So far, all had happened as usual, but then the problems started.

My friend changed his plan which meant that he wouldn’t need to take a taxi after all.  I picked up the telephone and dialed the dispatcher to cancel the order, and that’s when the fun and games started.

Having been able to hear and understand what I had said when I gave the original order, the dispatcher now started to have difficulty with both.  Eventually I think she got the message, but handed the phone over to someone else to confirm that this was the case.  Yes, she understood.  The order was cancelled.

A few minutes later the telephone rings to tell us that the taxi has already arrived and when we said that we had already called to cancel it, we were told that as it had already arrived we would have to pay a “fine” to the driver for a wasted journey.  It was a pity that we hadn’t managed to phone the cancellation through in time but I got ready to go and pay the driver.

Then the phone rang again and we were told that we would have to pay a fine to the driver or else they would deduct a fine of 2000 som from my telephone bill.

That confused me, and to be frank, made me angry.  I understand that taxi firms need to stamp out any abuse by people who call for a taxi and then don’t appear.  The taxi driver has incurred expense driving to the pick-up point which had cost him both in terms of time and petrol, as well as the opportunity to pick up other potential clients.  But, where had this figure of 2000 som come from?, and what made them think that they could charge it to my telephone bill?  Maybe there are rules and regulations to cover this sort of thing, but if so, I am not aware of them and would like to see a copy.

The situation, however, then descended into farce.

Having paid the driver, I went back and rang the dispatcher once more.  I asked whom I should contact if I had a complaint about their service.  She told me couldn’t hear me … and hung up hung up on me.

Odd, I thought to myself, they could hear me well enough to take my order and dispatch a taxi to the address, and to tell me that we had to pay a “fine” when we tried to cancel it afterwards.

That was just the first of four such occasions they hung up on me.

I called the number again and asked for a supervisor but was simply passed onto another dispatcher.  How do I know?  Because I asked who I was talking to and I was told, “Dispatcher No. **”.

My first question was why the dispatcher had hung up on me.  In response she simply asked, “Why, what’s happened?”.  I asked for the name and address for the person to whom I should address a complaint about their service.  She dutifully and purposefully tried to avoid answering the question.  No, she didn’t try, she succeeded!

“Why, what’s happened?”, she asked again.  I said I would explain it all in writing.  “Young man, “ she said, “what’s happened?”  I thanked her for the compliment but pointed out that I was far from being a young man, but I was a client who had a complaint.  “What’s happened?”, was her only response.

Fearing I had hit a brick wall I explained.  She told me to call another number.  I thanked her and dialed the number she had given me, only to be greeted by a recorded voice telling me that “That number does not have the right to receive this call.”

I tried calling the dispatcher again, this time asking for a supervisor … and again … and again … it took eight calls in all, and as I said, they hung up the phone on me four times.

On one occasion, I was told that there was no “fine” of 2000 som.  “I’m glad to hear it, but why was I told that?”  She also avoided the question … by hanging up on me.

Eventually I got through to someone who seemed to be more willing to talk, although she still refused point blank to give me a name and address of the company’s head office.  “We don’t enter into correspondence”, she said.  “Excuse me,” I said, “you are a legal entity registered with the Ministry of Justice, you must have an address and you must enter into correspondence.  I am a dissatisfied client and you should respond to my complaint.”  Eventually, she gave me another telephone number, but told me to call after three o’clock the next day.

If this was meant to be a delaying tactic, on intended to put me off making the call, I’m sorry to say that it worked, but only because by the time three o’clock came round I was busy in a meeting … and about to pack up and rush off to another.

I felt, and still feel annoyed about the threat of the so called 2000 som fine, but what upset me more was that arrogant and flagrant disregard to basic customer care, not to mention my rights as a consumer.  Even if the dispatcher is busy, they shouldn’t simply hang up on a client, especially a client who is calling about a complaint.  Why wouldn’t they give me a name and address to whom I could address my complaint?

I suppose I can try Still, I have one recourse available to me.

