It's not just companies structuring their customer service to reduce redress payouts. Companies are also using customer service as a sales channel, where "customer support" reps are also marketers trying to up-sell you something. When you have a problem you want to get fixed and you've waited on hold for a long time after navigating a terrible voice-prompt system, you're a great captive audience.
I think that’s a consequence of the profit-center cost-center dichotomy. Cost centers get budget cuts, downsized and off-shored. Profit centers help grow the business. If there’s a way to be a profit center, managers are going to take that route. The consequence is that customers asking for assistance on their existing services are going to get sales pitches for more expensive services.
When there’s no market pressure in a sector, why would any company do anything but the cheapest possible customer service offerings? I recently had to deal with trying to convince my ISP to cancel a charge for a wifi router that I don’t even have, and upon them crediting me for the over billing, I received an email from UPS telling me a router had shipped (which I will have to send back). This all increases revenue for the company and it’s not like there are other people who have a fiber line to my house, so what am I to do?
The article states that reaching Tier2 is more of a hassle for black or Latino customers. What?
Thank you for that original title also. How about this one, “Why do companies succeed? Because their profitable”. Why don’t you stop letting 8’th graders write and title articles?
> There may be a hidden layer of discrimination at play here as well. Studies and surveys have shown that some segments of consumers, such as women, African Americans, and Latinos, may experience higher hassle costs when dealing with customer service.
Their source for the 'women' part of that claim only says that, given the same treatment, women get more annoyed than men [1]. Not what I would classify as 'discrimination'.
The source presents a survey asking "How annoyed were you by X", with women answering as more annoyed for the same X. How you interpret that as "hassle can't be the same in survey accounts", I have no idea.
Imagine we're both answering the second question mentioned, whether we were "annoyed at not being able to get a human being on the phone."
The previous night one of your loved ones was very sick, and though you called the hospital you were unable to get a human on the phone. Meanwhile, my food delivery came without a side dish, and I was unable to get a human on the phone to get my $3 back.
The survey is now asking both of us the same question, but do you think we're experiencing the same thing while deciding how to answer it? Or would our past experiences cause the hassle to have much different weight for both of us.
We would need to be in a controlled experiment for us to have the same hassle. A survey has us answer from our own experiences of being in similar situations.
It doesn’t really matter if you can classify it as discrimination or not. It’s perfectly reasonable and legal (in most states) to discriminate in particular instances where there is a real cost difference between servicing x and y group. It’s why men pay more for car insurance. Men cost more to insure. Is that discrimination? Yes. What’s the alternative? Having women subsidise men’s car insurance. Well that’s discrimination too.
You’re not really answering the question. I understand the legislation, but it’s still discrimination. To charge men more for car insurance is to discriminate against them. To charge men and women the same is discrimination against women, by charging them proportionally more than men in regards to the risks they present.
The underlying premise is that men cost more to ensure than women (you could debate that, but it’s a pretty solid premise). In any scenario like this, you must discriminate in order to do business, regardless of how you reorganize all the parameters.
Well, no, that’s not how it works. For example the argument that serving disabled customers costs more because you have to put a ramp in won’t fly in any courtroom. Some customers cost more and as a business you deal with it for the same price, end of story.
Everybody already knows that they’re paying for facilities for disabled people. There’s a specific piece of legislation in the US to deal with that, and very few people have much of a problem with such discrimination against able bodied people.
But you’re still ignoring my point. I’m not making a case for any particular way of dealing with this. It’s simply a fact that no matter what you do in this situation, you must discriminate. The only factors that can be controlled are who you discriminate against, and how you do it.
I’m not ignoring it, I’m pointing out that it isn’t really a thing. Discrimination is defined in any practical sense as differentiation on price due to a protected characteristic. If that isn’t happening then there is no discrimination.
Sometimes this acts in favour of one group and sometimes not so much but you don’t get to pick and choose. On any protected characteristic, or there is no point in even having the legislation. Those complaining that their early pension privileges are being taken away is a great example. Imagine if it was the other way round. It’s not discrimination to have an unfair privilege situation corrected.
Then perhaps you simply don’t comprehend the point?
> Discrimination is defined in any practical sense as differentiation on price due to a protected characteristic
Ok great. Let’s go with this. We only care about discrimination against protected classes. So you’re selling car insurance. This is a risk transfer service, your job is to quantify the risk a customer poses, and charge them a premium for transferring the risk to you. You figure out that being a man is a risk factor. You can choose to measure it or not, it’s still going to be a risk factor no matter what. Now you’ve got two choices:
1. Charge men a higher premium to cover the additional risk. You’re now discriminating against men (a protected class).
2. You could calculate all the risk factors for a customer, and then charge them extra if they’re a women (or give them a discount if they’re a man, or deny service to men, or simply not measure risks associated with gender, it’s all the same thing). Now men and women are paying the same premiums, all other factors being the same. But as women pose less risk, the cost for them to transfer that risk is higher. Now you’re discriminating against women (another protected class).
It doesn’t matter how you frame it, or what parameters you tweak. The fact that these two protected classes cost cost a quantifiably different amount to provide the service to, you have to discriminate against one of them. The only thing that can possibly be controlled is who you discriminate against, and how you do it.
Then perhaps you simply don’t comprehend the point?
Oh, I do understand what you’re saying, but it has no basis either in law nor what the average person would consider to be discriminatory behaviour. I mean, would you refuse to employ a woman because her maternity leave might cost more? Do you feel that men are discriminated against here?
Nor, by the way, does the cost of providing a product or service correspond directly with the price you charge the customer. This is true in every industry. You can imagine a world where by law everything costs the cost of labour + materials + a fixed profit margin, and that would be “fair” by your logic but it doesn’t exist!
The reason I chose car insurance as an example is because it has such a strong basis in law. There are so many jurisdictions that do it differently, that it would be impossible to make a judgement which way is truly discriminatory.
> Nor, by the way, does the cost of providing a product or service correspond directly with the price you charge the customer.
Of course it doesn’t. But it the cost of providing the service corresponds differently to the price charged for women than it does the price charged for men, then you have discrimination. They are simply getting less product or service, for the same price, on the basis of gender. Either you actually don’t understand this very simple point, or you’re intentionally trying to contrive things as much as possible to avoid the reality of the situation. Which no matter how much you attempt to reframe, remains the same.
They are simply getting less product or service, for the same price, on the basis of gender.
No, it’s the same product for the same price. Unless you are asserting that women get less insurance cover now? In that case, citation very much needed.
Once again: discrimination is charging customers differently on the basis of a protected characteristic. If men and women pay the same price for the same product then by definition discrimination is not occurring. It may or may not cost the vendor more but that’s irrelevant, we have established (and you have agreed) that the cost of production is not tied to the cost to the customer.
> But as women pose less risk, the cost for them to transfer that risk is higher. Now you’re discriminating against women
There are two main lines of thoughts in regard to this. The first is that no, that is not discriminating against women since the actor (in this case, the insurance company) is not taking gender into account when calculating the premium.
The other line of thought is equality under the law is impossible to achieve because people are not initially equal to begin with. The common quote people use to describe this is "The Law's 'Majestic Equality'" from Anatole France: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.".
Since discrimination law is a law following common law theory and philosophy, it generally ignores the objection that the second line of thought brings up.
Really? My company pays a lot of money for some support contracts. We get a lot of attention, E-mails and meetings from sales people and evangelists but not too much in terms of actual solutions for problems. Basically a lot of hot air.
This indicates that the people using the product are not the same people who are deciding whether to purchase said product. In that case, there are no incentives to give solutions to problems, because it doesn’t affect sales.
"the people using the product are not the same people who are deciding whether to purchase said product" - of course, that's pretty much the definition of enterprise product sales.
"That case" is not a rare exception but the default situation.
Are they getting that worth? If it costs 500k to service that account then it makes sense to continue that level of support. If it costs 2 million, support quality will drop quickly.
When I was on the customer side for two products that each had seven figure "maintenance" contracts, when reporting product bugs causing damage, the customer service was bad and useless anyway.
Well that either means that the customers had far to much money to waste and didn't spend it wisely, or the product had a monopoly. Otherwise you would just switch to a different provider.
We did switch eventually partly due to these reasons, but the switching took three years for 50+ people in integration labor; it's not a trivial choice to make.
Anyways, the point is that paying lots of money does NOT mean that you'll be getting good service. There's plenty of examples in the enterprise space, they're not just isolated cases.
I get the feeling the researchers never worked in a call center and don't understand the realities involved in running one.
The reason why you have a first level, and then levels after that, is so Level 1 can be focused on speed for simple issues, or routing for non-simple issues. Level 1 call work is not something the more expensive agents who can solve complex work should be doing.
Another alternative is doing what Sprint did over ten years ago and firing their worst customers (https://www.cnet.com/news/sprint-breaks-up-with-high-mainten...). It'd probably be better if more companies could do that, though there are companies where it is not possible (e.g. ISPs).
That's so horrible. There should be laws to prevent companies from refusing to do business with "high maintenance" customers without proper documentation and regulation. What recourse does the customer have to contest their decision? What if sprint tells other carriers about this customer?
Just like with employees, if you get to fire a customer then how you aquire customers and how you refuse to do business with customers should be subject to regulation. I would even say this should be public record so other customers can see exactly why they blacklist customers.
