|
 University of Nevada, Las Vegas
professor Bill Thompson established himself as a casino expert the
old-fashioned way: he worked at it. He's
an equal-opportunity critic for the industry, researching, teaching,
commenting on and writing about it for nearly a quarter of a century.
Sought after for industry opinions, he the number one guy the mainstream
media come to for unbiased answers. Professor Thompson, a student of
gaming since coming to
Casino
Customer Service The WIN WIN Game
Call
me Bill, not sir, I was a private (first class) when I was in the Marines, and
“sir" is reserved for another group--not always a term of
admiration......
The
notion of customer service has been incorporated in my academic work since the
1960s. I first studied politics of state attorneys general. They perceived
their jobs as being servants of the public, but how were they to deliver
services? Many developed systems to deliver service products to citizens.
The same applied to other bureaucrats, but of course, the general
impression of the bureaucrat was that he or she was abysmal in the service
delivery arena. I had groups of students take tours of the airport, the
post office, and the DMV, survey customer service practices, and make
recommendations for improvements.
Our
University also became a lab for study of service delivery. Some things we
do well, others need great improvement. Coming to Las Vegas, I became
familiar with service in casinos, because I went to casinos, had meals, played
games, and because my friends came to visit me and many stayed in casino hotels.
I
learned that casinos and gambling were quite different in terms of service. A
very basic difference. Casinos enjoyed a WIN WIN game that no other product
enjoyed. Examples. I bought a car and I got a lemon and a rotten deal.
I was dealt a losing hand. I told everyone, I even told the name of
the car dealer and the location of the dealer. I bet when you consider I
mentioned it in my classes that I told thousands of people that I was a loser.
I would tell you the name of the car dealer too, but I understand that
they have had a change in management, so I don't think that would be fair now.
Nevertheless, I didn't feel it was fair in the past to protect the guilty.
I
purchased another car from another dealer. I have had wonderful service
from the dealer, and the car has performed wonderfully. You know, I never
tell people about my other car, I don't tell friends, and I don’t tell
students. I am a winner with that car, but I remain silent.
Now
just imagine the casino customer. As I car customer I lost and told everyone.
A Casino loser keeps his/her mouth shut--losers walk. As a car
customer, I won and told no one. A Casino winner tells everyone. --Winners
talk. Stands to reason, if you lose in a casino, a spouse will be
irritated, and a friends will consider you foolish. If you win--at the
same game playing the same amount of money--you become a hero to a spouse, and
friends admire you, "I want to be just like Mike" (well almost).
Therefore,
Las Vegas and other gaming venues come out way ahead of other places that people
spend money. We have the best word of mouth advertising of any product.
Our winners’ talk, our losers shut up. However, the whole
formula can break down. I have identified three ways the formula will fail
Las Vegas--
1)
If people ever think we "cheat" them--then losers will talk and even
exaggerate their losses.
2)
If we exploit customers--beware the issue of compulsive gambling hangs over us
like a storm cloud ready to turn loose, and
3)
If we give lousy and insulting customer service. In this third realm, let
me mention that the Bill Bennett
case is the worse thing that could happen to a gambling town--some snitch in a
casino released information that insulted a customer, information that exposed
LOSSES of a very good customer. That was customer service at its worse. A
few more Bennett cases and we can close the doors of the casinos, no more big
players will come to Vegas.
I
have suggested that the casinos "throw out" the compulsive gamblers.
This probably raises several good questions. How do we know who they are,
and just who should do the "throwing out?" And is there a good
customer service way to do this? And if we do this, won't they just go to the
casino across the street?
These
are tough questions. Let me fudge matters by suggesting a way to start. Since casinos are doing almost nothing at the moment, a starting place
should be found. We have a starting place. It is the little
card that is given to slot players in almost all out casinos. Table
game players also get cards in some casinos. The deal is that the player
gives the casino critical personal information that may be used in marketing,
and then as they use their card when they gamble, they win "points"
that may be converted into merchandise, rooms, food and beverage or cash. Fair
enough so far.
However,
the player cards (for slots) record every coin put into a machine, and all coins coming
out of the machine. The cards indicate the exact amount --down to
seconds--of time a person is playing a machine and the specific hour of the day
of the play. This card is telling the casino very LOUD AND CLEAR just
which players are likely compulsive players. The cards record
"chasing" behavior. That is, episodes when the player has lost
money and is desperately trying to win it back in frantic spasms of play. The
card records binge play, which is play that goes on for ten, fifteen, twenty or
more hours without a break.
The
card records bottom line losses for a player. And the casino knows whether
the player is employed or not, married, a parent, and where the player lives.
The casino has good information for assessing whether the gambling is
recreational and whether it is within the means (ergo responsible) of the
player. The casino KNOWS, so will any court that subpoenas the casino's
records.