I’ll never use that firm again.  Fortunately, as I said, there are several taxi services available in Bishkek.  Thank heavens it is not a monopoly!

The idea behind the site is to provide links to webpages which concern travel to Kyrgyzstan, in particular to travellers’ tales, where they give accounts of their visits to Kyrgyzstan and their impressions of the country and what it has to offer.  We made a policy decision in the early stage not to link to sites that “sell” something.  As a result we are happy to include book reviews, but not links to sites like Amazon which sell the books.  Let’s face it, if someone likes the review and wants to buy the book, it is easy enough for them to find the relevant Amazon page.

Likewise we decided not to include links to tour company sites.  To be fair, we do have pages about Celestial Mountains in the “About Us” section and this includes banners and links to our growing family of websites, and there are links in the main section to the various “information service” sites that we operate, (such as www.sounds.kg about traditional Kyrgyz music), but not to the sites that “sell” tours or our tour services or which promote our hotels.

We think that this is logical and that people will understand.

So what was the dilemma?

Well, we came across a report of a tour which we thought was interesting.  It wasn’t written in brilliant English, (but who am I to comment on that), and much of it was in note form, but I liked the post gave because in giving a number of highlights from a tour, including a number of unusual features and places that are sometimes overlooked by tourists “in a hurry”, but also because it was fair in that it mentioned both good things along with things that could have been better.

The post was headlined, “Impressions about trip to Kyrgyzstan of the tourist from France”, with the subheading: “My trip in Kyrgyzstan with ****: meeting wonderful places and remarkable people”.  Now, it would have been really nice if it had said, “My trip in Kyrgyzstan with Celestial Mountains: meeting wonderful places and remarkable people”, but it wasn’t written by one of our clients.    The tour company that organized the trip was mentioned not just in the title, but in several different places … and in glowing terms.   As it happens, that in itself, that didn’t worry me.  It was an important part of the tourist’s experience and he felt that he wanted to give them credit for having done a particularly good job.  Fair enough!

My problem was that it was posted on their own website, which was clearly a tour company site and was clearly a selling site.

So, under our own criteria, no matter how interesting the account we couldn’t include the link on www.links.kg.

.

I called the manager of the company concerned and explained the situation to him.

I asked if, by any chance, the account had been posted anywhere else, somewhere where we might have been able to provide a link.  Unfortunately, no.

He said that he understood and suggested that I could take the post and place it elsewhere … but where?

Personally, I think that this is a job for a “Kyrgyz Tourist Promotion Board”.  They should be monitoring accounts in the media, searching the internet for suitable material, and trying to bring them to a wider audience, (for example, through Press Releases, or possibly a site like www.links.kg).   Unfortunately, however, there isn’t such an organization.  That’s one reason why we started the site in the first place.

As it happens, it’s not the first time we’ve come across the problem.  The same day that we came across this post, for example, we came across another one but, for the record, the post I have been refering to can be found here: eng.concept.kg/news/403

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It’s not, however, a “blank cheque” and doesn’t give the press “carte blanche” to say, print or display whatever if wants without limitation.  There are a number of limitations which are often invoked, in particular with regard to security or decency, (propriety).

It represents a difficult area in terms of law and philosophy about what constitutes “fair comment”.  This is a problematic issue that I have recently encountered. 

.

I am in the middle of redesigning the site www.links.kg.  Although it doesn’t get that much attention from the surfing public … but, then, we haven’t exactly pushed it yet.  It’s still a trial version and we wanted to get some feedback first.

Most of the comments we have received have been about the lack of “user friendliness” – the menu structure and so on.  It would be more useful if it was possible to search for entries on a particular topic – e.g. particular places like Altyn Arashan or Son Kul.  We’ve take that point on board and are moving the site onto a different platform which allows for greater flexibility, allocating tags to entries and multiple searches.

We’ve also been alerted to a couple of what appear to “dead links”, although they were working a couple of months ago.  So far, we’ve marked them and will check on them again before removing them, just in case they are temporary glitches.