FYI: I have worked in a call center type environment for a company well reputed for having bad customer service. I have faced horrible customers day in and day out until one reallybad customer pushed me off the edge and I quit. I still stand by my position that consumer rights and fair treatment of the public by businesses is much more important than a company's right to refuse to do business with anyone.
Just yesterday one of my tier 1 chat agents received a death threat from a long time problem customer. I don’t tolerate threats from customers on my team, so we immediately terminated their service and contacted law enforcement.
Do you think that this review is free for the business or the citizens whose tax money is paying for this? Don't you think most cases will be a little more subjective. If the asshole in question hasn't made death threats yet do you have to wait until he assaults someone to stop serving him?
Again,you misunderstand what I said. Yes,tax payers foot the bill for the government body and just like a company can draft a policy telling employees what criteria to use when refusing business to a customer,the regulatory body can do the same.
Example: raising voice,using specific phrases,making personal comments about the support staff that's helping them,threatening they'll get them fired,refusing to follow official troubleshooting guides,etc...
For example,you can't do the reverse which is firing an employee for being an asshole to a customer when they were being polite and doing their job. If that is your readon and that reason is based on untrue facts then you are liable for a wrongful termination suit.
>There should be laws to prevent companies from refusing to do business with "high maintenance" customers without proper documentation and regulation.
Would requiring documentation significantly change what happened here? Suppose that in addition to the letter about termination of service, the Sprint customers also got a spreadsheet showing the times that they called customer service and how long those calls took. Would that help customers? I am somewhat skeptical of the value of this regulatory scheme.
Documentation serves two purposes: for the public to review them so that they know how they and their fellow citiznes might be treated. And also, for any regulatory body to review their practices.
So yes,if their reasons are purely based on customers complaining or seeking support for a service then they would ideally be fined or their business license revoked.
From what principal do you derive the right to buy cell phone service despite being a pain in the ass?
Asshole is not a protected class.
As someone who has worked in customer service let me tell you that people already make ridiculous demands.
People start with their nonsensical demands, proceed to threatening to explicitly or implicitly cease future business, move on to threatening to get the employee in trouble, move on to speaking to a manager, to threatening to go to the company about the manager that told them no.
You want to add another layer after the company also tells them to pound sand where they can go to a government bureaucrat and make the company litigate the case for why they don't want to do business or what face a fine?
There is already maximal incentive to make any reasonable accommodations possible because any amount of hassle that costs less than losing the customers business is already a net gain.
If the cost of responding to for example a lawsuit because you declined to do business with someone is thousands of dollars then the equation changes substantially and not for the better.
This only makes sense from a social standpoint if the service you are denied is something one can't do without and then THAT becomes the issue rather than requiring every trivially replaceable company enumerate why they didn't do business with every asshole.
> You want to add another layer after the company also tells them to pound sand where they can go to a government bureaucrat and make the company litigate the case for why they don't want to do business or what face a fine?
Sort of,if you ban a customer then you will be forced to provide documentation. The regulation I spoke of will clearly establish when a company crosses the line. This actually saves the company lawsuits because the consumer will not have merit for a suit if the regulatory body cleared the company. If it didn't clear the company then the customer's service will simply be restored and the company will be fined a standard well established fine.
I don't know why you and others are misunderstanding my position. I am not advocating for companies to put up with abusive customers. I am simply stating a company that provides services or goods to the general public should not be allowed to refuse to do business with specific individuals without documenting their defensible reason where a customer being clearly rude,abusive,threatening or acting in bad faith would be a good and allowed reason.
By what right does a company that relies on a business license from a govetnment of the people gets to unfairly treat the public? The peoplr decide what allowed reasons to refuse business are,not companies.
A BBB complaint is nieither sufficient nor effective.
Oh and...
> From what principal do you derive the right to buy cell phone service despite being a pain in the ass?
The same principal that allows revocation and issuance of a business license. I don't think a "pain in the ass" customer should be tolerated,but rather government bodies overseen by publicly elected officials get to set a standard of what a "pain in the ass" customer constitutes not the company. You can see how a legitimate complaint can be construed as "pain in the ass" because fixing the problem or assisting the customer was a cost too high for the company.
How does a company "cross the line" insofar as opting not to do business with someone? If they wronged you then THAT case is either worth persuing on its own merits or its not. If the company didn't by any means legally wrong you why can't they for no reason at all decide not to do business with you?
Every company has finite resources and must, in order to survive, decide where to allocate them. I'd rather spend my finite resources serving Bob is a valid answer to why did you opt not to serve Sam. I didn't like Sam's face is ALSO a valid answer.
If you never had a right to do business with a particular store how is it possible to describe the situation as unfair treatment? How does fair even enter into it?
Regulation is legal if no legal theories exist under which it would fall if challenged. Regulation is reasonable if on net its effect on the world is positive, reasonable to implement, and worth the cost of implementing.
You haven't asked or considered if your suggestion was legal. It's probably a violation of the business owners freedom of association. I am completely baffled that you imagine that requiring them to substitute a bureaucrats policy for their own judgment insofar as whom to do business with doesn't violate their rights. We have as a society agreed that forcing people to treat protected classes fairly is more important than the business owners freedom of association but it doesn't mean that right is nonexistent just that its less important than the rights of disabled people or minorities. It's hard to imagine how you believe that you believe that this same argument applies to assholes wanting to do business with people whom they have offended. If you have pissed off Verizon get yourself over to Sprint and this time don't scream at people over the phone.
You haven't even bothered to explain why you feel its reasonable to force people under penalty of law to do business with you. Your sole answer seems to be that because the government issues business licenses it could opt to revoke same. By this logic the fact that the government issues drivers licenses is sufficient justification for regulating what color you paint your car. This reasoning is entirely circular. Try again. Explain how the universe is a better place where people can make worse assholes of themselves than they already do and keep abusing the help whom can't ban the customer without risking fines. Please explain the injustices that will be avoided specifically by this expensive bureaucracy.
I explained in a different reply to you as well so I won't give a detailed response here.
> You haven't asked or considered if your suggestion was legal. It's probably a violation of the business owners freedom of association.
> You haven't even bothered to explain why you feel its reasonable to force people under penalty of law to do business with you.
Being able to provide services to the public is not your right. Much like being able to hire anyone you choose isn't your right. These are pivileges allowed to a business by the public. Private,peaceful and non-profit association is your right but the moment you open doors to the public your rights of where you can open a business,how you can advertise,the quality and conditions of the place of business,who you hire and don't hire,who you fire and many other things are subject to the public's approval and standards (by proxy of govermental orgs). You can refuse to do business in that city,state or country but if you choose to offer services to the public you have to play by the public's rules.
This is a natural extenstion under the same authority the public has over public businesses, the public shouldn't force you to do business with someone but the public should also be able to review why you refuse to do business with someone and why after accepting business you then refused that business to a member of the public. This review is for the public tk review how you treat their fellow citizens and decide if you should continue to be allowed to offer services to them. In other words,it's a means by which the public kicks you out of public-access much like you kick out customers.
A private business that does not offer or advertise services to the public and does not profit from the public should not be subject to this regulation.
There is no stipulation in the constitution that only non profit association is protected. This is something you literally just invented on the spot.
You have to comply with lots of regulations that we have decided on balance are in the public interest. The pre existing body of rules cannot by themselves serve as justification for the imposition of additional rules. The proper justification is the comparison of 2 hypothetical worlds.
Example: I believe that businesses should have to have fire doors clear of locks or obstruction because prior misadventures have shown that fire spreads fast and people may not be able to leave via a main exit. Places that have more free fire doors have shown that more people survive fires. It's worth the additional steps during inspections which we already do by employees we already have to ensure this is correct. It's also worth the small additional expense during construction.
Who are these people that are simultaneously being refused service and don't deserve such. I have NEVER been refused service at any business in my life. I have only very rarely seen people refused service outright and they were all extremely odious extremely hostile people. At risk of being discourteous is it you and under what circumstances?
> There is no stipulation in the constitution that only non profit association is protected. This is something you literally just invented on the spot.
That would be relevant if association was what was being regulated. Your ability to engage in commerce is what is being regulated and the US constitution makes it very clear congress and state governments have the right to regulate commerce. You are still free to associate or not associate with whom you please but if you associate with or refuse to associate with someone for purposes of commerce the government can restrict your ability to engage in commerce. This is similar to free speech,you can say or not say what you want but for example the government can force speech out of you by way of product labels and disclaimers in advertisements and restrictions on false claims. You can still say or not say those things regardless of the government but that does not mean the government can't use your speech or lack of speech as a criteria for engaging in public commerce.
> Who are these people that are simultaneously being refused service and don't deserve such. I have NEVER been refused service at any business in my life. I have only very rarely seen people refused service outright and they were all extremely odious extremely hostile people. At risk of being discourteous is it you and under what circumstances?
Let's not get distracted here,the discussion and my initial response here is specific to Sprint's refusal to do business with some customers. I don't know what criteria they used and since they provide public services I feel like their process should be regulated so that I can have some assurance they're not being allowed to do business while mistreating customers for profit.
Your lack of experience being in that position is irrelevant. Every complex system with power dynamics between multiple subsystems needs checks and balances.
