Settings and activity
644 results found
-
53 votes
Jeremy Shieh
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment -
3 votesJeremy Shieh
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesJeremy Shieh
supported this idea
·
-
8 votesJeremy Shieh
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesJeremy Shieh
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesJeremy Shieh
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesJeremy Shieh
supported this idea
·
-
6 votesJeremy Shieh
supported this idea
·
-
19 votesJeremy Shieh
supported this idea
·
-
5 votesJeremy Shieh
supported this idea
·
-
18 votesJeremy Shieh
supported this idea
·
-
22 votesJeremy Shieh
supported this idea
·
-
16 votesJeremy Shieh
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesJeremy Shieh
supported this idea
·
-
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Jeremy Shieh
commented
I have a hypothetical;
Client texts some lewd message to the business. Let's file it under some type of harassment such as a sexual advance, or threat to staff.
Staff is aware of it, alerts management, etc.
There is no way to contain this, forever it will be referred to, "omg did you see what Mother Theresa texted to us 5 years ago of what they were doing with Elon Musk and the head receptionist in Ibiza? Let me show you!"
Jeremy Shieh
supported this idea
·
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Jeremy Shieh
commented
I unfortunately agree that we suffer of weekly connection issues. The worst type would be when somehow the Duo app is no longer linked to the business and requires manage level access to get to hardware setup to relink it. Without knowing what compliance issues perhaps may be involved, it would be totes cool if the Duo app had a more permanent connection to a business, that perhaps using the iPad's UDID or something made it so that even after whatever disconnects occur or even an app data loss, that server side Blvd knew that this iPad should be connected to this business.
Jeremy Shieh
supported this idea
·
-
5 votesJeremy Shieh
supported this idea
·
-
10 votesJeremy Shieh
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesJeremy Shieh
supported this idea
·
-
10 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Jeremy Shieh
commented
This has been a slight issue perpetually and leads to accidental assumptions such as:
The client booked it as a request but it was only because they followed the menu options to select a stylist and a time, but actually do not care who they are seen with.
The client selected a time and were labeled non-request, but once they got the service provider they were happy with, settled on ONLY seeing that person and when switched due to it being a non-request are upset because they felt it was locked in.
A process of just asking the client, do you only want to be seen by this service provider would end all the ambiguity.
Jeremy Shieh
supported this idea
·
Many businesses charge by a starting at price or a range. The current setup does not cater to either and gives customers a preconceived notion that the prices are flat and set. The workarounds are adding verbiage to the description or even service name to denote that things are variable. Even when this is done it requires staff to be vigilant to amend the prices prior to checkout, if anyone is even paying attention.
For some services, time-based or supply based variables are taken into account to determine pricing which at times are only assessed at checkout. Forcing a verification from the software if the service was booked as $A-$B, or $C+; "Please enter the final cost to the customer for this service." This would provide a catch all for this.
Ultimately it would be extremely useful if service providers could report if $B or $C are an exception through their Blvd professional app before checkout so that the process seemed seamless for the customers and front desk staff.
Everyone would make more, and the business would be more professional.