I go to Super Duper in SF, and every time, the employee is forced to ask: "Have you been to Super Duper before?" If I say yes, "Welcome back!" if I say no, "Welcome!"¹. It is pointless. All I want is lunch. Want to see that I've been here before? You have my credit card number…
¹The exact words might not be right, the point is that there is no meaningful difference to the customer between the responses.
Yeesh. If that bugs you then... just lighten up. Most people aren't anti-social to such an extreme. You're the odd man out here, not the rest of humanity.
Really? People like the forced conviviality? In San Francisco, one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the country? With a sizable number of first-generation immigrants, unacculturated to the strange customs of the USA?
Why can't we have attentive food service, where they pour you fresh coffee the second you sign them to but not earlier, and where they don't intrude on the conversation every 3 to 5 minutes?
Most of the world doesn’t have the bizarre forced scripted friendliness in customer service that the US has. People are allowed to be polite or friendly in their own personal way.
I prefer it - but fast food countries value consistency over higher highs and lower lows.
All they want is to know whether they need to explain to you in detail or if you already have a sense of the menu.
Not sure what you find odd with people trying to provide you good service. smh
You missed the point of my post: they don't explain the menu to you in detail, if you answer in the negative. This particular part of their script occurs after you order to, so there isn't even an opportunity.
Their menu is also bog-standard hamburgers, with not a whole lot of options.
> trying to provide you good service
No service is being provided during this part of the interaction, is my point. The whole thing would be more pleasurable if it was genuine, and not a forced, scripted word track.
I guess that is arguably the world we have been trending towards but it’s not the only viable world.
The real world is one where you do the job you're paid to do.
Actually the real world is the one where the FTC has largely given up on regulating monopolistic behaviour and The Department of Labor has abdicated its responsibility of protecting workers from abusive employers. In this real world the only moral principle that anyone cares about is profit.
And you're actually validating Amazon's policy: you're annoyed and yet you're still both a Prime member and a WF client, which means they lost nothing by annoying you.
I just cancelled my prime account after multiple "annoyances" of packages not coming in 3 days, being dropped at the post office instead and getting delayed a day, and the straw that broke the camel's back - no compensation for missed delivery dates. I had to twist an agent's arm like crazy to get a month of prime.
But matthewmacleod lives in a world where the cashier will be rewarded (rather than fired) for ditching the script and just getting on with it. We'd all like to live in matthewmacleod's world, but I don't think any of us actually do...
This happens at shops I occasionally use in the UK now too, and with some of them it’s bad enough that I actively avoid shopping in them if there’s any possible alternatives. Point is that this kind of incessant nagging is another metrics-driven measure that doesn’t necessarily have the expected results.
The wisdom of annoyances that increase profit-per-customer yet lose some customers all depends on if it results in a net gain or a loss.
The mobile game ecosystem (pay-to-win) and the dominant web content model (ads) both suggest that some degree of annoyance is the more popular path.