To answer your question, I can't say I have been banned from any business,I have been mistreated and I have had to walk out of establishments. I have had bad customer service and fraudulent and scammy business practices have affected me in the past. I have also worked on the customer support end of this and have witnesssed first hand how looking down on and mistreating customers is rampant. There are far more mistreated customers than there are mistreated customer service reps. A lot of times people vent their anger or speak against the company and the support staff take it personally and become severly jaded against customers. That being said,there are a lot of terrible customers and banning many if them makes sense. If banning customers becomes acceptable I fear it will only be abused by bad employees or bad management at arbitrary companies. You can ban random customers and refuse transparency and regulation and the government can refuse to let you engange in public commerce.
I agree. Don't know why youre getting downvoted. If ShitCo can get away with poor customer service because of regulation or licensing protecting them from competition, then ShitCo shouldn't get to decide the line for "pain in the ass".
It's probably because many current and potential enterpreneurs are on HN. Regulation is unpleasant and costly for any startup. But just because it is unpleasant does not mean it is not needed. In a utopia,regulations simply allow you to be transparent with the things you would be doing anyways.
I am sure we all appreciate health code regulations on restaurants for example. I am sure it is costly and unpleasant to restauranteurs but it is a neccesity to safeguard the interests of the public.
How much of this supposed "ridiculous" behavior is a result of the fact that these companies have the inconvenient habit of selling things to their customers that they don't provide.
Ultimately, that's what it comes down to. Cable internet companies, for example, will advertise these amazing connection speeds and charge people hundreds of dollars a month for it, and then simply not provide it, for example, by having internet service that only works half the time. Or airlines that will advertise specific schedules at specific prices and then simply not provide them---for example, flights during the normal hours at much more expensive prices than red-eye flights, so you pay hundreds of extra dollars for the normal flight, and then, someone loses a fucking wrench or something and you end up on a red-eye anyway.
So much of modern corporate behavior is functionally indistinguishable from buying a lottery ticket, where maybe if you pay a huge amount of money you'll get something distantly resembling the thing you paid for. OF COURSE people scream at customer service reps!
A lot of these customers are so abusive that they should be facing civil or even criminal action.
These are not customers who annoyingly ask for a discount or need a little hand-holding to get through some forms. These are customers who scream abuse, make threats of various kinds, insult people, and are generally just horrible.
Why do you think you deserve your day in court at someone else's business? If you invite someone to your house for a party if they happen to get drunk do you think you need to ought to be required to consult a tribunal of your friends so people can decide if you had a right to kick them out?
Because unless a party at someones house,a business provides goods and services to the public and is subject to the public's approval to operate.
Forexample, a restaurant needs to meet public health standards but a private party's kitchen doesn't. You can discriminate based on age and race who enters yout private party but you can't refuse business based on that criteria if you offer services to the public.
If you think that's crazy then you'd be stoked to hear I think moderation in for profit sites that ban user generated content (twitter,reddit,news comments,youtube,facebook,etc...) Should also be subject to similar requirements.
Your ability to profit from doing business with the public is a privilege not a right. Your ability to peacefully assemble in private with no economic profit or with profit between prople you have an exisiting well established relationship with (without a public place of business or advertisent) is private activity and should not be subject to public approval.
Yes, and since these customers are hurting business (by causing higher turnover, more stress on employees, etc) they should also sue those customers and push for the police to lay criminal charges if possible.
I was attempting to purchase a phone and take advantage of a promo offer. The saleswoman categorically would not sell me a phone without the insurance package. I asked for a supervisor and was transferred to a line that wasn't going to be answered until the next day.
I did work in one for a bit, for an ISP. There was no expensive level 2 support that interacted with customers, for starters, level 1 was the buffer between customers and level 2, either helping them fix their problem directly, or writing technical tickets, upon which level 2 acts however it pleases. The call center was outsourced and paid to care about what the ISP cared about, and the ISP cared about upselling customers, and those not cancelling their contracts.
One day a woman called who had a flakey phone and internet connection for months. She was on the edge of crying, and told me she felt like nobody really took her problem seriously because she is a woman. I knew it was because she was a customer, but oh well. I went through everything with her, and wrote a ticket, in it I just mentioned that she had checked her equipment. Then I did what was absolutely verboten, I wrote down her customer #, and looked at the status of the ticket a week later. Just as I had expected, just as I had seen countless of times, and just like what had happened to her tickets from previous calls as well: they had just remotely measured the connection once, saw it was okay at that moment in time, and closed the ticket.
So I called her back, also rather verboten, and asked if the problem still existed. Of course it did. This time we didn't talk long, but took my time writing a really detailed ticket, explaining she had already and gotten a new phone and paid for an IT dude to come over and check her modem, cables, everything. I also mentioned that she was a widow and had to take care of her heavily disabled son who was prone to seizures. All of that she had told me the first time, where I had checked the checkbox for such emergencies because of that, just like had already wrote in the forst ticket that she had "thoroughly checked her equipment". I just put the same much more verbosely, contrary to everything we were incentivized to do, gladly ruining my already bad KPI further.
I looked again a week later, saw that the ticket had actually resulted in a visit by a technician, and just because I wanted the fuzzy feels for myself, I called her a last time. She said the technician had been very friendly and had really taken his time, and that since then the connection was rock solid. Yes, that whole thing took longer than the intended average call, but it also was less time than all the previous calls and tickets combined. It also just took a few weeks to solve something for good that had been an issue for nearly half a year. And no, there was nobody to escalate to, it was fully within the scope of the agents, and team leaders would only call customers back if they could tell them something we couldn't, which didn't apply here.
Yes, at some point the repeated tickets could have triggered someone at level 2 to take another look, or even call the customer and other such fancy things, but that was as rare as what I did. I wouldn't have gotten much solid work done without a dose of insubordination and applying common sense and empathy. Instead of going home happier than I arrived each day, I would have gotten ulcers. But I only could do it that way because I knew I knew it was just a temporary job. Many people can't afford that, keep their head down, and it's ultimately the customers who end up holding the bag. In this case, it could have been her holding her son having seizures, while she is unable to call emergency services.
As for annoying customers, ironically, being firm but fair to people who were all sorts of terrible or stupid was the other main source of pride I had in that job. I never was petty to them, I never jumped at excuses to cancel the call, like them calling me a name or something, I knew they meant the company. Many ended up realizing that I wasn't trying to get rid of them, I just wasn't taking their shit, and became much more cooperative.
Few people wait 30-60 minutes to annoy a customer service rep for 5 minutes, then get hung up on. I'...
I run into this conceptual framework all the time.
The problem begins when upper management views support, especially telephone support, as purely a cost center that never has downstream revenue effect anyway ("buyers don't choose based on support").
It's somewhat better if it's a paid support situation, such as annual contracts for support and maintenance. Otherwise, many entities design their support organization as a means of disposing of customer interactions as quickly as possible. This parent comment is one example.
I once worked in a support organization which was managed by a non-technical person. His focus was pure metrics, especially how quickly a case could be closed whether or not there was a resolution in the eyes of the customer.
As the most experienced engineer in Support and the only one to carry an Advanced Support Engineer title (most of my peers came in straight from university; I already had several years of programming/analysis experience), I tended to be given the worst hairballs of problems to reproduce, diagnose, document, and develop workarounds for if possible.
During a one-on-one with this manager one day, I was told that I should improve my metrics by viewing any given problem as if it was a monkey on my back. My duty was supposed to be to get said monkey off my back as quickly as possible, whether my actions actually worked toward a true resolution or not.
So, in his perfect world, there would be a frenetic exchange of monkeys upon backs, with any actual resolutions being purely coincidental.
My solution was to isolate and remove every monkey at its earliest opportunity. And give it a nice snack. I continued in that mode until I left the organization.
DISCLAIMER: No actual monkeys were harmed in the production of this account.
Actually there were actual monkeys involved in this story - the manager, and presumably his higher-ups as this kind of mindset usually doesn't come alone.
> My duty was supposed to be to get said monkey off my back as quickly as possible, whether my actions actually worked toward a true resolution or not.
A coach once gave me similar advice... I replied that if people baked the bread he eats like he told me to do my job, he'd be dead within months. He ran to the team leader, with whom I had a 30 minute chat where I vented about how I hated everything about the job except the customers, to which my team leader responded with what he appreciated about my work. The coach never got over that. Still make me smile.
On the one hand, when it's your thingamajig, you want it fixed and fast. Nonetheless, the sheer sense of entitlement some people think they have as a customer in the US really grates me, even when it's like for something as meager as a $6 burger. I actually like the "firing the worst customers" although I could see how that can easily be abused.
Redress payouts aren't everything. I'm currently in the process of changing my primary email and moving all my accounts over to new addresses. Probably 90% were easy to change online myself, but there's a tail of businesses that are trying to tell me it's impossible to either change my email or delete my account, forcing me to escalate to departments that really shouldn't be having their time wasted with either problem.
It could be that developing proper processes, training and tools to handle it costs far more than the rare few times they need to pass it up to someone to manually change it in a DB.
Yes, I get that, but these are large corporations where there doesn't even exist any way to "pass it up" to someone in IT from the standard CSR channels. e.g. one of them had $15B in revenue last year and an actual privacy office, which I guess will be my next step to contact.
