3. It pays to welcome all the nature of the complaint may be, there are a few general requirements, with respect to the attitude of the adjuster, which apply in all cases. The first is that all complaint letters ought to be sincerely wel corned, for two main reasons: (1) courteous attention given to complaint matters goes far toward keeping customers satisfied; and (2) to the firm that is alert and has the right attitude, complaints furnish valuable suggestions in regard to the improvement of the prod ucts and the service. If a concern assumes the right attitude, there is every probability that the number of complaints will decrease as time goes on. "En courage complaints so that fewer of them will be made," is as paradoxical as "Make money by losing it," when liberal adjustments are made for the sake of future business. But both policies are sound.
The welcoming of complaints, therefore, does not necessarily mean undue liberality in adjusting the trouble. But it is true that the man who complains about unsatisfactory goods or services is doing a favor to the one to whom he complains. The number of cases in which the complainant deliberately makes a false claim are so few in the experience of most houses that they can be entirely ignored in establishing fundamental adjustment policies. And the founda tion of any proper policy is the right attitude toward claims and complaints—the attitude which convinces the claimant that the firm is actually thankful that he took the time and trouble to help the company to keep him as a satisfied customer, and to help the house to improve its service to all other customers.
4. Other the most difficult requirement is to keep the adjustment letter free from resentment. This does not mean that it is never wise to call the attention of a claimant to the fact that his remarks are not just, but it does mean that if this must be done the statement should be made in an impersonal way, and often with the implication that the firm feels that the claimant really does not mean all he says. Even when the complainant is abusive and does mean all he says, it is the adjustment correspond ent's duty to entertain sympathetic personal interest. He should consider the lack of sound business training that his addressee's letter shows, and accordingly should write him with toleration a business letter— and business letters are always courteous.
5. What constitutes true courtesy?—At this point it might be well to point out again the danger of mis interpreting rules. For instance, the important rule
that business letters should always be courteous is often mistaken to mean that all business letters ought to contain smoothly polite phraseology. We have all received letters that are too evidently courteous. For instance, in replying to a particularly bitter com plaint letter, the correspondent too often makes his letter obviously courteous in his effort not to allow the claimant to discern any show of resentment. An obviously courteous letter under such circum stances is likely to defeat its own end and to inflame anew the claimant's anger. The complainant's feel ing under such circumstances is similar to that which the street Arab entertains for the refined language of the well-bred lad when a quarrel is brewing between them. The well-bred boy would find unrefined talk more effective in such a case, unless, for strategic rea sons, he wanted to make his antagonist blindly mad.
It often pays, in the case of an angry claimant, to state facts plainly, without using a too polite phrase ology. The following letters illustrate this point : Dear Sir: Your people are the limit. That last shipment contained two tubs of No. 14 candy that was all wormy, and besides, the shipment reached here two weeks later than promised. I am sending back the rotten stuff, and don't trouble your self to write me one of those salvy letters of explanation. I want service, not letters, and intend to buy only where I can get it.
Yours truly, This letter happened to express a feeling that many complainants entertain toward "salvy" adjustment letters—evident attempts to soothe ruffled feelings. It is very clear in this case that an obviously courteous reply would be most ineffective. But whether or not this man had said, "Don't trouble yourself to write me one of those salvy letters of explanation," the corre spondent would have handled the case just about as he did. His letter follows. It explains without seeming to.
Dear Sir: Your letter of September 30th makes my blood boil against the railroad which, by mistake, kept those two tubs of candy shut up in a hot box-car two weeks longer than they should have. It is not the loss of the candy that we regret—the railroad will make good on that—but the railroad can't get us another account to take the place of yours. It is tough when we have to suffer for the mistakes of others.