Fin's flawed resolution assumption

Try to force the user confirm “route to the team”. I think this is why these conversations are considered a resolution. Think with me: An user comes to your support, talk with "Fin AI", and they dont talk anymore else. You dont want to pay this conversation, so, the conversations has no routed to the team, and you just start to answer the user. Intercom dont want to lose money, so they will considerate that convesation as a resolution, apesar of the intervention of an human. Do you understand? I think that is happening.

Hi ​@Matheus Lutz , thanks for thinking with me there. However, I feel like somehow “forcing” or steering customers to say a certain thing is A. error prone, B. solving an issue that is Intercom's to solve and C. not something someone in Customer Support should be doing. I guess I could create some guidance which states that Fin always asks whether they could pleeeaase respond. But yeah, point A, B and C 😅

I'm afraid I kinda lost you after “You don't want to pay this conversation”. To clarify, the finances are no longer the issue here - Intercom has fixed that (see the video in my original post). I just want them to improve the assumption system, which should go the same direction as the payment system really. Why would I ever contact a customer in the same chat if not to actually solve their issue?

Hi ​@bosbeest ,

Thank you for raising this,  There was a misstep in how we described how billing works during the Built for You event on May 21. 

We incorrectly said that if a teammate replied after Fin’s response, the conversation wouldn’t count as a Fin resolution—and wouldn’t be billed. That’s not accurate, and we want to clarify:

• A conversation is billed as a resolution when the end user gets an answer and doesn’t ask for further help.
• If the end user does ask to speak to a person—either by clicking “Get more help” or replying with a follow-up request—then the conversation is not billed.

We’ve updated our Help Center with more detail [link], and we appreciate you pointing this out. 

— The Intercom Team

Hi ​@Aisling O'Reilly ,

I'm pretty shocked to hear that, as it's stated very clearly and unambiguously on a huge slide next to your Chief Product Officer Paul Adams. Doesn't really seem like a misstep in description don't you agree?

 Totally understand your reaction — hearing something different now is frustrating, and rightly so. We didn’t communicate the billing logic accurately during the event, and that’s on us. We made a mistake, and we really appreciate you holding us to a high bar.
We’ve since updated internal guidance and are closely watching feedback like yours as we consider changes to how we measure resolutions.
Thanks again for taking the time to raise this.

Hi Aisling, 

It was an amazing initiative that born out of improving customer service for both your customers (me) and my customers.. I'm assuming this was viewed as an incentive for bad actors to misuse, by someone in leadership who is not involved with customer experience, only money - and projecting what they would do themselves to your entire client base. A real shame and a leap backwards for your company. Perhaps some people need to re-read this page, especially the 3rd yellow sentence: https://www.intercom.com/believe