This seems very much like a 'water is wet' type of study. And to clarify, it's not really a study - the authors just interviewed some call center managers and came to the (pretty obvious conclusion to anyone who has ever called customer service) that companies put up barriers to getting refunds.
I agree with other commenters, though, for me the issue is not often about getting a refund, but more often about getting the information I need to solve my problem.
Well, of course, this all makes perfect sense. If a company pushes out a bad product or service or other generally subpar what have you, the first line of defense is to make it as difficult as possible for customers to have any good resolution to their complaints.
consider a total budget for customer service, why not hire 2 or more customer service subcontractors on the following contract: customer questions are randomly assigned, and money flows proportionally toward the company with the better customer satisfaction scores?
any question a subcontractor has not enough information for will be between the customer service contractor and the original company, and they don't need to be afraid of insisting the original company resolve a real fundamental issue with the product as the other subcontractor faces the same issues, which has the side effect of the subcontractors summarizing a large number of complaints for the original companies product engineers etc
consider how for a long time many manufacturers didn't want to spend the time and effort to fix some linux driver, not because they couldn't but because they didn't want to plough through 10k complaints or requests, of unknown similarity or difference, and having the original high wage engineers plough through them is uneconomical, so have the subcontractor summarize the issue concisely yet precisely
What subcontractor would accept this arrangement? I sure wouldn’t. It’s like an evil genie situation. You’re never going to define customer satisfaction metrics in a way that won’t end up being gamefied to circumvent the spirit of what you’re supposed to do to help customers in order to maximize some metrics.
This issues can also be related to the company itself. What if there’s an undisclosed bug in your randomization process based on IP or time zone or something that tilts the satisfaction metrics via an almost impossible to detect skew in the customer distribution routed to subcontractor A instead of B? What if you the company introduce a policy or product change that makes customers unhappy even if the subcontractor is doing exactly what you asked them to do? Or what if subcontractors realize the only way to make people happy is to do something really expensive or unapproved by you?
> .. skew in the customer distribution routed to subcontractor A instead of B?
provably rolling a random dice is a solved problem, superstition that fluctuations in a cryptographically verifiable random coin flip would correlate with "pathologically dissatisfied customers" is just that: superstition.
> What if you the company introduce a policy or product change that makes customers unhappy even if the subcontractor is doing exactly what you asked them to do?
That would make the customers assigned to the other subcontractors equally unhappy, so the customer satisfaction feedback drop will be the same for the other competing subcontractor, and so the budget division will be unaffected, but still tilted proportional to the gross difference in performance between subcontractor A and B
> Or what if subcontractors realize the only way to make people happy is to do something really expensive or unapproved by you?
What do you mean? reverse engineer a driver and rewrite a better one?
> provably rolling a random dice is a solved problem
You clearly have no experience with setting up randomized trials in reality. It’s very hard. You think you’re flipping a coin, and totally forget that there are all kinds of things that can creep in to introduce confounding factors that correlate with assignment to one group or the other. Time of day, time of week, operating hours, handling customers waiting in a queue too long by rerouting them, random outage in subcontractor A’s cloud service account, geopolitical event causes problems with payment processing to subcontractor B for a certain time period.
How will you isolate the effect on customer satisfaction of each subcontractor, controlling for all effects that could drive the observed satisfaction metric for a given subcontractor that are not in that subcontractor’s control? How will you make certain you’ve done this, as opposed to just making the deeply invalid assumption that some seemingly random assignment mechanism has automatically taken care of it? How will you actually verify the populations of customers sent to each subcontractor are actually probabilistically equivalent across every potential confounding factor?
Acting like it’s just going to be a simple coin flip is a woeful lack of imagination.
Huh? The entire A/B test you are proposing is a randomized trial. You are proposing a random assignment mechanism (what you seem to misunderstand as “provably” random assignment) but you’re not explaining how you will verify your assignment mechanism didn’t result in a lack of probabilistic equivalence (and thus invalidate a simple comparison between the two groups).
The key part you’re missing is that it doesn’t matter if you believe you are choosing uniformly between each subcontractor. You might have a perfect random number generator, doesn’t matter. The ability to pick “50/50” between them has pretty much nothing to do with the causes for confounding factors to invalidate the comparison.
You might happily go on calling your perfect random number generator and checking if it’s less than 0.5 as your decision rule, and yet still be biasing the population directed to one subcontractor vs the other, due to factors you’re not accounting for.
Unlike organizing a randomized trial -where each extra datapoint to gather would cost money and one tries to get the most unbiased result for the low total number of datapoints- in this economical setting of an endless and continuously growing number of processed customers one is not interested in how fast the relative error decreases, but that it converges on a fair value.
This is just the law of large numbers: the expectation value of the correlation of pesky clients with the output from a provably fair coin is by definition zero. So yes if 1 out of 10 customers is a pesky (say unhelpable by attitude) customer, and we look at the first ~10 customers, then yes, probably it will result in the unfair assignment where one of the subcontractors got a pesky customer and the other didnt. But this is not a randomized trial with a finite low number of customer tickets.
Treat the problem like a poisson process: after a short amount of time the accuracy on gamma is low, but after the millionth ticket the accuracy on gamma is high, and we are effectively discussing fractions of a cent.
I assume you know how to throw a provably random dice: for example both subcontractors generate a secret randon number, hash it, publish the hash, then reveal the nonce, sum the nonces: even -> A, odd -> B
This is not a medical experiment with a limited budget to study most efficiently with the low number of costly datapoints, this is not about the design of experiments.
You seem to believe a lock-in amplifier could never work? That you can't raise a signal from below the noise floor? or is it really just the transient fluctuation that average each other out by the law of large numbers?
Giving customers steep discounts, free upgrades, etc. You would have to track all the different ways they could give a break to your customers and somehow work that into the metrics without causing them to game them.
1) Even if a subcontractor, bribes the customer, why would the original company care? why would the customer care if he happily takes the money? Why would the opposing subcontractor care? the bribing subcontractor is basically betting the other company is not as performant as the bribe per customer satisfaction.
2) why on earth do you think the subcontractors would want to bribe the customers? they will just file a new complain to milk another refund, who may end up returning to you, so the first bribe was for naught, or may end up with the other subcontractor, you are basically paying a markov chain to stochastically push the customer to the other subcontractor, which will have a certain value, unless the other is simply better able to serve that customer, and then the other subcontractor will get more from the original company AND you lost the bribe to the customer...
I hear anecdotally about these "levels" and it's an obvious strategy, but in my experience, I usually get paid back without escalation (that's not to say they aren't escalating the matter discretely on their side w/o passing me up a level).
The only obvious way they might be masking it is if I have to call back another day but that doesn't seem like I get through to anyone differently than if I'd just called up (thus I suspect it would be level 1)
I've found that email support varies wildly, and you don't get the quality you might expect.
I've asked simple questions of a financial institution that I trust with most of my savings, and gotten responses that totally ignored everything I wrote except for a keyword or two, as if they were an Eliza-style AI.
On the other hand, I emailed a question to my health insurer, and I got a completely sensible, intelligent, and helpful response.
Even in person, I frequently ask a simple question and people act like I've got two heads. Sometimes the businesses they work for are objectively honest and competent, but somehow they can't answer a really basic question. Like the other day, I was replacing some fire extinguishers and I realized I had just signed off on new ones without understanding the UL rating. Granted, it wasn't that hard to find an explanation online after a few minutes, but someone who works for a business that sells them to everybody in the area should be able and willing to explain.
I don't think this can all be economically rational optimization.
A lender miscalculated my monthly loan payment, so I wrote up a nice email to them, attached an amortization spreadsheet, linked to a public google sheets in case they can’t download attachments, and attached a pdf showing them the calculations.
It took 6 weeks and over 10 emails for them to fix it to the correct amortization. This is literally this company’s entire purpose, to calculate payment amounts, and they couldn’t take 20 seconds to use the PMT() function in a spreadsheet to see they had made a mistake.
I forwarded the account of my experience to as many bosses at the company I could find and never heard back.
Well, I understand it's a binary thing, that most people can't analyze anything they haven't seen before, and that most companies don't employ customer service reps who can, because they have better opportunities. That's why it was shocking to me that the health insurance company did have such people and a financial company didn't. I just gave up with the latter, no "10 emails fixed it".
I’ve tried to reproduce monthly payment amounts and found it’s incredibly difficult to match the bank’s calculation.
They could be compounding interest at a different rate. They could calculating the daily rate one of 3 different ways. I believe there can also be differences based on the grace period for making payments.
PMT() doesn’t account for any of this - it’s just simple interest.
It’s worse for commercial real estate loans than residential. In my case I gave up trying to reproduce their calculations.
My point is less about your specific situation, and more that — in general — it’s possible someone doesn’t even realize they’re one of those “trouble” customers costing the company money and justifying the building of a support moat.
I feel like in the past few years customer service has gotten much better for most companies. I have had reasonably concise and helpful calls with my bank, telecom provider, utilities, phone company, and one product company within the past year and they all went pretty well despite negative reputations for a few.
Online chat windows seem to be the most effective for me.
The online chat windows work pretty well for me, the written record usually means at least I don't need to repeat myself to every new person, and often the chat windows are tied to my account so I don't need to identify myself. And, it's much easier for me to multitask while waiting for a response, but we can have a quick back and forth when it gets to that part of the call.