So far, there hasn’t been many comments about the content … well, so far there has been just one:

“I cannot understand why you included a short film of visitors to Issyk Kul with a foul mouthed American using the ‘f’ word vociferously? Stay clean please.”

..

It so happens that I do have some sympathy with this comment and, more than that, I found that it raised several very interesting and important issues:

Although I agree that it’s unfortunate that this particular link was there, and I am sorry if it offended anyone, I have to be frank and acknowledge that there are, in fact, some that are worse than this particular one!

There are almost 1000 sites featured, and over 3000 individual links, on the www.links.kg.  When we were originally establishing the site, we had a lot of discussion in the office about what should be included and what should be omitted. We decided, for example, not to include any link to a page that is actually selling anything, (so no tour companies  - apart from ourselves, that is – but not in the main section, only in the “About Us” section where I think, (and hope), it is legitimate – after all, it is our site); book reviews are OK, but no “Amazon” and so on.  We also decided against blogs by couples in the process of adoption and Missionaries, as they were really about other things and not about visiting Kyrgyzstan and life in Kyrgyzstan.  Also, no news items or analysis … again they are not about visiting Kyrgyzstan.

Some of our staff said that we shouldn’t include anything “negative”, (and I presume that would include the use of swear words such as the “f-word”), but I have to say that overruled them.  Why?, well, although some people love the place – others have had less positive experiences, and their comments about those experiences, their impressions and feelings are valid and are, also, already in the public domain.

(On the whole, however, I am pleased to say, the balance between positive and negative comments appears to me to be on the positive side.)

.

There is another important point, however, raised by this feedback comment: is the use of profane language, a legitimate, appropriate and acceptable form of expression.

Swear words, such as the “f-word”, do not form part of my everyday vocabulary, as they seem to for some people.  I do not know why it is that so many people appear to find it so necessary, (or so easy), to use swear words “at the drop of a hat” in everyday conversation.  I admit that I often find myself feeling uncomfortable when someone does utter such words and phrases.  On at least two occasions, it has even resulted in my deciding to “take my business elsewhere”.

Please don’t misunderstand me, I am not a “prude” and I have been known to swear, myself.  It usually as a sign of frustration and extreme emotional stress.  Now, it may well be that the authors of some of webpages that link to where these words are used, are also seeking to express their frustration and extreme emotional stress … but does it constitute a legitimate, appropriate and acceptable form of expression.

When I do use such vocabulary, for example, I tend to be expressing something said to to myself, (“under my breath”, as it were), and not for public consumption.  When someone publishes a comment on a blog or social media outlet such as Twitter or Facebook, however, they are basically publishing it to the world – “to all and sundry”.  I have seen several things posted on Facebook, for example, that have caused me to wonder if the author’s might not find that embarrassing at some point in the future.  There are stories, for example, about people who have had applied for a job and almost had it “in the bag”, only to lose out when someone on the interview panel decided to check their Facebook page.  (Although, to be honest, these stories well be apocryphal, for all I know.  However, they do make a valid point.)

So, the question is: does the use of such language constitute “fair comment” – even if it is expressed in a way that make some of us feel uncomfortable or find objectionable.

.

Now, we are not responsible for what other people choose to post on the internet but I suppose that we do carry some responsibility for publishing the link, which could easily be seen as being tantamount to a recommendation, or an endorsement, despite the fact that we have a disclaimer which appears on every page:

“CMTC is not responsible for any content posted by members of the public on any of our websites or for the availability or content of any third party sites that are accessible on links from it.  Any link to third party websites from any of our resources does not amount to an endorsement of that site and any use of that site by you is at your own risk.   Neither is it meant to imply that they endorse us.  All content, including the information, names, images, pictures, logos and icons, is provided on an “AS IS” and “AS AVAILABLE” basis”

.

