Category Archives: Economy

Are Computerized AI Agent Telemarketing and VRS Systems on the Rise

by

So what do you think?  Are Computerized A.I. Telemarketing and VRS systems on the rise?

We all know what Telemarketing is, but what is VRS?  VRS stand for Voice Response Systems, and basically is the automated response and menu system you get when you call your bank or other large companies.  It’s the front line of such systems.  While VRS systems are not horrible, most of us like to talk to a real human being.

Have you noticed lately that you’ve been receiving telemarketing calls for surveys and the like where the agent sounds human, but after the call ends you realized that you questioned whether the person you were speaking to was a live human?

The call actually sounds like a normal person at the other end but something was a bit to perfect with the exception of an almost undetectable pause in their response?  By undetectable pause, I’m talking about a pause that maybe be 1 second or less.

Usually followed by the pause is an answer to your question that may have interrupted the speaker/A.I. computer agent during the call.

Unfortunately, I’m rude like that and interrupt the speaker as they are speaking.  The typical sequence is a small, almost undetectable pause followed by a perfectly spoken response with that matches the speed and tone of the original message perfectly. My argument is that such a response is not normal and highly questionable.

So what’s wrong?

An unscripted response should not be followed by a slight pause and a perfectly executed response to what the original pitch was.  To me this makes me think of a computer voice response system, but more sophisticated than what I’m use too.  The latest VRS system responses sound more like Apple’s Siri than a real human.

This makes me curious if telemarketers, customer service and other call centers are the next human labor pool to be attacked by technology?

So how did I recently make the jump from an A.I. telemarketing Survey VRS to the potential attack on a labor?

Well basically because if technology can create an A.I response system that acts and responds so human-like, they can eliminate the human element of a customer/participant services system.  Of course if the customer that called in request to speak to a supervisor, manager or someone else, the system could transfer such calls to a skeleton crew of humans to handle the hypothetical heavy lifting.

So what is my statistical estimate/guess on who such a system could affect the hiring of humans for customer/participate services?  Well it would depend on the size of the customer service / participate services department (obviously).  But let’s take a simplified customer service model and say that it has 100 people in their human resource pool.  I would guess that at least 60 of those 100 jobs could be A.I. agent based and the number would continue to improve as the technology improves over time.  I could even imagine that at some point during the following 5, 10 or 20 years after such a system is introduced that the number could even go as high as 90 A.I. agents instead of human agents.

Think 90% of a VRS as A.I. agents is too high?

It might be, it really depends on what the A.I. Agents are representing and the complexity of the responses.  But I wouldn’t be surprised that in the future A.I. Agents will query their responses from some type of private IT cloud VRS system per company.  I also would be surprised if the entire agent presence would be cloud based too.  Why have a cubicle for an A.I. agent when the entire A.I. agent instance is somewhere out in the cloud?

Such a cloud mechanism will have a direct impact on existing offshore Voice response systems.  After all the voice could be tailored to the area that the phone call is coming in from.  What do I mean by this?

Let’s say that you are from Scotland, and you call into a VRS.  Well, if the company has the bucks to buy the best computerized system, it should respond to the caller in the language or speech pattern that the native from the area would find the most agreeable.

What’s positive about A.I agents instead of human labor?

  1. Privacy and security.  The A.I. agent won’t talk to friends about your account especially if you are even a little famous, but more importantly you are pretty much assured that your account information will remain private through the conversation with the A.I. agent.
  2. No bias responses and pure systematic responses.  You could screen at the A.I. agent and you won’t hurt it’s feeling or make it do something nasty to your account.  Although at some level you must feel pretty silly yelling at a computer, no?
  3. Cheaper products?  With all automation and computerization processes, such a change would mean that a company could lower their prices on their product a little.
  4. Reduction of lawsuits and other problems with labor.  An A.I. agent doesn’t ask for a promotion.
  5. Potential less errors and recorded sessions for review.  Some team will randomly sample conversations to continue to improve the responses by the A.I. agent.  Less error in that the A.I. system could eventually be better at deciphering what a hard to understand caller might be requesting.
  6. Cost should be cheaper than the current offshore advantages.  With customer voice dialect and language, such a system is incredible versatile, even more so than the current offshore advantages.  As such systems become more prevalent and computer, A.I., cloud and robotics technology continues to become more powerful and cheaper at that same time such systems might become many more times cheaper than the cheapest labor pool.  I’m talking 1 to 100 or 1 to 1000…  Such a system that is could based could become scary cheap!