However, what has really helped the most is lowering my expectations. If the other person seems to understand what I'm asking, I'm satisfied, if not happy when they say it can't be done.
Perhaps poor customer service should be considered an indicator that an antitrust breakup is needed. This isn't that far from European Union antitrust guidelines.[1]
See Article 102, which has "limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers"
This ties in with the EU warranty obligation.[3] A key point in EU law is that "competition" is encouraged for the benefit of the consumer. US antitrust law is based on protecting smaller sellers from big ones.
Something to look at if Elizabeth Warren becomes president.
> Perhaps poor customer service should be considered an indicator that an antitrust breakup is needed.
No, it's an indicator that the government has successfully created enough barrier entries that market doesn't work well. Less regulation that "protects" customers and less government intrusion is the solution.
It's incredible to me that someone would mention the EU as an example of how to do things. It's the worst place for customers and the amount of tax governments steal on the account of protecting consumers surely dramatically outweighs aggregate benefits of such large scale fraud schemes such as those in the EU.
In the EU VAT is commonly 15-20%. Buy the same product or service anywhere else and you save 10-15%. Who in the world charges 10-15% for customer service? No one but the lazy and bloated European governments.
Exactly. I struggle to see in what we succeed here which is higher tech than making really good croissants and coffee. Even when we are, it usually happens in Eastern European states like Estonia who are definitely not drivers of economic policy.
German companies are huge in industrial automation and manufacturing tech. It's not just Siemens, there are lots and lots of companies you have never heard of that are having a significant share of their market niche (or are outright market leaders), precisely because of their innovative products.
Where Europe has fallen far behind is advertising/tracking "innovation".
Building technology (not tech-tech, just plain old building materials) is a lot more advanced and environmentally friendly in Europe too.
Matt Risinger on YouTube has a video series from earlier this year where he was sponsored to visit Europe to see how things are done differently to his native Texas. He was amazed by the European tilt-and-turn windows which have been pretty much standard in colder climates (excluding the UK for some reason) for the past 10-15 years. They can open inwards or be securely locked open in a ventilation position, seal airtight with multiple seals and locking points when closed, and are triple glazed.
You are just brainwashed by fox news or are just ignorant.
A few example:
aerospace, first Fly By Wire airliner, and still leading the technology while other planemaker got their aircraft grounded. ATR is market leader for turboprop airliners. Or automotive industry, if you work in there, you will realise that you cannot build a car without an european component because of the strength of the german suppliers.
There is a whole breadth of industry where europeans silently innovate and lead their market.
> A key point in EU law is that "competition" is encouraged for the benefit of the consumer. US antitrust law is based on protecting smaller sellers from big ones.
This is exactly backwards from most legal understanding. In US antitrust law you have to prove consumer harm, in Europe it is sufficient to prove harm to other businesses. [1]
"In order to protect competition, Germany and, at least for the time being, the case law of the European Court of Justice seek to prevent an interference with the freedom to compete; the USA tend to pursue a more consumer welfare-oriented approach. The difference is of importance in a philosophical sense, less so in the day-to-day application of competition law. It can become relevant in marginal cases. Over here <Europe>, e.g., it suffices for predatory pricing that a dominant undertaking tries to eliminate a competitor with prices below cost. The competitor is protected with regard to his freedom to compete. In the USA, this does not suffice. The market has to be structured in a way that the dominant firm can recoup its losses and make the intended profit. If this is impossible, for instance because there will be immediate entry by newcomers as soon as prices are raised, the U.S. Supreme Court does not recognize the facts to support a predatory pricing claim."
> Perhaps poor customer service should be considered an indicator that an antitrust breakup is needed
It'd be a fairly unreliable indicator in and of itself though wouldn't it? Just think of all the businesses that position themselves as 'value' providers by cutting out all the 'wasteful' customer service - budget airlines are notorious for this e.g. Ryanair. And yet the airlines industry is one of the most cut-throat and an almost sure-fire way to lose money as an investor.
With that logic, maybe we should break up the political party duopoly instead. Their customer service and approval ratings are at the lowest of all industries.
The title doesn't make any sense, and the lined article fails to make sense as well.
If the customer service sucks to the point that it diminishes a product's or service's value, the customer looks for better value. It is only in sectors where the government obstructs competition (well, most of them these days) where it is possible to provide a shitty service and hang onto your customers.
But that isn't because companies profit from providing shitty service but because they profit from barriers to entry created by the corrupt government.
I spent several years in both Tier 1 and Tier 2 support for several companies.
Generally speaking, I found companies that failed to provide a high level of support did so not because it was particularly profitable, but because they either A) Wanted to cut costs and off-shore as much of the operations as possible or B) Were struggling financially and unable to support their product
Working as Tier 2 support for Apple I can tell you that I gave away free products (From the Apple Online Store) constantly. I required no approval for products $300 and under in value. The only caveat being that Apple did not give away ANY of its own products. Some days I would give away more money in free products than I made working that day. Apple is doing fantastic financially.
When I worked for Frontier Communications (Who are currently being investigated on a few fronts for failing to maintain their network and refused to take questions from investors at their last quarterly earnings call) I was basically unable to help anyone who called in unless their problem was user error. Any customer who had an issue with something on our end was basically given the shaft.
I've had much more middle of the road experiences as well, but those are the two polar opposites that I've had in my early working experience.
Your customer who struggled in order to have your product work tolerably will think twice before trying to switch to a competitor, as he doesn't want to once more live through hassles. You spare money on service/support, and the customer is less prone to abandon you. Yay.
A competitor offering a better service may seem dangerous because his customers will recommend him. However he as to sell for a higher price, therefore most customers will not consider his product. Moreover most of his customers will be picky (easily by the shitty support provided by you and your pairs) or dumb/lazy (totally unable/unwilling to think/act usefully by themselves), and their demands will only grow, leading him tto somewhat reduce his margins (and you will buy him, because he as less customers and less profit per customer) or raise his prices (and enter some high-end/luxury (<=> small) niche).
What i do not get, is why there is not a "Lawyer"-Layer between customers and companys shirking customers-service. Basically you dont get to worry and put up with what is essentially a denial on service attack on a person, and these people get you whatever you want if they can and fight for your rights, if necessary with legal actions.
If they want a war of attrition, a war of attrition they could get.
Also likeable, social customers, who get shafted, become basically anti-evanglists of a brand and product. Im pretty sure, if marketing would do some research, these "Warning"-network effects would show up. I had several family dinners, where one or another would tell horror stories about a product they tryied and these are shunned afterwards.
Only companys who can get away with it are entrenched network effect companys like google.
114 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 164 ms ] threadThank you for that original title also. How about this one, “Why do companies succeed? Because their profitable”. Why don’t you stop letting 8’th graders write and title articles?
Their source for the 'women' part of that claim only says that, given the same treatment, women get more annoyed than men [1]. Not what I would classify as 'discrimination'.
[1] https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/06/women-get-m...
No, but it does classify as different hassle costs as they claim.
The summary words it poorly, but the article is just showing that some groups experience more hassle than others.
The previous night one of your loved ones was very sick, and though you called the hospital you were unable to get a human on the phone. Meanwhile, my food delivery came without a side dish, and I was unable to get a human on the phone to get my $3 back.
The survey is now asking both of us the same question, but do you think we're experiencing the same thing while deciding how to answer it? Or would our past experiences cause the hassle to have much different weight for both of us.
We would need to be in a controlled experiment for us to have the same hassle. A survey has us answer from our own experiences of being in similar situations.
In the EU discrimination of this sort is indeed illegal.
Pension age was also equalised (women used to get it age 60, men 65) but feminists are still fighting tooth and nail against that one. https://www.independent.co.uk/money/pensions/pensions-change...
The underlying premise is that men cost more to ensure than women (you could debate that, but it’s a pretty solid premise). In any scenario like this, you must discriminate in order to do business, regardless of how you reorganize all the parameters.
But you’re still ignoring my point. I’m not making a case for any particular way of dealing with this. It’s simply a fact that no matter what you do in this situation, you must discriminate. The only factors that can be controlled are who you discriminate against, and how you do it.
Sometimes this acts in favour of one group and sometimes not so much but you don’t get to pick and choose. On any protected characteristic, or there is no point in even having the legislation. Those complaining that their early pension privileges are being taken away is a great example. Imagine if it was the other way round. It’s not discrimination to have an unfair privilege situation corrected.
> Discrimination is defined in any practical sense as differentiation on price due to a protected characteristic
Ok great. Let’s go with this. We only care about discrimination against protected classes. So you’re selling car insurance. This is a risk transfer service, your job is to quantify the risk a customer poses, and charge them a premium for transferring the risk to you. You figure out that being a man is a risk factor. You can choose to measure it or not, it’s still going to be a risk factor no matter what. Now you’ve got two choices:
1. Charge men a higher premium to cover the additional risk. You’re now discriminating against men (a protected class).
2. You could calculate all the risk factors for a customer, and then charge them extra if they’re a women (or give them a discount if they’re a man, or deny service to men, or simply not measure risks associated with gender, it’s all the same thing). Now men and women are paying the same premiums, all other factors being the same. But as women pose less risk, the cost for them to transfer that risk is higher. Now you’re discriminating against women (another protected class).