So, the question is: what should we include?  to what extent should we bowdlerize the site and remove links which might cause offence?  To what extent should we recognize that individuals have the right to express themselves even though we might disagree with them both in terms of content and the way they choose to express themselves?

No problem – I am always happy to meet with people … although I am not very good at “small talk”, I am by nature a very garrulous character, and it is always good to meet with people and get their opinion on how there tour has gone.  I have written elsewhere about the importance of Feedback.  I must admit, however, that this particular call came as a bit of a surprise, after all, not every client asks to meet with the General Director.

Rare though this may be, it does happen.

Just occasionally, they want to meet me just to be sociable.

Sometimes, they want to meet me because I have been involved in the correspondence about their tour and they want to “put a face to the name”;

On other occasions it is because someone has told them: “if you are ever in Bishkek, you should look up Ian Claytor”;

Once or twice it has been because one of the clients is a businessman and wants to talk about an business idea that they have had.  On this occasion there was an element of that.  One of the clients came up with a suggestion that was very interesting – but I’ll look into that and write more about it another time.  It wasn’t the main reason that they had asked to see me.

There have been occasions when they have wanted to meet me to tell what a wonderful time they have had in Kyrgyzstan.

Sometimes, however, and let’s be frank, (after all, I say that I believe in the “warts and all” approach and like to be “up front” with clients), it is because there has been a problem and they want to complain.  Another thing that I often say is that I believe, like President Truman, that “The buck stops here”.  It’s part of my job to deal with complaints when they do arise.

As it happens there been a problem with this particular trip, but they didn’t want to complain, simply that I heard their side of the story.  Which I did.

It was, actually, a small problem – and even they made light of it – something to do with the admin at one of the places where they were to have stayed.  It was the sort of problem that on many trips, the clients may not have even been aware of the fact that there was a problem.  On this occasion, however, it was obvious … and they just thought that I ought to hear their side of the story.

With that out of the way, however, most of the conversation was taken up with totally different matters – such as the idea that I wrote about above.

They were full of praise.  Praise for the country: “magnificent landscapes”; for the staff: “professional … excellent …”; for the tour: “outstanding … wonderful …” … and so on.  One of them then made a comment which brought a smile to my lips … “the trouble is that aren’t enough superlatives to express our delight… “.

OK, so why did that bring a smile to my lips?

Because, back in 1997, when we opened the company, this was one of our slogans:

“there aren’t enough superlatives …“

which later evolved into:

“… in Kyrgyzstan, it is possible to run out of superlatives when trying to describe what you can see and do”

and, also, when we ran the “Impressions of Kyrgyzstan” competition in 2007, one of the winners was the slogan:

“There is really only one problem concerning Kyrgyzstan – a lexical one. There are not enough words to express the admiration one feels “.

It’s not the first time this year that I have been taken aback when something like from the past has been thrust back at me like this.  Earlier in the year, I described  how a couple of tourists from  New Zealand thrust another of our slogans back at me: “There’s something special about Kyrgyzstan … “.

Now I know that everyone is different and other people might have a different feeling – but isn’t it nice when you meet someone who agrees with you?

There are some people who complain “at the drop of a hat”, who think nothing of making a scene at even the smallest mistake or mishap, whilst others never complain and accept everything that happens with a shrug and “shy away” from complaining, reluctant to create a scene.  Most people, fortunately, fall somewhere in between.

The client, the consumer, has a right to complain if something falls below an acceptable standard … If they pay money for an item or a service, then they are entitled to expect certain standards to be upheld in return.  Apart from being their legal right as consumers, it is only fair and reasonable.  What’s more, even though no-one really likes to have a complaint made, a businessman should welcome complaints.  They be willing, (if not eager), to listen to the complaint and to apologize, investigate the problem, (to see how and why it arose, if only in order to learn from the event and to try and prevent it happening again), and to try and make amends.