I
was shocked when I was asked to be an expert witness and review the records
taken from cards of a player that was in court on a civil matter. Aztar Casinos,
I
saw the records. They were revealing, they told me that a player had a
major problem with gambling. When the casino discovers the patterns
of play that I witnessed in the card records, they can cut the player off.
They can refuse to "cash-in" points for a period of time--maybe
six months. They can cease sending any promotional advertising to the
player. They can send the player a written record of just how much the
player has lost each month. They can share their knowledge with
other casinos in the area.
Collectively
the casinos can agree not to provide services to this player. A notice can
be mailed--registered mail--to the player indicating that the casino believes
there is a problem, and invite the player to discuss the matter with a counselor
sponsored by the casino. They player could be given an opportunity to
dispute the evidence. The player could be encouraged to sign an agreement
that they will not visit the casino for a period of time--six months to a year
or more. The casino might then be obligated to take trespass action if
there were a visit.
The
casino could also impose such an agreement if a family member made a request and
the record showed the player had a problem. Exclusion could also result if
the player was arrested for a property crime, or if the player commenced a
bankruptcy action. The casino should also consider initiating the
action on its own. Bad for business? Possibly. A loss of
10 to 15% of revenues, perhaps. But just what did that cigarette case cost
those companies--a lot more than the total revenue of all the casino in
Nevada. So far, the casinos have been lucky in court. We can
only ponder, how long do they want to gamble by doing almost nothing to get the
troubled players out of their casino?
-
If
cigarettes are legal and bear a health warning, an individual choosing to ignore that warning must
bear the responsibility for the consequences of that action. If a player has all pertinent information
available regarding gaming, the odds, and the effect of the activity on persons having a
compulsive / obsessive personality, etc., then he must be held equally personally responsible for his own
actions. True? If I am sitting on a jury, this would be a very good argument.
The courts pretty much agree. So far. A bar can be sued by the VICTIM of a drunk's action (eg driving car), but the drunk can't sue the bar. The differences in situations being litigated are potential problems--the American Psychiatric Association has decreed that Compulsive Gambling is a mental disease (alcohol and
cigarette addiction is somewhat different) and to the degree it is a disease the individual is beyond capacity for responsibility. Is the casino? Assuming that the casino is not also ill, the question is--do they know the compulsive gambler's condition, have they been notified, is the compulsive gambler on a list of persons to be excluded from the casino, does the casino have reason to think the player is not using his/her own money, is the casino knowingly letting the person play when they know, is the casino encouraging more play from the person when they know. Here's a kicker. If the compulsive gambler has been consistently playing with a player's card, and all his/her bets are recorded, and the casino has the record of play, the casino has good reason to know the player has a serious problem, the record of play can be very revealing. All of this is evidence that a jury may ponder, and depending on the credibility of all the witnesses and all the evidence, a jury could say the facts justify a big verdict against casinos. My suggestion is that the casinos avoid circumstances by not catering to these players when they know. The cases are in the pipeline.
The
gambling industry, especially the casino establishment, has this thing about
compulsive gambling. First, they want to insist that it is a small problem
and that the "vast" majority of players are responsible and are just
having fun and recreation.
On
the other hand, they want Americans to know that they too are responsible so
they make THEIR OWN studies of the problem, and they say things like, "We
don't want hose people in our casinos." While they state that
compulsive gamblers provide only a minuscule part of their revenues, casinos
will not adopt policies to simply throw out the addicts. They
should.
Compulsive
gamblers and the problems they cause for their own families, their friends, and
their employers and for society at large all represent a very big problem for
gambling. As I indicated before, the exploitation of players such as
compulsive gamblers will defeat the very positive WIN WIN advertising game
casinos have. The most impressive argument opponents of casinos have is
that the presence of casinos in a community increases the likelihood that people
will become compulsive gamblers.
The
casino industry studies "found" that only 1.3% of the adult population
were compulsive gamblers. The national gambling study commission found
that the percentage of compulsive gamblers doubles when a casino is in a
community. As only one in five adults go to casinos, we can interpolate
that somewhere around 6.5 % to 13% of the players in our casinos are
compulsive gamblers. As they are likely to be gambling more than others
are, we (I) might suggest that 15% to 20% of the money lost in the casinos comes
from these troubled people. The industry would like me to use the smaller
number. It the amount is only 15%, we can then ask would it be in the
interest of the casinos to "throw them out?"
The
answer is ABSOLUTELY YES! It would result in the best public relations the
casinos could possibly have. In a recent survey of members of GA groups (A
study I did with an economist colleague at UNLV), we found that one compulsive
gambler imposes costs of almost $20,000 a year on strangers and persons outside
the home. These costs result from missed work, bad debts, thefts,
lawsuits, criminal charges and jail time, and welfare.