It doesn’t matter how you frame it, or what parameters you tweak. The fact that these two protected classes cost cost a quantifiably different amount to provide the service to, you have to discriminate against one of them. The only thing that can possibly be controlled is who you discriminate against, and how you do it.
Oh, I do understand what you’re saying, but it has no basis either in law nor what the average person would consider to be discriminatory behaviour. I mean, would you refuse to employ a woman because her maternity leave might cost more? Do you feel that men are discriminated against here?
Nor, by the way, does the cost of providing a product or service correspond directly with the price you charge the customer. This is true in every industry. You can imagine a world where by law everything costs the cost of labour + materials + a fixed profit margin, and that would be “fair” by your logic but it doesn’t exist!
> Nor, by the way, does the cost of providing a product or service correspond directly with the price you charge the customer.
Of course it doesn’t. But it the cost of providing the service corresponds differently to the price charged for women than it does the price charged for men, then you have discrimination. They are simply getting less product or service, for the same price, on the basis of gender. Either you actually don’t understand this very simple point, or you’re intentionally trying to contrive things as much as possible to avoid the reality of the situation. Which no matter how much you attempt to reframe, remains the same.
No, it’s the same product for the same price. Unless you are asserting that women get less insurance cover now? In that case, citation very much needed.
Once again: discrimination is charging customers differently on the basis of a protected characteristic. If men and women pay the same price for the same product then by definition discrimination is not occurring. It may or may not cost the vendor more but that’s irrelevant, we have established (and you have agreed) that the cost of production is not tied to the cost to the customer.
There are two main lines of thoughts in regard to this. The first is that no, that is not discriminating against women since the actor (in this case, the insurance company) is not taking gender into account when calculating the premium.
The other line of thought is equality under the law is impossible to achieve because people are not initially equal to begin with. The common quote people use to describe this is "The Law's 'Majestic Equality'" from Anatole France: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.".
Since discrimination law is a law following common law theory and philosophy, it generally ignores the objection that the second line of thought brings up.
"That case" is not a rare exception but the default situation.
Anyways, the point is that paying lots of money does NOT mean that you'll be getting good service. There's plenty of examples in the enterprise space, they're not just isolated cases.
The reason why you have a first level, and then levels after that, is so Level 1 can be focused on speed for simple issues, or routing for non-simple issues. Level 1 call work is not something the more expensive agents who can solve complex work should be doing.
Another alternative is doing what Sprint did over ten years ago and firing their worst customers (https://www.cnet.com/news/sprint-breaks-up-with-high-mainten...). It'd probably be better if more companies could do that, though there are companies where it is not possible (e.g. ISPs).
Just like with employees, if you get to fire a customer then how you aquire customers and how you refuse to do business with customers should be subject to regulation. I would even say this should be public record so other customers can see exactly why they blacklist customers.
FYI: I have worked in a call center type environment for a company well reputed for having bad customer service. I have faced horrible customers day in and day out until one reallybad customer pushed me off the edge and I quit. I still stand by my position that consumer rights and fair treatment of the public by businesses is much more important than a company's right to refuse to do business with anyone.
Example: raising voice,using specific phrases,making personal comments about the support staff that's helping them,threatening they'll get them fired,refusing to follow official troubleshooting guides,etc...
For example,you can't do the reverse which is firing an employee for being an asshole to a customer when they were being polite and doing their job. If that is your readon and that reason is based on untrue facts then you are liable for a wrongful termination suit.
Would requiring documentation significantly change what happened here? Suppose that in addition to the letter about termination of service, the Sprint customers also got a spreadsheet showing the times that they called customer service and how long those calls took. Would that help customers? I am somewhat skeptical of the value of this regulatory scheme.
So yes,if their reasons are purely based on customers complaining or seeking support for a service then they would ideally be fined or their business license revoked.
Asshole is not a protected class.
As someone who has worked in customer service let me tell you that people already make ridiculous demands.
People start with their nonsensical demands, proceed to threatening to explicitly or implicitly cease future business, move on to threatening to get the employee in trouble, move on to speaking to a manager, to threatening to go to the company about the manager that told them no.
You want to add another layer after the company also tells them to pound sand where they can go to a government bureaucrat and make the company litigate the case for why they don't want to do business or what face a fine?
There is already maximal incentive to make any reasonable accommodations possible because any amount of hassle that costs less than losing the customers business is already a net gain.
If the cost of responding to for example a lawsuit because you declined to do business with someone is thousands of dollars then the equation changes substantially and not for the better.
This only makes sense from a social standpoint if the service you are denied is something one can't do without and then THAT becomes the issue rather than requiring every trivially replaceable company enumerate why they didn't do business with every asshole.
Sort of,if you ban a customer then you will be forced to provide documentation. The regulation I spoke of will clearly establish when a company crosses the line. This actually saves the company lawsuits because the consumer will not have merit for a suit if the regulatory body cleared the company. If it didn't clear the company then the customer's service will simply be restored and the company will be fined a standard well established fine.
I don't know why you and others are misunderstanding my position. I am not advocating for companies to put up with abusive customers. I am simply stating a company that provides services or goods to the general public should not be allowed to refuse to do business with specific individuals without documenting their defensible reason where a customer being clearly rude,abusive,threatening or acting in bad faith would be a good and allowed reason.
By what right does a company that relies on a business license from a govetnment of the people gets to unfairly treat the public? The peoplr decide what allowed reasons to refuse business are,not companies.
A BBB complaint is nieither sufficient nor effective.
Oh and...
> From what principal do you derive the right to buy cell phone service despite being a pain in the ass?
The same principal that allows revocation and issuance of a business license. I don't think a "pain in the ass" customer should be tolerated,but rather government bodies overseen by publicly elected officials get to set a standard of what a "pain in the ass" customer constitutes not the company. You can see how a legitimate complaint can be construed as "pain in the ass" because fixing the problem or assisting the customer was a cost too high for the company.
Every company has finite resources and must, in order to survive, decide where to allocate them. I'd rather spend my finite resources serving Bob is a valid answer to why did you opt not to serve Sam. I didn't like Sam's face is ALSO a valid answer.
If you never had a right to do business with a particular store how is it possible to describe the situation as unfair treatment? How does fair even enter into it?
Regulation is legal if no legal theories exist under which it would fall if challenged. Regulation is reasonable if on net its effect on the world is positive, reasonable to implement, and worth the cost of implementing.
You haven't asked or considered if your suggestion was legal. It's probably a violation of the business owners freedom of association. I am completely baffled that you imagine that requiring them to substitute a bureaucrats policy for their own judgment insofar as whom to do business with doesn't violate their rights. We have as a society agreed that forcing people to treat protected classes fairly is more important than the business owners freedom of association but it doesn't mean that right is nonexistent just that its less important than the rights of disabled people or minorities. It's hard to imagine how you believe that you believe that this same argument applies to assholes wanting to do business with people whom they have offended. If you have pissed off Verizon get yourself over to Sprint and this time don't scream at people over the phone.
You haven't even bothered to explain why you feel its reasonable to force people under penalty of law to do business with you. Your sole answer seems to be that because the government issues business licenses it could opt to revoke same. By this logic the fact that the government issues drivers licenses is sufficient justification for regulating what color you paint your car. This reasoning is entirely circular. Try again. Explain how the universe is a better place where people can make worse assholes of themselves than they already do and keep abusing the help whom can't ban the customer without risking fines. Please explain the injustices that will be avoided specifically by this expensive bureaucracy.
> You haven't asked or considered if your suggestion was legal. It's probably a violation of the business owners freedom of association.
> You haven't even bothered to explain why you feel its reasonable to force people under penalty of law to do business with you.
Being able to provide services to the public is not your right. Much like being able to hire anyone you choose isn't your right. These are pivileges allowed to a business by the public. Private,peaceful and non-profit association is your right but the moment you open doors to the public your rights of where you can open a business,how you can advertise,the quality and conditions of the place of business,who you hire and don't hire,who you fire and many other things are subject to the public's approval and standards (by proxy of govermental orgs). You can refuse to do business in that city,state or country but if you choose to offer services to the public you have to play by the public's rules.
This is a natural extenstion under the same authority the public has over public businesses, the public shouldn't force you to do business with someone but the public should also be able to review why you refuse to do business with someone and why after accepting business you then refused that business to a member of the public. This review is for the public tk review how you treat their fellow citizens and decide if you should continue to be allowed to offer services to them. In other words,it's a means by which the public kicks you out of public-access much like you kick out customers.
A private business that does not offer or advertise services to the public and does not profit from the public should not be subject to this regulation.
You have to comply with lots of regulations that we have decided on balance are in the public interest. The pre existing body of rules cannot by themselves serve as justification for the imposition of additional rules. The proper justification is the comparison of 2 hypothetical worlds.
Example: I believe that businesses should have to have fire doors clear of locks or obstruction because prior misadventures have shown that fire spreads fast and people may not be able to leave via a main exit. Places that have more free fire doors have shown that more people survive fires. It's worth the additional steps during inspections which we already do by employees we already have to ensure this is correct. It's also worth the small additional expense during construction.
Who are these people that are simultaneously being refused service and don't deserve such. I have NEVER been refused service at any business in my life. I have only very rarely seen people refused service outright and they were all extremely odious extremely hostile people. At risk of being discourteous is it you and under what circumstances?