I have to admit, with the advantages that I outlined above, if I were a company, the appeal would be pretty obvious.

We are truly living in both exciting and depressing times!

Thanks for reading,

Don

 

 

If you are interesting in my original views on the way technology is hitting us, read: Pros and Cons of Automation.

 

 

Are We Financially Spoiled?

by

I’ve talked about the how I’m not in favor of the “Occupy” Protesters, and lately I am starting to wonder if we are Financially Spoiled in the United States?

Rich Kid

Green with Envy, but Already Rich?

Why I think We Are Financially Spoiled:

First, let’s start with a poster that I recently saw associated with the Occupy Protests, it was titled, “Shut Down the Corporations“.  It showed a bunch of happy people in the poster riding a bike, one with a cane or golf club, another with a teddy bear, and finally a soccer player kicking over the block representation of corporations.  Such statements are incredible short sighted and really kind of naive.

What’s naive is that the bike, cane, teddy bear and the soccer apparel, that the people in the poster had or were wearing all are likely produced by corporations!  In fact, without corporations those representations of the people wouldn’t have most if any of that stuff!  You see, corporation make things (like bikes, teddy bears, and loans) that the average people can afford.  Without corporations mass producing things (yes even loans are made for mass consumption) only the rich and very rich would have those things.  What is also incredible naive is that the web host of the websites that display this or similar posters (or sign, pdf, etc) are corporations.  Again this reminds me of the person trying to get rid of a tree branch, but is sitting on the wrong side of the branch while they are sawing.  It’s much like protesting Starbucks or bottled water companies while drinking them out in the protester groups.  How’s that for irony?

As someone from below the “making over $100,000 a year” middle class, I know and understand the value of the services and products that corporations provide.  It’s too fairytale-like to believe that corporations are the bad guys when in reality, they are a huge part of what makes American great.  Don’t believe me?  Then why have former communist countries converted over to either a capitalist or a hybrid-capitalist (look at China) society?  What country has it better than us?  Certainly not Cuba or North Korea… Why do you think Russia and China changed their economic model?

I hate to say this, but I think the protesters are only looking one move ahead or looking at the trees instead of the forest.  I think if they mentally looked right and left to see how it all works, that they would agree with me.  If they would mentally think out all of possible results of their actions, it’s obvious than any other societal model is not a desired economic or socially beneficial one.  If that’s not enough, go out and interview some business owners, or better yet start a business yourself.  Nothing is preventing you from doing so, and the experience would be incredible educational.

So compared to most people in other countries of the world, we, the people in America, are very financially spoiled, at least in my opinion.  If you don’t agree, try this link: https://www.globalrichlist.com/ and enter your info, or your parents (if you are in college).  Here is my spoiler to the globalrichlist.com link, if you make at or over $50,000, you are in the top 1% vs all the other incomes in the world.  Welcome to the 1%!

We (those in the US) have it very good financially?  Really, we do!

MR

Reducing The Maximum 401k Contribution Limit To Help The Economy

by

Okay, yes this title isn’t a preferred route for the government to take, but there is a good chance a small decrease in 401(k) limits would help both the government and the economy.

Currently in 2012, the cap for the 401(k) contributions is set to $17,000.  But what if we reduce the contribution limit down to $15,500?

Such a decrease in the contribution limit would mean that those (like me) that were contributing that extra $1,500 would be a direct impact on tax collection for the government and there is a good chance it would help business too.  With respect to business, it would help because when people get that little extra money per pay period they most likely would spend that money.  After all it’s only about $30 if you are paid weekly ($60 if you are paid biweekly).  It might not seem like a lot, but it would give business a big boost really.  Actually the $30 and $60 figures would need to have taxes taken out of the amount received, so it would be less that those figures, but for simplicity I’m going to keep it as I state above.

