评论
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！所以在这个案例中，这个连锁旅馆也许把它自己看做了所谓的服务补救反论的受益方。
Um, the paradox basically implies that customers who experience a service failure,
这个反论主要是指体验了服务失败的顾客......
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?
如果在失败发生后接受到了公正的补救的话，他们可能会比那些一开始就很满意的顾客更加忠诚。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，如果一个好的服务补救比事情从一开始就顺利进行更能带来忠诚度，
why don’t companies like make mistakes on purpose so...?
那企业为什么不故意犯一些错误，这样......？
So you could implement a recovery plan that leave your customers delighted as opposed to merely satisfied?
这样你就能实施一个补救方案让你的顾客更加高兴，而不只是满意而已？
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?
听我说，第一次就把事情做对永远更好，因为你怎么知道这个反论在每种状况下都是正确的？
Plus, it’s hard to predict if a good service recovery will overcome the negative effect of a service failure,
另外，要预测出一个好的服务补救是否会消除服务失败带来的负面效应很难，
and what about all those failures that never come to your attention?
而且那些你从没注意到的失败怎么办？
