Why Customers Still Want to Speak to a Human in Customer Service

Why Customers Still Want to Speak to a Human in Customer Service

Charles Kergaravat, writing for Apizee in a guest post republished by Call Centre Helper, argues that faster automated support does not replace the human contact customers want for difficult or sensitive problems. He says people value agents’ empathy, problem-solving and ability to adapt, and that a clear route to a person can reassure customers even when they do not use it. Kergaravat warns that “doom loops”—repeated automated interactions that leave customers without a resolution or a person—waste time and can damage trust. His argument is not against automation: companies should use it for routine work while making human support easy to reach when needed. The article presents this balance as better for customers and businesses, citing reported gains in sales conversions and customer satisfaction after human or video support was introduced. The article also argues that governments are paying attention to automated-service frustrations, but its account of possible future requirements does not establish what laws will be enacted. Its central practical question is how companies can make support efficient without leaving customers trapped when automation fails.

Publication: ffda9bee-fec4-4df8-85d2-231bac932f5b

attribution — pass: The page identifies Charles Kergaravat at Apizee as the author. It says the piece was republished by Call Centre Helper with Apizee's permission, and Call Centre Helper disclaims the author's opinions. The draft attributes the argument to Kergaravat and the figures to the article.

Charles Kergaravat at Apizee explores why customers still prefer human support over AI

summary — pass: The summary names the author and the republishing outlet and explains doom loops in plain language. It keeps the article's pro-balance rather than anti-automation stance. It frames the cited gains as reported, and the limitations note Apizee's role. The question is a genuine open issue. Omitting the Klarna anecdote does not distort the argument.

Customers aren’t rejecting automation; they’re asking for more humanity in how it’s used.

date — uncertain: The originalPublished value, 2026-04-24 10:00 UTC, matches the Call Centre Helper republication (11:00 UK time). However, the page says the post was republished from an original Apizee article, and the evidence does not give that original's date. The text references Klarna's early-2024 claims 'just months later' and the Biden-Harris initiative, which suggests earlier authorship. The displayed date may therefore reflect the republication rather than first publication.

This post has been re-published by kind permission of Apizee - view the original article.

support — pass: Each claim's excerpt appears verbatim in the source and supports the claim. The reassurance point is supported by the Shell quote ('even if they don't actually use it'). The summary treats the regulatory predictions and business figures as the article's assertions, not as established facts. No unsupported benefits or costs are added.

giving them these options to connect with the company, even if they don’t actually use it, can restore trust.

media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct link to the source article on Call Centre Helper. That is the most direct way to access the source.