That would be relevant if association was what was being regulated. Your ability to engage in commerce is what is being regulated and the US constitution makes it very clear congress and state governments have the right to regulate commerce. You are still free to associate or not associate with whom you please but if you associate with or refuse to associate with someone for purposes of commerce the government can restrict your ability to engage in commerce. This is similar to free speech,you can say or not say what you want but for example the government can force speech out of you by way of product labels and disclaimers in advertisements and restrictions on false claims. You can still say or not say those things regardless of the government but that does not mean the government can't use your speech or lack of speech as a criteria for engaging in public commerce.
> Who are these people that are simultaneously being refused service and don't deserve such. I have NEVER been refused service at any business in my life. I have only very rarely seen people refused service outright and they were all extremely odious extremely hostile people. At risk of being discourteous is it you and under what circumstances?
Let's not get distracted here,the discussion and my initial response here is specific to Sprint's refusal to do business with some customers. I don't know what criteria they used and since they provide public services I feel like their process should be regulated so that I can have some assurance they're not being allowed to do business while mistreating customers for profit.
Your lack of experience being in that position is irrelevant. Every complex system with power dynamics between multiple subsystems needs checks and balances. To answer your question, I can't say I have been banned from any business,I have been mistreated and I have had to walk out of establishments. I have had bad customer service and fraudulent and scammy business practices have affected me in the past. I have also worked on the customer support end of this and have witnesssed first hand how looking down on and mistreating customers is rampant. There are far more mistreated customers than there are mistreated customer service reps. A lot of times people vent their anger or speak against the company and the support staff take it personally and become severly jaded against customers. That being said,there are a lot of terrible customers and banning many if them makes sense. If banning customers becomes acceptable I fear it will only be abused by bad employees or bad management at arbitrary companies. You can ban random customers and refuse transparency and regulation and the government can refuse to let you engange in public commerce.
I am sure we all appreciate health code regulations on restaurants for example. I am sure it is costly and unpleasant to restauranteurs but it is a neccesity to safeguard the interests of the public.
Ultimately, that's what it comes down to. Cable internet companies, for example, will advertise these amazing connection speeds and charge people hundreds of dollars a month for it, and then simply not provide it, for example, by having internet service that only works half the time. Or airlines that will advertise specific schedules at specific prices and then simply not provide them---for example, flights during the normal hours at much more expensive prices than red-eye flights, so you pay hundreds of extra dollars for the normal flight, and then, someone loses a fucking wrench or something and you end up on a red-eye anyway.
So much of modern corporate behavior is functionally indistinguishable from buying a lottery ticket, where maybe if you pay a huge amount of money you'll get something distantly resembling the thing you paid for. OF COURSE people scream at customer service reps!
These are not customers who annoyingly ask for a discount or need a little hand-holding to get through some forms. These are customers who scream abuse, make threats of various kinds, insult people, and are generally just horrible.
Forexample, a restaurant needs to meet public health standards but a private party's kitchen doesn't. You can discriminate based on age and race who enters yout private party but you can't refuse business based on that criteria if you offer services to the public.
If you think that's crazy then you'd be stoked to hear I think moderation in for profit sites that ban user generated content (twitter,reddit,news comments,youtube,facebook,etc...) Should also be subject to similar requirements.
Your ability to profit from doing business with the public is a privilege not a right. Your ability to peacefully assemble in private with no economic profit or with profit between prople you have an exisiting well established relationship with (without a public place of business or advertisent) is private activity and should not be subject to public approval.
I was attempting to purchase a phone and take advantage of a promo offer. The saleswoman categorically would not sell me a phone without the insurance package. I asked for a supervisor and was transferred to a line that wasn't going to be answered until the next day.
I also think the salespeople are evaluated on their conversion rate for things like warranties, insurance, etc.
One day a woman called who had a flakey phone and internet connection for months. She was on the edge of crying, and told me she felt like nobody really took her problem seriously because she is a woman. I knew it was because she was a customer, but oh well. I went through everything with her, and wrote a ticket, in it I just mentioned that she had checked her equipment. Then I did what was absolutely verboten, I wrote down her customer #, and looked at the status of the ticket a week later. Just as I had expected, just as I had seen countless of times, and just like what had happened to her tickets from previous calls as well: they had just remotely measured the connection once, saw it was okay at that moment in time, and closed the ticket.
So I called her back, also rather verboten, and asked if the problem still existed. Of course it did. This time we didn't talk long, but took my time writing a really detailed ticket, explaining she had already and gotten a new phone and paid for an IT dude to come over and check her modem, cables, everything. I also mentioned that she was a widow and had to take care of her heavily disabled son who was prone to seizures. All of that she had told me the first time, where I had checked the checkbox for such emergencies because of that, just like had already wrote in the forst ticket that she had "thoroughly checked her equipment". I just put the same much more verbosely, contrary to everything we were incentivized to do, gladly ruining my already bad KPI further.
I looked again a week later, saw that the ticket had actually resulted in a visit by a technician, and just because I wanted the fuzzy feels for myself, I called her a last time. She said the technician had been very friendly and had really taken his time, and that since then the connection was rock solid. Yes, that whole thing took longer than the intended average call, but it also was less time than all the previous calls and tickets combined. It also just took a few weeks to solve something for good that had been an issue for nearly half a year. And no, there was nobody to escalate to, it was fully within the scope of the agents, and team leaders would only call customers back if they could tell them something we couldn't, which didn't apply here.
Yes, at some point the repeated tickets could have triggered someone at level 2 to take another look, or even call the customer and other such fancy things, but that was as rare as what I did. I wouldn't have gotten much solid work done without a dose of insubordination and applying common sense and empathy. Instead of going home happier than I arrived each day, I would have gotten ulcers. But I only could do it that way because I knew I knew it was just a temporary job. Many people can't afford that, keep their head down, and it's ultimately the customers who end up holding the bag. In this case, it could have been her holding her son having seizures, while she is unable to call emergency services.
As for annoying customers, ironically, being firm but fair to people who were all sorts of terrible or stupid was the other main source of pride I had in that job. I never was petty to them, I never jumped at excuses to cancel the call, like them calling me a name or something, I knew they meant the company. Many ended up realizing that I wasn't trying to get rid of them, I just wasn't taking their shit, and became much more cooperative.
Few people wait 30-60 minutes to annoy a customer service rep for 5 minutes, then get hung up on. I'...
The problem begins when upper management views support, especially telephone support, as purely a cost center that never has downstream revenue effect anyway ("buyers don't choose based on support").
It's somewhat better if it's a paid support situation, such as annual contracts for support and maintenance. Otherwise, many entities design their support organization as a means of disposing of customer interactions as quickly as possible. This parent comment is one example.
I once worked in a support organization which was managed by a non-technical person. His focus was pure metrics, especially how quickly a case could be closed whether or not there was a resolution in the eyes of the customer.
As the most experienced engineer in Support and the only one to carry an Advanced Support Engineer title (most of my peers came in straight from university; I already had several years of programming/analysis experience), I tended to be given the worst hairballs of problems to reproduce, diagnose, document, and develop workarounds for if possible.
During a one-on-one with this manager one day, I was told that I should improve my metrics by viewing any given problem as if it was a monkey on my back. My duty was supposed to be to get said monkey off my back as quickly as possible, whether my actions actually worked toward a true resolution or not.
So, in his perfect world, there would be a frenetic exchange of monkeys upon backs, with any actual resolutions being purely coincidental.
My solution was to isolate and remove every monkey at its earliest opportunity. And give it a nice snack. I continued in that mode until I left the organization.
DISCLAIMER: No actual monkeys were harmed in the production of this account.
A coach once gave me similar advice... I replied that if people baked the bread he eats like he told me to do my job, he'd be dead within months. He ran to the team leader, with whom I had a 30 minute chat where I vented about how I hated everything about the job except the customers, to which my team leader responded with what he appreciated about my work. The coach never got over that. Still make me smile.
It could be that developing proper processes, training and tools to handle it costs far more than the rare few times they need to pass it up to someone to manually change it in a DB.
I agree with other commenters, though, for me the issue is not often about getting a refund, but more often about getting the information I need to solve my problem.
any question a subcontractor has not enough information for will be between the customer service contractor and the original company, and they don't need to be afraid of insisting the original company resolve a real fundamental issue with the product as the other subcontractor faces the same issues, which has the side effect of the subcontractors summarizing a large number of complaints for the original companies product engineers etc
consider how for a long time many manufacturers didn't want to spend the time and effort to fix some linux driver, not because they couldn't but because they didn't want to plough through 10k complaints or requests, of unknown similarity or difference, and having the original high wage engineers plough through them is uneconomical, so have the subcontractor summarize the issue concisely yet precisely
This issues can also be related to the company itself. What if there’s an undisclosed bug in your randomization process based on IP or time zone or something that tilts the satisfaction metrics via an almost impossible to detect skew in the customer distribution routed to subcontractor A instead of B? What if you the company introduce a policy or product change that makes customers unhappy even if the subcontractor is doing exactly what you asked them to do? Or what if subcontractors realize the only way to make people happy is to do something really expensive or unapproved by you?
provably rolling a random dice is a solved problem, superstition that fluctuations in a cryptographically verifiable random coin flip would correlate with "pathologically dissatisfied customers" is just that: superstition.