Yesterday, I happened to be in the hotel and the staff showed me the comments book.  They were somewhat upset, surprised and even shocked by one of the latest comments … even the one person who had been singled out by the guest for particular praise.  The problem was that they had stayed with us for several days, been very polite and cheerful, never giving any hint that there was a problem, and then when it came time to check-out, asked for the comment book and wrote down a list of complaints … things that had “gone wrong” or been less than satisfactory as far as they were concerned.

“Why didn’t they say something?” was the question I heard over and over again.

I had some sympathy with this, especially as the guest had pointedly said that his comments would be posted “on the internet”.  Under other circumstances, I might have taken this as a “threat” in order to try and force concessions out of a management reluctant to concede that something was unsatisfactory and to do something about it, but in this case we weren’t given the opportunity to do either and so I presume they were simply informing us of their intention to do so.

If they want to post a review on the internet, that’s their privilege.  They will be able to say what has happened, why they were disappointed and what they thought was unsatisfactory.

In the days before the internet they might have told their friends and relatives, colleagues and acquaintances … many, (if not most … if not all), may not be particularly interested in that they were unlikely to visit Bishkek.  In these days of “social media”, however, guests can now write a review which could be seen by tens, hundreds or thousands of internet surfers.   Those surfers presumably read the reviews in order to decide where they want to stay if they are going to be visiting Bishkek.

Such reviews are actually a good resource for consumers, especially those who have not been to and do not know either Bishkek or Kyrgyzstan in general.  I know, because I use them myself.  However, they need to be treated like all reviews, however, with care and caution.  The surfer needs to remember that they represent one person’s account and opinion, events and experiences are presented as seen through their eyes.  If there are several reviews that all reflect the same sort of experience, (either positive or negative), then this is probably indicative of something.  Where there is just one, however, it could be that it is simply represents a “one-off” unfortunate occurrence.  It’s also possible that the reviewer has forgotten to mention something, or wasn’t aware of something that was materially important.

Then again, they didn’t say where they would post their review, which means we may won’t even have the opportunity to exercise a “right of reply” … unless, that is, we happen to come across the review by chance.  That doesn’t seem fair and reasonable to me.

Notice, I haven’t commented, so far, on their actual complaints … It may well be that in some cases I agree with them: that something did go wrong … that we should have done better … something for which we would like to apologize … and which we would like to try to put right … and for which we would like to try to make amends … and thank them for bringing the matter to our attention … so that we can investigate … and try to prevent a repetition of whatever it was.  For example, if they really were kept waiting an hour for a meal to be served, then I do agree that this is unacceptable.  I find it unacceptable when I go to restaurants and have to wait an inordinately long time for my meal to be served.  It shouldn’t happen.  I would like to try and find out why it did … however, we weren’t given the opportunity to apologize and to try and make amends.  That doesn’t seem fair and reasonable to me.

In other cases I would have welcomed some more information.  As it happens, I know which room they were staying in and so I can investigate the problem with the room that they describe and take remedial action to correct it.    However, once again, we weren’t given the opportunity to apologize and to try and put things right at the time.  That doesn’t seem fair and reasonable to me.

It is also possible that in cases I don’t agree with them: everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and to come to their own judgment – even if they are wrong.  I would have welcomed the opportunity to explain why I think something happened … or why it was “as it was”, but I wasn’t given that opportunity.  That doesn’t seem fair and reasonable to me.

Of course, I would had preferred to see a positive review rather than a negative one … but they are entitled to give an account of their experiences and say what happened and to give an opinion … and, unless they tell lies or give a very biased account, then there is nothing we can do except “grin and bear it” and try to ensure that we do better, that we improve our facilities and service and that nothing like this happens again in the future.  It would have been so much better, however, if we had known and been able to do something at the time.

The correct time to complain should be, in theory at least, when a service or product is below the expected standard.

Trying to take a positive slant on the experience and use it in order to improve our service, the lesson seems to be, I suppose, that one way to avoid this sort of thing from happening in the future is to be proactive and to ask, (and keep asking), clients: “Is everything OK?”, “Is everything satisfactory?”.

