Rustum
Expert Member
I'm doing some more research into this whole sorry affair with iBurst and came across someone posting a complaint on his blog against Cybersmart. It took him four days (!) to resolve an issue, which fault then turned out to be on his side, which both Cybersmart and Telkom had initially pointed out to him.
But before the issue was resolved, the boss from Cybersmart wrote a comment on the blog, detailing in very precise language the analysis of the problem, the possible reasons (fried port, fried router, physical breach in line), the history of the fault reporting, and, he backs up his employee, against whom the blogger had become personal.
It's just one comment (research is ongoing), but it is indicative of something larger: a particular philosophy of business where humans are still central. Look at Laurie's language (boss of Cybersmart). There is no ego in it, just clear, plain, precise detail and exposition. There's no patronisation - no assumptions are made about the blogger (well, at least none beyond what can be seen in the blogger's own post) and he is approached as an equal, even as his errors are pointed out.
What caps it for me is when Laurie backs up his employee: in short, Laurie is implicitly saying: "You will respect or not respect this employee for reasons relevant to his job only. And he has done his job properly." By doing this, Laurie is also showing his own respect for his employee. This to me, I would venture, is probably the reason why my telephonic interactions with Cybersmart have never led to any aggravation. The staff feel like humans, they treat callers like humans. The staff do not come across, on the telephone, as uninterested in their job.
So that ethos of respect runs through all three nodes: boss, employee, customer. The customer, especially, is shown respect by the precise and comprehensive detailing of the problem. Laurie clearly has read all the information regarding the issue and he can address the problem completely.
Read it. Laurie's is comment #2, but read the whole post; it's short.
Now, working backwards, with which company do you end up feeling more aggravated even when you do manage to get through to the helpdesk? Why? Does the person on the other end sound interested in their work? Interested in helping you? Do you feel human at all?
I'll leave you to work backwards from your own sense of how human you feel when you deal with an iBurst helpdesk.
But I want you to also compare Laurie's response to Jannie van Zyl, the CEO of iBurst's explanation of my problem (See first link above). I quote from his post in a thread started by me to moan about iBurst:
Notice that last phrase: "Pretty standard stuff". Where do I start?
I'll start at the beginning. Anyone who has read my blog post (linked at opening) detailing my woes with iBurst will realise that I am a reasonably educated member of society (bear with me). A reasonably educated member of society will know, at the very least in the broad terms employed by Jannie, how debt collecting works. I.e. any reasonably educated member of society will know that that is standard procedure. There is thus no reason in the language, in the mechanics of that paragraph, to add "pretty standard stuff". The paragraph itself, in generic, standard language (i.e. not legalistic language), in describing the process, makes it clear that the process is standard. There is, thus, no linguistic reason to add a tag: This is standard. It's like saying: Standard is standard.
Now what could be the possible reasons that Jannie adds that tag?
Only Jannie, of course, can know the true reasons, but I have some theories, interpretations:
1. Jannie hasn't read my long screed and doesn't realise that I am a reasonably educated person who doesn't need it to be pointed out that a standard procedure is standard. (If you read the rest of Jannie's response, you might think that he hasn't read my screed or does not want to consider my screed or wants to pretend that he hasn't read my screed. I don't know.)
2. In tagging it "Pretty standard stuff", Jannie is showing his readers that he can identify when a standard procedure is standard. Furthermore, he is establishing his ethos. This is a term from rhetoric - establishing your ethos is basically like presenting your credentials, your authority to speak on an issue. It's not necessarily about your expertise on an issue; it's more like establishing some kind of persona in order to persuade your listener to listen to you. But there are many different ways of establishing your ethos.
Now, consider the tone of that phrase. It is informal - "pretty", "stuff". It is short, abrupt. It is light. "Pretty standard stuff". What does that remind me of? "Pretty standard stuff" I can almost see a hand giving a slight, light wave, implying: it's standard, it doesn't need further elaboration, it should not detain us unnecessarily.
In responding in a thread in which I moan about erroneous debt and bad accounting, and about which I have written a long post detailing the issues, details which he completely ignores - wilfully or because he has not availed himself of all the information - what kind of ethos is Jannie establishing here? I'm not sure. Anyone have an idea?
3. Consider the relationship between ethos and ego. Remember, ethos is akin to establishing the persona that will now speak. Think again of Laurie's comment: how does he establish ethos? Isn't it amazing? Laurie establishes his ethos by not establishing an ethos. Notice there are no sentences that refer to what has been written, in the way that "Pretty standard stuff" refer to what has been written, i.e. the standard procedure. Nowhere in Laurie's comment, in which he details a standard procedure of dealing with a problem does he say: they do this, then that, then this... standard procedure. He just gives the standard procedure. That is what I meant earlier when I said that his comment was absent of ego. He has established an ego-less ethos by not self-referencing the stuff he is writing about. In short, he is not "showing off" his ability to grasp when a standard procedure is standard. By doing so - by NOT tagging something which is already self-explanatory - he also avoids patronising his listener, his customer; i.e. he respects his customer.
Now, in the context of this whole post, think again about how Jannie's tag, "Pretty standard stuff" establishes his ethos. What kind of ethos is he establishing?
Think about those three nodes I mentioned earlier: boss, employees, customers. Think about ethos now in its broader meaning, as, for example, I used it earlier when talking about Laurie's comment: "So that ethos of respect runs through all three nodes: boss, employee, customer."
Think about the relationship between the absence of ego and respect. Think again about that line through the three nodes - boss, employees, customers - and think about how that might relate to how you feel when calling iBurst's helpdesk.
What does all this say about iBurst's business philosophy, its ethos? Makes you think, doesn't it?
I'll get onto Jannie's subsequent paragraphs and other responses of his in due course...
