Case study · E-Commerce & Retail Tech

Ecommerce Support Case Study: 24/7 Omnichannel, CSAT 94.2%

Primary outcome (Actigy BPO-reported)

Actigy BPO’s omnichannel team reported live-chat responses under 90 seconds and 94.2% customer satisfaction (CSAT). The case’s 14-hour email baseline and live-chat result measure different channels; they do not establish a same-channel response-time reduction. The client retained refund and discount approval rules. These results apply to this engagement.

Results come from anonymized client engagements, are reported by Actigy BPO and are not independently audited. Results depend on scope.

Engagement boundary: this support case should be read through its channel mix, QA sampling, and client-owned refund and discount rules, not as proof of regional superiority. Published attrition figures use different definitions, so compare them in the BPO attrition rate benchmark before you rely on one.

94.2%
CSAT
75%
Reduction in AHT
62%
AI-Human Hybrid Deflection
Based on a real engagement. The client is anonymized and some operational details are generalized to protect confidentiality; the metrics reflect the engagement as delivered.

Related services and industries

Services

Industries

More

Actigy BPO details email support outsourcing separately. The combined omnichannel results here are not email-only results.

Engagement outcomes (Actigy BPO-reported)

This engagement combined multichannel support, sampled QA, and client-held policy and refund limits. The reported response times, satisfaction, and rollout schedule describe this scope rather than a standard service promise.

Bulgaria-based support team

The support team worked from Bulgaria with the shift coverage described in this case. A new buyer should verify the assigned languages, working hours, access, and escalation rules.

Pilot first, scale on SLA proof

The pilot team ran a scoped test on live queues, tuned the AI-human routing, and scaled coverage only after CSAT and handle-time targets held.

You keep the decisions

The client kept policy, discount limits, vendor contracts, and admin access. The support team executed support within those guardrails.

Reported satisfaction and handle time

The case records 94.2% CSAT and 75% lower handle time for this client. Those case results do not establish a quality or cost ranking against other support providers.

Frequently asked questions

How did the support team lift CSAT to 94.2% while cutting handle time 75%?

The delivery lead ran an AI-human hybrid support model. Automation deflected 62% of contacts, and trained agents handled the rest to the brand's playbook with maker-checker QA. The team lifted CSAT to 94.2% and cut average handle time by 75%. (Actigy BPO-reported)

Was the customer support team offshore?

The case describes a Bulgaria-based team with 24/7 coverage for this engagement. Nearshore or offshore describes distance from a buyer, not a quality tier. The case does not validate another team's language skills, shifts, or response times.

Did the brand keep control of policy and discounts?

Yes. The team executed support strictly within the client's guardrails. The client retained authority over corporate policy, platform-wide discount limits, vendor contracts and master admin access.

How did AI and human agents share the support queue?

The routing workflow sent routine, high-volume contacts to AI deflection (62% of volume) and escalated complex cases to trained agents with maker-checker QA. The case reports 94.2% CSAT. It does not publish a comparable cost-per-resolved-contact series. (Actigy BPO-reported)

Want results like these for your operation?

Tell us the process you want to outsource. The scoping team will assess scope, complexity, staffing, and delivery cost, then propose a pilot.

Describe your workflow, volume and required coverage. You decide on a pilot after reviewing the written scope.