WE'RE SO SORRY: WHY ROBOTS WON'T WIN

The notion that an apology has two parts is rooted in its art and science.

In its art, it’s all about delivery, the way someone says the two words … sincerely and with empathy.  [Psychologists often recommend offering a hug, a donation to a favorite charity, even the top ten reasons … to make the delivery more human, more real.] 

Its science has more to do with content than its flair, from ensuring that “I’m sorry” refers to the same situation to a promise not to do it again.

Those on the receiving side, believe it or not, treasure the response.  A 2009 study from the University of Nottingham School of Economics, offering complainers words or cash, found that almost 50 percent preferred the apology.  Over pure hard cash.

Yet, despite our knowledge that the more humane we get, the better, many businesses, groaning under the onslaught of customer complaints, turn to software as an answer.   In the past, companies did resort to an automatic responder who garbled the language in making amends for some mishap.  Airlines have been a prime culprit, er, user.  Fliers were often taken aback, insulted, and even felt minimized when the computer spit out a rote or form letter.  And they often voted with their credit cards.

Today, hundreds of customer care agents work for U.S. airlines and other merchants and service purveyors, trained well in how to say “I’m sorry” in real life. 

Proof that human “mea culpas” are best.

MR. BELL SEZ ...

Futurists, from Al Gore to Google’s Larry Page, see a world filled with multiple robots and complex automated “things,” ready to do our bidding at the touch of an app.

Many are here right now:  Kitchens that talk.  Fitness monitors limiting TV time if wearers don’t meet fitness goals.  Driverless cars and un-peopled fulfillment warehouses.   Robotic surgery and microprocessor plants.

Soon after IBM’s Watson won Jeopardy in 2011, words started flying.  Will “they” replace “us”?  How many will be unemployed after the automatons take over?  Need we fear for our long-term livelihoods?

Truth?  A few of these worries might be valid. 

Remember, though, what these technological innovations are intended to do:  Replace simple and repetitive activities.  They can’t make decisions (Watson, to the contrary).  Nor can they perform complex and dynamic projects (though technology greatly aids us in analysis and scenario building).

Which brings us to our point:  Yes, there is a slight risk for communicators, marketers, designers, change agents, and brand gurus.  The risk:  Not keeping up with the Gores of this world.  Sure, computers can’t write … yet.  [One did act as the late Roger Ebert’s voice when he lost his speaking function.   But couldn’t substitute for his elegant prose and generous mind.]  But if we can’t understand the latest and greatest of trends, automated and otherwise, if we don’t commit to always-on continual learning, yeah, Watson could put us out of business.  No matter what we might think, personally, of all the technology wars or social media or networking or sustainability or [you fill in the blank], it’s our responsibility to be more than aware of what’s going on around us.  To practice and get even better at our profession.  And to share what we know about machines and their impact with our clients, our bosses, our companies, and our customers.

Watson, I want to see you.  Now.