Post by yamanseo95848 on Mar 16, 2024 1:37:19 GMT -5
I'll dive deeper into how each software's features compare, so you can decide which use case might best fit your needs. Zendesk has a slight edge when it comes to ticketing, but Intercom's automation makes up for it Though Zendesk now considers itself to be a "service-first CRM company," since its founding in 2007, their bread and butter offering has leaned much more heavily toward the "service" part of that equation. The highlight of Zendesk's ticketing software is its omnichannel-ality (omnichannality?). Whether agents are facing customers via chat, email, social media, or good old-fashioned phone, they can keep it all confined to a single, easy-to-navigate dashboard. That not only saves them the headache of having to constantly switch between dashboards while streamlining resolution processes—it also leads to better customer and agent experience overall.
What's really nice about this is that even within a ticket, you can switch between communication modes without changing views. So if an agent needs to switch from chat to phone to email (or vice versa) with a customer, it's all on the same ticketing page. There's even on-the-spot translation built right in, which is extremely helpful. The side AOB Directory conversations feature is also pretty clutch. Using this, agents can chat across teams within a ticket via email, Slack, or Zendesk's ticketing system. This packs all resolution information into a single ticket, so there's no extra searching or backtracking needed to bring a ticket through to resolution, even if it involves multiple agents. Zendesk also packs some pretty potent tools into their platform, so you can empower your agents to do what they do with less repetition.
Agents can use basic automation (like auto-closing tickets or setting auto-responses), apply list organization to stay on top of their tasks, or set up triggers to keep tickets moving automatically. Triggers should prove especially useful for agents, allowing them to do things like automate notifications for actions like ticket assignments, ticket closing/reopening, or new ticket creation. Their template triggers are fairly limited with only seven options, but they do enable users to create new custom triggers, which can be a game-changer for agents with more complex workflows. Intercom, on the other hand, was built for business messaging, so communication is one of their strong suits.
What's really nice about this is that even within a ticket, you can switch between communication modes without changing views. So if an agent needs to switch from chat to phone to email (or vice versa) with a customer, it's all on the same ticketing page. There's even on-the-spot translation built right in, which is extremely helpful. The side AOB Directory conversations feature is also pretty clutch. Using this, agents can chat across teams within a ticket via email, Slack, or Zendesk's ticketing system. This packs all resolution information into a single ticket, so there's no extra searching or backtracking needed to bring a ticket through to resolution, even if it involves multiple agents. Zendesk also packs some pretty potent tools into their platform, so you can empower your agents to do what they do with less repetition.
Agents can use basic automation (like auto-closing tickets or setting auto-responses), apply list organization to stay on top of their tasks, or set up triggers to keep tickets moving automatically. Triggers should prove especially useful for agents, allowing them to do things like automate notifications for actions like ticket assignments, ticket closing/reopening, or new ticket creation. Their template triggers are fairly limited with only seven options, but they do enable users to create new custom triggers, which can be a game-changer for agents with more complex workflows. Intercom, on the other hand, was built for business messaging, so communication is one of their strong suits.