There
is an unfairness here. The gambler makes the bet and wins or losses, I do
not make a bet, but I only lose. Nevertheless, what is worse is that
the compulsive gambler hurts his or her family and the gambler hurts him or
herself. Seventy per cent were separated or divorced because of gambling
problems. Over 60% planned suicides, and 27% actually tried to commit
suicide.
The
gambling industry does not need these statistics on their back. The
industry is correct to say that the overwhelming majority enjoy gambling and do
so responsibly. But if only one per cent are compulsive gamblers, that's
over 2 million Americans, and they do a lot of harm to themselves and society.
A
small percentage, a large number, and a large social cost. But it is not
just a question of good public relations. If the gambling industry keeps
pretending that the costs are not theirs, they can expect that legal actions may
hurt them a lot more than a loss of the 10% or 15% of revenue they would suffer
by "throwing them out." Casinos would be wise to remember the
cigarette industry and their denials of compulsive and problem smokers.
I
just read in the RJ that a casino was getting good marks for an automated
check-in system. I have spoken for many years about this “gripe” area.
First,
I would applaud any improvements in this area, on the other hand I would go
bonkers if I were entering a casino and the first thing I was hit with was a
computer contraption that I had to wrestle with. My first inclination
would be to find another hotel.
The first
thing I want to see when I come
into a casino hotel (or just casino, or just hotel) is a HUMAN BEING. And I want
that human being to smile and show at least a small sign that he or she
RECOGNIZES that I have come into that place of business in order to give MY
MONEY to that hotel and or casino.
But
back to the way it has worked over the decades. A flight lands in Las
Vegas sometime in the morning. The passengers disembark, wait for luggage,
or mill about as someone else handles luggage, and then depart for hotel in a
bus. At the hotel, they wander in wondering where they are, and when they
get to the desk, they are informed that they cannot be checked in for several
hours. They sit about the lobby waiting. They are tired. They
may have their bags with them--at least all their carry-ons. They cannot easily
drags the bags around. They sit. They would like to change. They all
bought neat new cloths to wear in Las Vegas to show off to their friends. They
would like to shower and go to their "personal" bathroom. They wait.
Now what do they really want to do with the three hours they spend waiting.
Guess? They are not in Omaha or Toledo, they are in Las Vegas.
They want to GIVE THEIR MONEY AWAY to the casinos.
I
have often wondered if casinos realize that gambling time means money for the
casinos. If so they would have efficient means to get patrons into rooms
quickly when they arrived. Perhaps they would determine that as soon as a
person checked out of a room, the attendants were there preparing it for the
next guest. If the new guest had to wait in the lobby, the casino would
arrange a special waiting room with a bathroom reserved for the patrons, and a
comfortable couch, and maybe even a place to change. The patrons could
leave their bags in the room and have an assurance they were secured. Then
while "the" room was being prepared the new guests could wander to the
tables and play.
In the same regard, I have often recommended that the state of Nevada use its
highway funds to pay for building and extra two lanes of highway on I-15 TO
California. Then Sunday visitors wouldn't have to leave Las Vegas at 2 pm
to be assured they could get home to Los Angeles by midnight--they could stay
until 7 pm, and yes GAMBLE four or five hours more. The drive-in guests
stagger in at various hours throughout the weekend, but they all want to leave
at the same time. That is OK; it is just that the highway can't handle the
traffic so the journey becomes a 7-9 hour venture on weekends, especially
holiday weekends. Other times it is a five-hour trip. Lost time lost
money. Check them in quickly, keep them until the last minute before they
leave.
In
recent decades, casino accountants have sought to cut costs wherever they can.
As they do so they think only of money directly saved. They do not
think about money ultimately lost when services are denied to customers.
By
cutting the pit boss out of the formula, the casinos are once again at it. While dealers and their immediate supervisors must reflect friendliness
and a welcoming spirit in the casino, they are forced by realities to keep the
games going efficiently and honestly. This takes work. Yet, the
activity of the player may suggest that a comp is deserved or that another
reward should be offered. The pit boss has been the person who can make
the observations and interventions necessary.
Without
this person overseeing the action, a floorperson must to take time away from
essential job tasks of game protection to make the gaming experience an
especially pleasant one for the customer. Therefore, we must ask; do the floor
people make an extra effort to reward the customer by simply calling a host?
Will the host arrive in a timely manner? Does the floorperson ask the customer
if there is anything they need? Or do they wait for the customer to ask?
The
effective pit boss not only has the ability to oversee staff but also as the
ability to watch players switch from one table to the next and has a better
overall perspective than the floor supervisor who may be monitoring five or
six card games. In a craps pit, the floor supervisor generally monitors two
tables with the assistance of a box supervisor on each game. Recently a
couple of large casinos have eliminated the box supervisor and have a standing
floor supervisor on each game. Was this action in the best interest of giving
quality customer service? Or are yet more services denied to the customers?
