A Human Voice

To begin, it is only fair that I concede the fact most every business uses a voice recording to handle incoming calls from the public, including customers, makes sense. The volume of calls, I assume, has got to be quite large on any given day, so to have workers handling an array of incoming calls may not seem like the most cost-efficient way to utilize an employee's time as well as contend with the public.  Businesses, after all, exist to make money. Anything getting in the way of that should be looked at very closely. The last thing an entrepreneur wants is to spend money unnecessarily or to accrue costs not needed.

I get that. At the same time, it also needs to be pointed out that for businesses to do well consistently, then they must have positive interactions with the public, including valued customers. Without positive ties, any business' efforts to remain economically viable become all the more imposing. this, then, brings me back to the reality of voice recordings versus using real-live people as operators. Recordings are more cost-efficient while operators are more customer friendly. Which one is better for a business? Which one better enhances a business' ties with its public? Which one better communicates the message "we care about you" to all taking the time to call?

I am a strong proponent of using human operators. Recordings are fine when the business is closed or during off-hours. Otherwise, nothing connects better with people than people. While it goes without saying that businesses need to produce a reliable product and/or service to survive, hand-in-hand with that must be friendly and personable interactions. The human touch. There is nothing better when it comes to making persons feel welcomed and appreciated. When that kind of communicating occurs, then not only are persons more apt to return to a particular business, but they are more likely to feel better about it.