After all, as the old slogan has it: “If you are satisfied with us, then please tells others … if there are problems, please tell us!”

I was once conducting an “appraisal interview” with one of our managers, and in response to the question, “How do YOU think things have gone in the last year?”, he replied, “Not bad, I think we have met all the difficult situations we are likely to meet and have systems in place to cope them and are ready for anything.”  It was mean of me, but I couldn’t resist the temptation to ask, “Really, when did one of our guests die?  I must have missed that.”  The look on his face showed that he realized his mistake – he hadn’t even thought of that as a possibility and how he would cope with it.

Although we have faced many difficult moments, we have at least been spared this particular experience … so far.

In this case, the person who died was one of those rare clients that keep in touch after a tour.  .  Many people, after completing a tour with us, seem to disappear of the face of the earth, and we never hear from them again.  This is not surprising, nor unreasonable … after all, although we hope to see them again, in the following years they probably want to visit other places.  Occasionally, however, a client does continue to keep in touch after their tour is over.

On some occasions, clients strike up a really good relationship with guides and drivers so that if they do return to Kyrgyzstan, they make a special request to have the same personnel for their subsequent trips.   Some offer an open invitation to look them up if we ever visit their country and some have even been known to invite their guides to visit them for a holiday.

It is really nice to hear from former clients how they are getting on and where they have visited as well as getting feedback about the tours they have taken with us.

Feedback is very important to us … even when it is “negative”.

Although it is always nice to get “good reviews” and, like most people, we love to be told that we have done a “wonderful job” … that everything was “excellent”, however, when something does go wrong or has been less than satisfactory in some way, then the feedback we receive can point us to areas where we have to pay attention so that we can try to ensure that the situation isn’t repeated, improve our performance and provide a better experience for clients in the future.

Sometimes, however, these “negative” points can refer to things that are outside our control … such as the state of the roads, or the toilets, in Kyrgyzstan, but still they are useful and help us in our discussions with service providers, (hotels, guesthouses, restaurants, etc.) and government officials.

(Actually, the roads in Kyrgyzstan are not that bad on the whole – most of the main roads are asphalt but because of the extreme temperatures and heavy traffic the surfaces can be uneven and make for a bumpy ride.  The toilets, on the other hand, can be pretty dire.  Although we try to warn clients about this, it can still come as a bit of a shock.)

Unfortunately, it can be difficult to get feedback from clients.

We have developed a number of feedback forms, or comments forms, which we give to clients and ask them to complete. We hope that it is not an onerous task and to help make it easier the forms contain a simple tick-box section and also some free space in which to write comments.

As in the case of most surveys, however, the response rate is not as good as we might hope for.  When I was teaching statistics, pupils were always surprised to learn about the low response rates to questionnaires and postal surveys … maybe just 10% or 20% of the forms distributed are completed and returned.   Even when the comments forms are returned, they often appear to have been “rushed”  …  short, one word, comments are common – for example, “toilets”.  In  way, this isn’t surprising.  Although we have tried to make the forms simple and easy to complete, filling in a comments form is not compulsory and so it is often put off until the last moment.  When, on the other hand, we do get detailed comments and, better still, constructive suggestions about what would have made their holiday experience even better we do find them very useful.

You can imagine my surprise, then, when I recently read of a survey run by a large hotel chain based on the United States. They sent out an email to the all their guests for whom they had an email address with just two questions:

1. On a 0 – 10 scale, 10 being the highest, how would you rate your overall experience at xxx (name of the hotel chain)?, and
2. On a 0 – 10 scale, 10 being the highest, how likely are you to recommend xxx (name of the hotel chain) to a friend?

Unfortunately, the author didn’t say how many emails they sent out, but he did say that in six months they received over 50,000 replies – which is quite impressive for such a survey.  This compared with virtually no direct customer feedback for the whole of the previous year.  What’s more, “50% of those guests have provided us with detailed comments that help us to continuously improve our operations and realize our brand promise of exceeding our guests’ expectations.”