評論
打印
Great example! So in this case that hotel chain might consider itself the beneficiary of the so-called service recovery paradox.
非常棒的例子！所以在這個案例中，這個連鎖旅館也許把它自己看做了所謂的服務補救反論的受益方。
Um, the paradox basically implies that customers who experience a service failure,
這個反論主要是指體驗了服務失敗的顧客......
well, they could potentially be made more loyal than customers who were satisfied in the first place if an equitable recovery occurred after the failure. Yes, Ben?
如果在失敗發生后接受到了公正的補救的話，他們可能會比那些一開始就很滿意的顧客更加忠誠。怎么了，Ben？
Wait a minute. If a good service recovery creates more loyalty than, um, if things went smoothly from the get-go,
等一下，如果一個好的服務補救比事情從一開始就順利進行更能帶來忠誠度，
why don’t companies like make mistakes on purpose so...?
那企業為什么不故意犯一些錯誤，這樣......？
So you could implement a recovery plan that leave your customers delighted as opposed to merely satisfied?
這樣你就能實施一個補救方案讓你的顧客更加高興，而不只是滿意而已？
Look, it’s always better to do things right the first time ‘cause how how can you know that the paradox will hold true in every situation?
聽我說，第一次就把事情做對永遠更好，因為你怎么知道這個反論在每種狀況下都是正確的？
Plus, it’s hard to predict if a good service recovery will overcome the negative effect of a service failure,
另外，要預測出一個好的服務補救是否會消除服務失敗帶來的負面效應很難，
and what about all those failures that never come to your attention?
而且那些你從沒注意到的失敗怎么辦？
