Use of side conversations with 3rd party support tools | Community
Skip to main content
Answered

Use of side conversations with 3rd party support tools


Hello all, we have a number of use-cases where we need to engage with 3rd parties for “shared customers” in a form of “ticket sharing”.

Current practice is to use a side-conversation and trigger an email (which is likely a conversation part) to that 3rd party, and then responses from that 3rd party link back to the side conversation.

Whilst the above sort of works, it is not the most intuitive experience as it is not obvious that there has been a response (you have to open each ticket, navigate to side conversation, see a traffic light indicating a new email).

The bigger challenge is this does not consistently work (it does with Zendesk as it was levelling feature to match what they do), but does not for SPRINKLR and Service Cloud where the responses to side conversations create a whole new disconnected conversation, resulting in additional handling and bringing together of conversations.

Has anyone done much work on how to connect 3rd party systems and “share tickets”? Is side conversations the right way to do this?

I am playing with the idea of using back-office tickets but this does not really work either as the back-office ticket is bound to the user/company on the primary customer ticket, so you end up having to add the 3rd party as a participant which means the shared customer can see all the back and forth (removing the customer and adding the 3rd party in the back-office ticket, changes the customer ticket also).

Keen to unpack if anyone else has effectively solved for “ticket sharing” via Intercom inbox.

 

Best answer by Paul B12

Hi ​@Craig Titherington Paul here from support engneering

At the moment, Intercom doesn’t offer a built-in “ticket sharing” feature similar to what Zendesk provides. Side conversations via email are the most supported workaround, and while they do work well in some cases (e.g., with Zendesk), responses from platforms like Sprinklr or Service Cloud often break threading. This can result in a new, disconnected conversation being created, as you’ve described.

You're absolutely right that this isn’t always intuitive or reliable for consistent collaboration with external systems.

Here are a few considerations:

  • Side Conversations: Best for basic email interactions. Make sure the third-party system preserves email headers (In-Reply-To and Message-ID) if these are stripped, Intercom may not link the reply correctly.

  • Back-office Tickets: These are primarily for internal collaboration. Since they inherit the same user/company context, they’re not suitable for keeping third-party communications separate.

  • Custom Integration (Advanced): Some teams use middleware (e.g., via Zapier or a custom app) to ingest external replies and tag or update the original Intercom conversation manually. This takes effort but may offer more control.

I agree this is an area that could benefit from more flexibility, and I’d be happy to flag this to our product team as a feature request.

View original
Did this topic help you find an answer to your question?

3 replies

Paul Byrne
Intercom Team
Forum|alt.badge.img+5
  • Intercom Team
  • 82 replies
  • Answer
  • May 18, 2025

Hi ​@Craig Titherington Paul here from support engneering

At the moment, Intercom doesn’t offer a built-in “ticket sharing” feature similar to what Zendesk provides. Side conversations via email are the most supported workaround, and while they do work well in some cases (e.g., with Zendesk), responses from platforms like Sprinklr or Service Cloud often break threading. This can result in a new, disconnected conversation being created, as you’ve described.

You're absolutely right that this isn’t always intuitive or reliable for consistent collaboration with external systems.

Here are a few considerations:

  • Side Conversations: Best for basic email interactions. Make sure the third-party system preserves email headers (In-Reply-To and Message-ID) if these are stripped, Intercom may not link the reply correctly.

  • Back-office Tickets: These are primarily for internal collaboration. Since they inherit the same user/company context, they’re not suitable for keeping third-party communications separate.

  • Custom Integration (Advanced): Some teams use middleware (e.g., via Zapier or a custom app) to ingest external replies and tag or update the original Intercom conversation manually. This takes effort but may offer more control.

I agree this is an area that could benefit from more flexibility, and I’d be happy to flag this to our product team as a feature request.


Forum|alt.badge.img
  • Connector
  • 5 replies
  • August 12, 2025

I’ve also faced similar challenges with connecting 3rd party systems for smoother ticket sharing. From my experience, having an integrated tool that supports real-time communication is key. Some solutions aren’t very intuitive, and like you said, you end up juggling between disconnected conversations. I recently came across this platform that, although focused on gaming, showcases how streamlined integration can drastically improve the user experience. While it’s in a different niche, the principle of reducing friction and keeping everything connected still applies. Maybe looking into tools with built-in API support and better notification handling could help bridge the gap you’re experiencing.


  • New Participant
  • 1 reply
  • August 18, 2025

We're dealing with the same problem — side conversations with 3rd-party tools often break context and cause delays. It’s frustrating juggling between disconnected replies and scattered tickets. Having an integrated solution that supports cleaner communication and better tracking is definitely the way forward.

Also, if you're into social media tracking or managing influencer content, this ig story viewer really helps for viewing Instagram stories privately and without login. Makes monitoring much smoother.


Reply