And the government would be the biggest boost of all.  Most of the people who are contributing that extra $1,500 are in the 25% or 28% tax bracket.  Most of us will be millionaires some day (or so I hope).  So if we go with the lower percentage bracket (25%), that would mean that the government would get an injection of $375 extra per year per person.  So if there were just a mere million that were in the $1,500 camp, that would mean that the government would receive an extra 375 million injected into the economy.

Now that just a mere $1,500 decrease in the contributions limit.  If the reduction was more, the impact would be greater…  The problem is that the government would also increase their spending too.  They wouldn’t keep their spending in check, and this would mean that in about 5 to 10 years, we would be back in the same condition that we are currently in.

So even though it seems like a good solution to fix some of our problems from a mathematical sense, we would be in the same position in a few short years.  Change need to be in the way that government runs, not in the amount of taxes that they receive.

What are your thoughts on the matter and the idea of reducing the 401(k) contribution limit?  I know personally I’m not in favor of it, even if it would help.  I would rather the government cut out some of their more wasteful programs, but this is an option that should be considered.

Bests,
MR

Why We Should Not Hate Businesses

by

One thing about the News stations are that they only tell you the bad news that they know you’ll watch, and this makes sense, the new station is a business trying to make money and not giving the public what they want is a sure way to go out of business.  But to me it seems that fear and guilt are the main news items.  This is sad.

If you think about it, it’s kind of a paradox, when a news station complains about large businesses when they themselves are a large business too!  The problem with news stations is that they need to stay in business, and hating companies and point out the few bad ones keeps viewership high.

So,  it’s up to business and financial bloggers to explain why we should NOT hate businesses!

Global Perspective:  Why We Should Not Hate Businesses:

Historically, businesses are what have made USA a superpower in the world.  It’s the USA capitalism model and the products that enabled America to be the envy of practically all of the other countries.  The lightbulbs, cars, mass production, medical and technological advances were all be created by the capitalism!  This is why both Russia and China have scrapped their old socialism models and have introduced capitalism or a derivation of it in their societies.  After years of problems, both of these powerhouse nations realize they were wrong and adjusted their ideology to reward those that put forth great efforts.  Both countries have learned that personal risk taking and working long hard hours should be rewarded, or else nobody tries and the entire country stagnates and starts to decay.

National Perspective:  Why We Should Not Hate Businesses:

As I watch the 99% protesters complaining about the top  1%, I notice that they all have bottled water, large coffee house lattes, and other things made by the businesses that they are indirectly protesting about.  It’s very ironic and makes them look a bit naïve in my opinion.  Perhaps I’m past the age where I let others influence my thinking (like liberal professors), and instead use my own personal experiences and common sense to influence my opinion on matters.  I guess that old saying “with age comes wisdom”, has some element of true after all.

Local Perspective:  Why We Should Not Hate Businesses:

From a local perspective, large businesses are the ones that pay people money so they can provide for their families and actually have a very decent lifestyle.  The middle class in most other countries aren’t like the middle classes in the USA.  In most other countries, the middle class have just a little money left over to buy luxuries like make up for women, and perhaps something like a cheap radio.  In the United States, the middle class has all of that and goes on trips that would make the middle classes in other countries think that our middle class is rich.

So if businesses  builds our houses, makes medicines for us to overcome illnesses that could kill us, makes our cars, creates cloths for us to wear, and provides food for us to eat cheaply, why do we hate them so?

I think we should be proud of our businesses and that fact that we have such a great lifestyle!  Even when comparing the middle classes in other Developed countries, we come out ahead…  In fact, our middle class (and working class) is the top of the heap…  Why do we want to change from being the best out there to something that isn’t?  Perhaps creating a negative spin on the country helps politician get elected (the slogan Yes We Can comes to mine)

In general, I don’t understand why Socialism and wealth redistribution seems to be the answer from the white house and extreme liberal democratsl… We know from history that such ideas are losers…

Perhaps we bloggers that exist in the business and finance niche should explain the way it really is, in a common sense style.  After all, we have no hidden agenda and the majority of us want everybody to succeed.  We all benefit when our country is successful with great businesses…

What do you think?  If you hate businesses (in general, not the exceptions), state your reasons below.

Cheers,

MR