I think there’s a hypothetical, “perfect world” answer and there’s also a more realistic, “down to business” answer. The perfect world answer is they should be dealt with at the same level of precedence. When a customer has a problem, their primary – if not only – focus is that it gets resolved. The only difference is the method they choose for communicating with the company.

Where it starts to veer in some strange, uncharted territories is now customers can share their complaints for all to see via social channels. If I complain about a lousy service on Twitter or my blog, not only will my followers and readers see it, but it can be instantly and easily shared far beyond my first-level network. And it’s that very public airing of grievances that scares most companies into focusing more on resolving problems raised on social channels than those raised on more traditional channels.

However, here’s another reality that all companies must grapple with…and why they need to give each customer complaint the same precedence regardless of the communication channel. If I make a call and get no satisfaction, I’m going to blog about that experience. If it’s my father or grandmother or friend who has had a lousy customer service experience, I’m going to Tweet about it. But if a business effectively deals with the situation in whatever way it first arises, there’s no need to complain publicly. Rather, I might just tell my network about the wonderful customer service offered to make up for a problem.

My bottom line is: train all your employees to deal with a customer problem in whatever way it shows up because you never know how it will escalate beyond that moment.

Join the conversation at Forum Q&A

I offer two cases: Twitter and Facebook. When things blow up on either of these services, do we as users have any right to demand quick, speedy or personal support? We don’t give one dime for the ability to communicate and expand our networks. The cynical among us might even suggest that we users are really just leaching off of both Twitter and Facebook for our own gain. So if we don’t pay anything for these services, what right do we have to express outrage when we’re met with failwhales, questionable changes to terms of service or disabled features?

This is the conundrum facing most online community managers: delivering service in an age where its expected even on free sites. Perhaps the solution here is that we have to change our ideas of what defines a relationship. We can no longer strictly use the financial transaction as a point for determining service level. Since users bring value to the community through their interactions, it seems that we community management professionals need to adjust our own thinking. That failwhale impacts a user’s overall experience which, in turn, impacts the service’s brand. It’s a rippling effect that defines a daily reality for online communities.

Thoughts?

Reason #1: Because I’ve actually found some old high school friends who I haven’t seen or talked to in ages. It’s a treat to find out how they’re doing and share their life’s journey. There’s practically no way I would have been able to find them and catch up without FB, particularly since I’m 1500 miles from my former hometown.

Reason #2: A lot of my other social networking apps work with it…namely, Shelfari, Twitter, and Delicious. It’s neat to get all of my online hangouts merged into one place where my buds can see them, too. Heck, there are even some new ones like Where I’ve Been and iLike.

Reason #3: It beats the pants off of LinkedIn as a way to build professional contacts. As so many others have noted, LinkedIn is static and boring in the way a one-trick pony is. With Facebook, I have a much greater opportunity to build both personal and professional relationships that have actual meaning. I can related to what my contacts actually like, what they’re reading and watching, what places they’ve visited, and so on.

If you’re interested in connecting through Facebook, visit my profile page and add me to your friends.