But before the issue was resolved, the boss from Cybersmart wrote a comment on the blog, detailing in very precise language the analysis of the problem, the possible reasons (fried port, fried router, physical breach in line), the history of the fault reporting, and, he backs up his employee, against whom the blogger had become personal.
It's just one comment (research is ongoing), but it is indicative of something larger: a particular philosophy of business where humans are still central. Look at Laurie's language (boss of Cybersmart). There is no ego in it, just clear, plain, precise detail and exposition. There's no patronisation - no assumptions are made about the blogger (well, at least none beyond what can be seen in the blogger's own post) and he is approached as an equal, even as his errors are pointed out.
What caps it for me is when Laurie backs up his employee: in short, Laurie is implicitly saying: "You will respect or not respect this employee for reasons relevant to his job only. And he has done his job properly." By doing this, Laurie is also showing his own respect for his employee. This to me, I would venture, is probably the reason why my telephonic interactions with Cybersmart have never led to any aggravation. The staff feel like humans, they treat callers like humans. The staff do not come across, on the telephone, as uninterested in their job.
So that ethos of respect runs through all three nodes: boss, employee, customer. The customer, especially, is shown respect by the precise and comprehensive detailing of the problem. Laurie clearly has read all the information regarding the issue and he can address the problem completely.
Read it. Laurie's is comment #2, but read the whole post; it's short.
Now, working backwards, with which company do you end up feeling more aggravated even when you do manage to get through to the helpdesk? Why? Does the person on the other end sound interested in their work? Interested in helping you? Do you feel human at all?
I'll leave you to work backwards from your own sense of how human you feel when you deal with an iBurst helpdesk.
But I want you to also compare Laurie's response to Jannie van Zyl, the CEO of iBurst's explanation of my problem (See first link above). I quote from his post in a thread started by me to moan about iBurst:
Over time iBurst (like any other company) build up a 'debtors book' of subscribers who do not pay their accounts. The company will obviously try and recover the money and when all else fails, these accounts get handed over to a debt collection agency. Pretty standard stuff. (Van Zyl)
Notice that last phrase: "Pretty standard stuff". Where do I start?
I'll start at the beginning. Anyone who has read my blog post (linked at opening) detailing my woes with iBurst will realise that I am a reasonably educated member of society (bear with me). A reasonably educated member of society will know, at the very least in the broad terms employed by Jannie, how debt collecting works. I.e. any reasonably educated member of society will know that that is standard procedure. There is thus no reason in the language, in the mechanics of that paragraph, to add "pretty standard stuff". The paragraph itself, in generic, standard language (i.e. not legalistic language), in describing the process, makes it clear that the process is standard. There is, thus, no linguistic reason to add a tag: This is standard. It's like saying: Standard is standard.
Now what could be the possible reasons that Jannie adds that tag?
Only Jannie, of course, can know the true reasons, but I have some theories, interpretations:
1. Jannie hasn't read my long screed and doesn't realise that I am a reasonably educated person who doesn't need it to be pointed out that a standard procedure is standard. (If you read the rest of Jannie's response, you might think that he hasn't read my screed or does not want to consider my screed or wants to pretend that he hasn't read my screed. I don't know.)
2. In tagging it "Pretty standard stuff", Jannie is showing his readers that he can identify when a standard procedure is standard. Furthermore, he is establishing his ethos. This is a term from rhetoric - establishing your ethos is basically like presenting your credentials, your authority to speak on an issue. It's not necessarily about your expertise on an issue; it's more like establishing some kind of persona in order to persuade your listener to listen to you. But there are many different ways of establishing your ethos.
Now, consider the tone of that phrase. It is informal - "pretty", "stuff". It is short, abrupt. It is light. "Pretty standard stuff". What does that remind me of? "Pretty standard stuff" I can almost see a hand giving a slight, light wave, implying: it's standard, it doesn't need further elaboration, it should not detain us unnecessarily.
In responding in a thread in which I moan about erroneous debt and bad accounting, and about which I have written a long post detailing the issues, details which he completely ignores - wilfully or because he has not availed himself of all the information - what kind of ethos is Jannie establishing here? I'm not sure. Anyone have an idea?
3. Consider the relationship between ethos and ego. Remember, ethos is akin to establishing the persona that will now speak. Think again of Laurie's comment: how does he establish ethos? Isn't it amazing? Laurie establishes his ethos by not establishing an ethos. Notice there are no sentences that refer to what has been written, in the way that "Pretty standard stuff" refer to what has been written, i.e. the standard procedure. Nowhere in Laurie's comment, in which he details a standard procedure of dealing with a problem does he say: they do this, then that, then this... standard procedure. He just gives the standard procedure. That is what I meant earlier when I said that his comment was absent of ego. He has established an ego-less ethos by not self-referencing the stuff he is writing about. In short, he is not "showing off" his ability to grasp when a standard procedure is standard. By doing so - by NOT tagging something which is already self-explanatory - he also avoids patronising his listener, his customer; i.e. he respects his customer.
Now, in the context of this whole post, think again about how Jannie's tag, "Pretty standard stuff" establishes his ethos. What kind of ethos is he establishing?
Think about those three nodes I mentioned earlier: boss, employees, customers. Think about ethos now in its broader meaning, as, for example, I used it earlier when talking about Laurie's comment: "So that ethos of respect runs through all three nodes: boss, employee, customer."
Think about the relationship between the absence of ego and respect. Think again about that line through the three nodes - boss, employees, customers - and think about how that might relate to how you feel when calling iBurst's helpdesk.
What does all this say about iBurst's business philosophy, its ethos? Makes you think, doesn't it?
I'll get onto Jannie's subsequent paragraphs and other responses of his in due course...
Last edited:
