Apologies for the double post, but I was wondering if you could talk a bit about any work you’re doing to train (for want of a better word) customers to avoid financial crime.
It’s a personal bug-bear, but often banks train customers to give out personal details inappropriately (for example the bank will call a customer then expect them to go through security) or by sending emails from different domains, or which ask customers to click a button or link. These techniques are then used by scammers.
Any thoughts on what you are (or could be) doing to help create a safer banking system?
Speaking of this - Monzo are at it. @monzoemail.com if I’m not mistaken?
And even worse, though they’ve announced recently they’re migrating to their own domains (hasn’t happened yet) are NatWest and RBS. They use nwolb.com and rbsdigital.com for their online banking platforms respectively.
It would be easier to train people to say only log into to specifically NatWest.co.uk but a domain like nwolb means nothing to most customers as they aren’t going to know the difference between nwolb and nwoIb…
One of the things that irritates me with the chat support is getting bounced from person to person before arriving at someone who can help.
I’ve found an example in my chat history of 3 different support operators chipping in sequentially on an an issue to say nothing more than I’m being transferred to a specialist.
What’s happening here? Are there multiple levels of specialists and I’m being passed up a chain, or something else? In any case, it would seem to me it would be better if this bouncing happened behind the scenes and the chat only continues when the appropriate specialist is actually found.
If you could implement one thing right now to help customer experience or make the job of COps easier (regardless of feasibility), what would this dream function be?
What are the pre-requisites for a chat to “go to a specialist”?
Im not sure if its just because when i contact cops its because something really is wrong out of the ordinary or if its just a case of most chats going the specialist route?
Also massive massive thank you for taking the time to do an AMA its something ive cried for monzo to do for a while but needs cool people like yourself and @AlanDoe to make it happen and its appreciated
Customer support for a bank has so many facets that it’s not possible for any individual to have it all in their head, so the short answer is that if frontline COps don’t know the answer, it goes to a specialist
There are a lot of chats from less savvy users asking for straightforward things like getting statements, checking limits, etc - things that can be done in the app but are perhaps less immediately obvious to find. Having a frontline team that can handle these sorts of questions helps us make sure our specialists are doing their specialised work, rather than spending a lot of time answering more general questions from customers.
If you were in a fight for the Battle of the Dans with @Dan5 who would win?
You can each bring one weapon but it has to be related to your role at Monzo.
Can I bring my new mechanical keyboard? I’m sure I could do some serious damage with this thing.
Otherwise my weapon is software, which might not make a dent…
I’m not sure I’d say it’s deemed better - more that it’s not risen to the top of our priority list yet. I agree that single-threaded chat isn’t the best approach in some situations, such as if you have two issues at the same time. It’s certainly on our radar, though; as we introduce more self-serve features into the app, it becomes more likely that people will be chatting about the more complex parts of their account which might need longer to resolve, therefore increasing the odds of “parallel” chats. We know it’s an issue and we’re looking at it, but of course can’t promise anything!
In our all-hands at the end of November, someone asked if a cat grooms themselves. I popped in a little longcat meme into our #remote-chat channel (which is basically Twitch chat, with all the chaos that involves).
Then someone asked if we could make the longcat longer. And then longer. And then longre [sic].
This caught on, and I was editing this stupid longcat emoji art for a full hour… Now I’m “the longcat guy”
There are currently 210 longcats in the original post, not counting all the replies with further longcats
