me

19:43 Apr 7, 2017 

Thank you, Amel.

Well, I can't be absolutely sure, but I do think it's come from the transcript.

19:24 Apr 7, 2017 

This sentence is really poorly written. In fact, I would not expect to see this style of writing in a published book. As Kathryn said, you would expect to hear something like this when someone is speaking. It is very common for people to start speaking in a different tone to represent another person's train of thought (in this case, the customer). It almost makes me wonder if this came from a transcript of someone's speech - and then the editor forgot to fix this specific portion. And actually, now that I look at the text again, I think this must definitely be a quote of something someone said aloud. I simply cannot imagine someone writing this way on purpose.

19:10 Apr 7, 2017 

Thank you, Tony.

17:59 Apr 7, 2017 

Recently, when trying to contact a utility service provider, I was having no luck getting through on their busy phone lines, so decided to use their chat, which is proposed for hearing-impaired customers. In any event, to avoid misunderstandings caused orally over the phone, chat is not such a bad idea for anyone.
Well, I was chatting with the operator, but I could hear her voice in the background, as she asked advice from her supervisor, who very rudely said "He's an idiot, what does he want to come here bothering us for, etc. etc."
It was just a shame I could hear all this, and you can better I slated them roundly when it came to filling in the "are you satisfied with our service today?" questionnaire!

17:56 Apr 7, 2017 

But that part is vital to making sense of it; you need to read it with emphasis:
"The customer doesn’t have to be seen, but the fact that the customer support person is on‑screen..."

16:50 Apr 7, 2017 

I guess the point of the author was that simply being able to see a support person, (no matter if the customer him- or herself is seen or not) has a positive effect on customer's attitude during the interaction.

16:43 Apr 7, 2017 

many thanks to everyone.

Well, I might well be wrong, but I think the sentence would be clearer without "The customer doesn’t have to be seen" part. I mean adding this part makes it seem as if the situation is being looked at from the point of view of the customer support person. At least I myself was confused exactly by this. If I'm a customer and I'm talking about my attitude, as a customer, towards a customer support person, why should I say that I, the customer, don't have to be seen?

16:04 Apr 7, 2017 

I meant that it has a high potential for ambiguity if one reads it quickly or without paying close attention, or if the reader is a non-native speaker of English, which I understand to be the case here. I understand the confusion. But, no, I never had any doubt myself as to the subject. Though I'd say that was because of the context and common sense more than anything else.

15:57 Apr 7, 2017 

It is very common in this sort of work to speak in the first person when seeking to get someone to identify with the person involved; I don't see anything wrong or even faintly ambiguous here, I just have to read it carefully and understand the way this sort of thinking works.

The text is talking about what you as a customer service rep. should do, and then inviting you to see it from my perspective as a customer, so the writer transitions into the first person.

If I the customer am abale to see you, the service rep. I am talking with, it "defuses" the situation and makes it harder for me (the customer) to be unpleasant. Even though YOU can't see ME, I get the feeling that there is no longer the anonymity of the sightlyess 'phone conversation that otherwise might allow me to be more "brave"!

15:40 Apr 7, 2017 

Yes, B D, it goes from their to you to me! Very typical of informal speech, but sloppy for a written text.

Glad you posted the question, klp. Definitely has a high potential for ambiguity, and it's better not to guess.