when my emails don't get a reply and I have to follow up. I just had to follow up again this morning with an auction house on an email I sent last week that was ignored.
It seems that the customer service may not be living up to the brand that PCGS has built over the last 50 years and it doesn’t jive with the quality of product that customers have come to expect.
If PCGS does not want to hire additional staff and the volume is too much for existing staff, they could instead determine what is causing so many calls and try to remedy the top issues to prevent them from happening in the first place. The solutions may be internal process improvements or better customer communication/education etc. Easier said than done however, and it needs attention from leadership within and outside of customer service.
After writing this, I realize that I haven’t really added anything to this discussion!
I would expect them to do a better job
This.
Flagged twice - for the next-to-last and the last sentence in your post.
😉😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Great example. Yes. If anything, I expect the huge national store to provide better service, better pricing, more liberal returns, free shipping, etc., because it has greater resources to do so. And, for the most part, they do.
It's generally how they get to be huge national stores. Same for PCGS.
It developed a reputation by backing its grading with a guarantee, excellent consistent grading, great customer service, etc. Still led by its founders, even after it went public. Now it's a PE portfolio company, more interested in generating returns for its investors than in anything else.
And customer service is overhead, not revenue generating. At least not until customers get annoyed and start diverting business elsewhere. Which won't happen as long as customers don't care about turnaround times and customer service.
Your university example is flawed. I went to a very large national university, and received as much hand holding as I requested. Lots of excellent resources for me, from department chairs to the dean. It's easier to get lost in a big crowd, if that's what you want, but administrators at big schools are not unapproachable or unavailable if you seek them out. Same with professors. They had office hours, and generally stayed after class as long as people wanted to talk to them. Whether the class had 20 people in it or 200.
Again, argue for the sake of arguing. If PCGS cannot provide ANACS level customer support, it should seriously consider scaling back its operations. Because, at the prices they charge, there is absolutely no excuse for bad customer service.
Absolutely not. Stating my belief and experience is not "arguing for the sake of arguing". You can disagree, but you also shouldn't expect everyone to simply accept your viewpoint Nevada you stated it. I'm not arguing the point any more than YOU are. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Arguing for the sake of arguing is saying a large enterprise simply cannot provide the same level of service as a small one, so the comparison is "unfair." Because many large enterprises provide great customer service. Including NGC in the TPG space.
And you know this. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, and pulling n=1 examples out of the air to make points.
Not always true in all markets. In this market you still need human capital to grade coins and expertise on services, to answer phones and address issues. Cannot always spread the costs out or make it up on volume in all cases. 10 graders cannot grade 100 coins in the same timeframe as 1000 coins. Profitability is not always linear. Variable costs need to be taken into account, etc.
The difference is no matter the class size there is only a single professor. Six students or 1,000- still a single professor.
As companies grow so does the level of employees. A small Bodega might have a couple of family members working there yet Walmart employees thousands.
As a company grows, such as PCGS, so does the infrastructure. This would include employees staffing the mailroom all the way to Graders and administration. This should also include those who field telephone and email inquiries. Apparently, this is one area PCGS is still in need of growing into.
Disagree with obscenities.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
But, again, the point is that the infrastructure is different. A call center is not the same as the owner picking up the phone. So comparing a large entity to a small one seems TO ME unfair. That's not the same as saying PCGS couldn't do better. But NGC is, to me IN MY EVER HUMBLE PUCKING OPINION, a "fair" comparison while throwing in much smaller entities is not. You don't have to agree, but I'm not sure why that is such a controversial position.
Even if the larger entity expands staff or employs a call center or AI, it has still introduced a later of separation that doesn't exist at a small operation where the phone may well be answered by a decision maker and not simply a gatekeeper or message taker.
You disagree, fine. My lived experience is my lived experience. And my opinion is my opinion. I call the bodega and I get mom. I call Walmart, I might never get to the decision maker. And Walmart has excellent customer service, but it is colder and more distant than the mom and pop shop. And the original ANACS mention referred to Paul Defelice answering the phone himself. That almost never happens at large entities.
FWIW IMHO YMMV
Time for a vacation
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I do see instances when a company has evident growing pains and they have to play catch-up. Certainly talented graders are probably tough to find and processes/IT may need redesign to reflect added volume. I would ask whether a company has seen unexpected growth and ask
how they are addressing the problems often associated with such.
The first thing they do is not make the graders answer the phone.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
There is an excuse though. They care about making the most money possible and will cut expenses as much they can get away with while maintaining those profits. And it's worked. Understaffed and unempowered call centers, horrific TVs, poor quality holders....yet, we're still going there and business (seems to be) booming.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
We already see long time members here stating they are not doing business with our host because of poor customer service and other issues. If they are vocalizing it here, then you know others are doing the same quietly.
There are apparently issues that should be addressed. We don't see psa's like we used to on such topics so I'm sure if anything is being done, it will remain internal.
The registry is perhaps key. Creates a lot of inertia. I no longer like my house but the thought of moving….
Correct. And whose fault is that? Hint: Ours. If we are willing to accept it, can't blame them for taking advantage.
For better and worse, I really enjoy the Registry and, for the coins that go in my sets, it definitely is a component of continuing to send coins to PCGS for grading.
Every coin that I can send to CACG (mostly moderns and non-T$ classic US) I do and will. However, the majority of my grading events are still trade dollars so, like @oldabeintx said, the inertia will keep me going back for more.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com