Two systems. One traps me in endless loops and frustration. The other delivers resolution with clarity and design. This is the story of chatbot deflection versus service design that works.
Journey One: The Loop That Lost Me
Picture this: I log in, ready to apply for something straightforward. Instead, I’m cast in a low-budget comedy called The Chatbot Chronicles.
- Scene One: The system offers me two doors — “secure email” or “chatbot.” Surprise twist: only the chatbot door is unlocked. I step through.
- Scene Two: The chatbot nods wisely, says it understands me, and triumphantly sends me… to a link. Not a webpage that opens. A link I must copy and paste like it’s 1999. The link’s entire script? “Call this number.”
- Scene Three: I call. Enter Robot #2. It asks me to prove I’m me, then delivers the punchline: “We’re busy.” Curtain drop. No callback, just a hang-up.
- Scene Four: Back to the chatbot. Déjà vu dialogue. Same questions, same dead-end. I refuse the broken link cameo this time and demand a human. The grand finale? An internal email that sends me… back to the same copy-and-paste link with the same phone number. Case closed. Applause.
By now, I’m pulling my hair out, muttering lines like “Is this Kafka or customer service?” and heading out for a walk to calm the farm. Next week’s episode will feature me in the branch lobby, starring as “The Customer Who Finally Gave Up on Digital.”
What Does “Kafkaesque” Mean?
Franz Kafka was a writer famous for stories where ordinary people get trapped in absurd, bureaucratic nightmares — endless rules, loops, and dead ends with no way out.
Today, “Kafkaesque” has become shorthand for any situation that feels surreal, frustrating, and impossible to resolve.
So when I say my chatbot experience was “Kafka,” I mean it felt like starring in one of his novels: stuck in a maze of robots, broken links, and closed cases, with no human resolution in sight.
Journey Two: The Bridge That Delivers
At another institution, the workflow feels entirely different.
- I’m given a choice upfront: chat or connect to a live agent.
- Quick questions get quick answers. Reference material is available if I want it, but I’m not forced into it.
- If the agent needs time, they ask politely for a few minutes or offer to email back.
- Most importantly, they don’t close the case until I confirm I’ve got what I need.
This design respects the customer’s time and intelligence. It uses tech to resolve problems, not multiply them.
Two Systems, Two Outcomes
Lessons for Digital Service Design
1. Offer real choice. Don’t trap customers in chatbot-only loops.
2. Respect quick questions. Sometimes a simple “yes/no” is all that’s needed.
3. Confirm resolution. Don’t close cases until the customer agrees.
4. Use tech to support, not deflect. Smart software should solve problems, not multiply them.
5. Watch your volume. High repeat traffic means something’s broken — fix the failure points before your staff bears the brunt.
6. Don’t cheap out. Cutting corners on service design costs you customers — and burdens your frontline team with looped-out users.
💡 Investment Shapes Outcomes
It’s not luck that one system loops and frustrates while the other resolves and delivers.
Minimal investment in design produces chatbot deflection: endless loops, broken links, and eroded trust.
Intentional investment in service design produces resolution: clarity, choice, and loyalty.
The difference is visible in every outcome: one system saves pennies but costs customers, while the other invests in design and earns confidence.
Closing Thought
Technology should bridge people to solutions, not trap them in circles. When chatbots become gatekeepers instead of guides, customers walk away — sometimes straight into the branch, but often straight into the arms of competitors.
Movitx Logic: Change. Proof. Scale
We diagnose. We disrupt. We design better.
Bridging the digital gap…