Such
also is life with the newest neatest slot machine. Now machines take paper
money and sometimes payout only with paper. A human being need not serve
the player from the time he or she comes to a casino to the time they leave.
Even if they win, the service will be offered by a cage person giving they
money, or in the case of the latest modern casino, by a machine that reads their
paper and spits out dollars and change. In and out of a casino with no human
contact.
Saves
paying a slot change person, a person who was given the lowest pay of anyone in
the casino--and had a status to match. If the casino thought a little
differently, they would keep the pit boss and especially the change person and
use them for customer service efforts. Consider that a change person can
be a greeter--like a person looking at the player, smiling, and saying, "we
are happy you are here." Some are mind you but many are not.
The
change person can tell the customers about the latest and newest machines, and
maybe even explain how they work. The change person can tell the customers
about restaurants and about shows. The change person can be an information
source answering important questions--like where are the restrooms. Human
contact is essential in the Las Vegas casinos, and we are being very short
sighted whenever we eliminate human contact just because it saves on money for
salaries. If we expect the customer to do all the work in a casino, and
there is no human contact, the customer will soon learn that all the work
involved in gambling can be done on a computer from home--and the customer might
just stay there too.
The
question often arises in businesses of all sorts: just who is the customer
service employee? The simple answer--every employee. In a casino,
that means the back shop mechanic, the slot repairperson, the hotel room
attendant, the dishwasher, the accountant, the pit boss, and the dealer. Everyone
who has in the course of the day the opportunity to come into contact with a
customer, everyone who in the course of a day has the opportunity to come into
contact with another employee who serves the customer directly.
Quite
often, I have heard that customer service must start at the top because
"the way you treat your employee is the way the employee treats the
customer." However, I must hasten to add that customer service must
be pervasive; it must start and never stop at the top, in the middle, and at the
bottom of the organization.
The
best case in point that comes to mind was the Mirage in 1989. The property
hired over 5000 workers from nearly 20 times that number who applied for work. The 80,000 plus applicants were each given a one-minute interview. Each
was assigned a precise time for the interview. If they did not show up on time,
they were crossed off the list. The personnel representative of the Mirage asked
the applicant into a small office space. As this was done, the representative
said "Good morning (or afternoon)," looked at the applicant and
extended a hand out. If the applicant did not respond with a handshake and
look the representative in the eye, the applicant was crossed off the list.
The applicant also had to be dressed cleanly and appropriately for the job
desired.
The
other element in the interview was a question--did you hold your last (current)
job for at least twelve months. The one-minute interview cut the list of
job applicants down to about 20,000. Then the Mirage could begin to check
references. The Mirage wanted each employee to be a customer service
representative of the Mirage, because each would cross customers sometime--maybe
if only when they were walking out of the property to their car, or maybe
someplace off the property site.
The
Mirage wanted to teach customer service to every employee, but only so much
could be taught. If a person did not have an ingrained sense of the
presence of others, and a sense of common courtesies, the Mirage was not going
to waste their (the Mirage's or the applicant’s) time.
Nevertheless,
after the employees were selected, they were given four months of intense
training--training that applied to their specific job duties, but also training
about all aspects of the property. They learned where everything was
located, they learned about each restaurant, each gaming pit, the elevator and
restroom locations, the shows, ticket prices, and ticket booths. They were
given specific training exercises involving relationships with customers. Four
months before the property opened.
One
day a few years ago when Mr. Wynn's organization still owned the property, I
went to the Mirage to meet a friend for breakfast. I parked in the parking
structure. I went to the third floor and walked toward the bridge over the
driveway--heading for the escalator to the main lobby. As I walked onto
the bridge, I noticed a maintenance employee holding a hose and spraying the
walkway right in my pathway. Are you with me--I thought, "Great!
I'm going to have to wait a minute (I was already running ten minutes
late), and I'll have to say 'excuse me' to someone who may not even speak
English, and I'll get my feet wet as a bonus."
Well,
to be honest, I didn't have the chance to think those things. The employee
caught sight of me out of the corner of his eye. I sensed he was being
observant for customers. Before I took a step onto the bridge way, he had
twisted the spraying end of the hose off, he stood up, pulled the hose out of my
way, and as I proceeded, he look right at me and said, "Good morning,
Welcome to the Mirage, I wish you the best of luck." This was not a
six-figure executive; this was not an employee who lived off tip money. Customer
service started at the bottom and saturated the property. This was the
lesson all Las Vegas need to learn.
I
look forward to the opening of Wynn Vegas.
Click
here to read the Q&A from casino employees
|