> What if you the company introduce a policy or product change that makes customers unhappy even if the subcontractor is doing exactly what you asked them to do?
That would make the customers assigned to the other subcontractors equally unhappy, so the customer satisfaction feedback drop will be the same for the other competing subcontractor, and so the budget division will be unaffected, but still tilted proportional to the gross difference in performance between subcontractor A and B
> Or what if subcontractors realize the only way to make people happy is to do something really expensive or unapproved by you?
What do you mean? reverse engineer a driver and rewrite a better one?
You clearly have no experience with setting up randomized trials in reality. It’s very hard. You think you’re flipping a coin, and totally forget that there are all kinds of things that can creep in to introduce confounding factors that correlate with assignment to one group or the other. Time of day, time of week, operating hours, handling customers waiting in a queue too long by rerouting them, random outage in subcontractor A’s cloud service account, geopolitical event causes problems with payment processing to subcontractor B for a certain time period.
How will you isolate the effect on customer satisfaction of each subcontractor, controlling for all effects that could drive the observed satisfaction metric for a given subcontractor that are not in that subcontractor’s control? How will you make certain you’ve done this, as opposed to just making the deeply invalid assumption that some seemingly random assignment mechanism has automatically taken care of it? How will you actually verify the populations of customers sent to each subcontractor are actually probabilistically equivalent across every potential confounding factor?
Acting like it’s just going to be a simple coin flip is a woeful lack of imagination.
The key part you’re missing is that it doesn’t matter if you believe you are choosing uniformly between each subcontractor. You might have a perfect random number generator, doesn’t matter. The ability to pick “50/50” between them has pretty much nothing to do with the causes for confounding factors to invalidate the comparison.
You might happily go on calling your perfect random number generator and checking if it’s less than 0.5 as your decision rule, and yet still be biasing the population directed to one subcontractor vs the other, due to factors you’re not accounting for.
This is just the law of large numbers: the expectation value of the correlation of pesky clients with the output from a provably fair coin is by definition zero. So yes if 1 out of 10 customers is a pesky (say unhelpable by attitude) customer, and we look at the first ~10 customers, then yes, probably it will result in the unfair assignment where one of the subcontractors got a pesky customer and the other didnt. But this is not a randomized trial with a finite low number of customer tickets.
Treat the problem like a poisson process: after a short amount of time the accuracy on gamma is low, but after the millionth ticket the accuracy on gamma is high, and we are effectively discussing fractions of a cent.
I assume you know how to throw a provably random dice: for example both subcontractors generate a secret randon number, hash it, publish the hash, then reveal the nonce, sum the nonces: even -> A, odd -> B
This is not a medical experiment with a limited budget to study most efficiently with the low number of costly datapoints, this is not about the design of experiments.
You seem to believe a lock-in amplifier could never work? That you can't raise a signal from below the noise floor? or is it really just the transient fluctuation that average each other out by the law of large numbers?
2) why on earth do you think the subcontractors would want to bribe the customers? they will just file a new complain to milk another refund, who may end up returning to you, so the first bribe was for naught, or may end up with the other subcontractor, you are basically paying a markov chain to stochastically push the customer to the other subcontractor, which will have a certain value, unless the other is simply better able to serve that customer, and then the other subcontractor will get more from the original company AND you lost the bribe to the customer...
so subcontractors won't participate in bribing
Wouldn’t work for the subcontractors though. Margins are too thin to have a volatile demand like that.
The only obvious way they might be masking it is if I have to call back another day but that doesn't seem like I get through to anyone differently than if I'd just called up (thus I suspect it would be level 1)
I've asked simple questions of a financial institution that I trust with most of my savings, and gotten responses that totally ignored everything I wrote except for a keyword or two, as if they were an Eliza-style AI.
On the other hand, I emailed a question to my health insurer, and I got a completely sensible, intelligent, and helpful response.
Even in person, I frequently ask a simple question and people act like I've got two heads. Sometimes the businesses they work for are objectively honest and competent, but somehow they can't answer a really basic question. Like the other day, I was replacing some fire extinguishers and I realized I had just signed off on new ones without understanding the UL rating. Granted, it wasn't that hard to find an explanation online after a few minutes, but someone who works for a business that sells them to everybody in the area should be able and willing to explain.
I don't think this can all be economically rational optimization.
It took 6 weeks and over 10 emails for them to fix it to the correct amortization. This is literally this company’s entire purpose, to calculate payment amounts, and they couldn’t take 20 seconds to use the PMT() function in a spreadsheet to see they had made a mistake.
I forwarded the account of my experience to as many bosses at the company I could find and never heard back.
They could be compounding interest at a different rate. They could calculating the daily rate one of 3 different ways. I believe there can also be differences based on the grace period for making payments.
PMT() doesn’t account for any of this - it’s just simple interest.
It’s worse for commercial real estate loans than residential. In my case I gave up trying to reproduce their calculations.
Online chat windows seem to be the most effective for me.
Curious if this resonates
However, what has really helped the most is lowering my expectations. If the other person seems to understand what I'm asking, I'm satisfied, if not happy when they say it can't be done.
This ties in with the EU warranty obligation.[3] A key point in EU law is that "competition" is encouraged for the benefit of the consumer. US antitrust law is based on protecting smaller sellers from big ones.
Something to look at if Elizabeth Warren becomes president.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/overview_en.html
[2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:12...
[3] https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers...
No, it's an indicator that the government has successfully created enough barrier entries that market doesn't work well. Less regulation that "protects" customers and less government intrusion is the solution.
It's incredible to me that someone would mention the EU as an example of how to do things. It's the worst place for customers and the amount of tax governments steal on the account of protecting consumers surely dramatically outweighs aggregate benefits of such large scale fraud schemes such as those in the EU.
In the EU VAT is commonly 15-20%. Buy the same product or service anywhere else and you save 10-15%. Who in the world charges 10-15% for customer service? No one but the lazy and bloated European governments.
Where Europe has fallen far behind is advertising/tracking "innovation".
Matt Risinger on YouTube has a video series from earlier this year where he was sponsored to visit Europe to see how things are done differently to his native Texas. He was amazed by the European tilt-and-turn windows which have been pretty much standard in colder climates (excluding the UK for some reason) for the past 10-15 years. They can open inwards or be securely locked open in a ventilation position, seal airtight with multiple seals and locking points when closed, and are triple glazed.
A few example: aerospace, first Fly By Wire airliner, and still leading the technology while other planemaker got their aircraft grounded. ATR is market leader for turboprop airliners. Or automotive industry, if you work in there, you will realise that you cannot build a car without an european component because of the strength of the german suppliers. There is a whole breadth of industry where europeans silently innovate and lead their market.
LOL
This is exactly backwards from most legal understanding. In US antitrust law you have to prove consumer harm, in Europe it is sufficient to prove harm to other businesses. [1]
"In order to protect competition, Germany and, at least for the time being, the case law of the European Court of Justice seek to prevent an interference with the freedom to compete; the USA tend to pursue a more consumer welfare-oriented approach. The difference is of importance in a philosophical sense, less so in the day-to-day application of competition law. It can become relevant in marginal cases. Over here <Europe>, e.g., it suffices for predatory pricing that a dominant undertaking tries to eliminate a competitor with prices below cost. The competitor is protected with regard to his freedom to compete. In the USA, this does not suffice. The market has to be structured in a way that the dominant firm can recoup its losses and make the intended profit. If this is impossible, for instance because there will be immediate entry by newcomers as soon as prices are raised, the U.S. Supreme Court does not recognize the facts to support a predatory pricing claim."
[1] ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/veranstaltungen/rnic/papers/WernhardMoeschel.pdf
It'd be a fairly unreliable indicator in and of itself though wouldn't it? Just think of all the businesses that position themselves as 'value' providers by cutting out all the 'wasteful' customer service - budget airlines are notorious for this e.g. Ryanair. And yet the airlines industry is one of the most cut-throat and an almost sure-fire way to lose money as an investor.
If the customer service sucks to the point that it diminishes a product's or service's value, the customer looks for better value. It is only in sectors where the government obstructs competition (well, most of them these days) where it is possible to provide a shitty service and hang onto your customers.
But that isn't because companies profit from providing shitty service but because they profit from barriers to entry created by the corrupt government.
Generally speaking, I found companies that failed to provide a high level of support did so not because it was particularly profitable, but because they either A) Wanted to cut costs and off-shore as much of the operations as possible or B) Were struggling financially and unable to support their product
Working as Tier 2 support for Apple I can tell you that I gave away free products (From the Apple Online Store) constantly. I required no approval for products $300 and under in value. The only caveat being that Apple did not give away ANY of its own products. Some days I would give away more money in free products than I made working that day. Apple is doing fantastic financially.
When I worked for Frontier Communications (Who are currently being investigated on a few fronts for failing to maintain their network and refused to take questions from investors at their last quarterly earnings call) I was basically unable to help anyone who called in unless their problem was user error. Any customer who had an issue with something on our end was basically given the shaft.
I've had much more middle of the road experiences as well, but those are the two polar opposites that I've had in my early working experience.
A competitor offering a better service may seem dangerous because his customers will recommend him. However he as to sell for a higher price, therefore most customers will not consider his product. Moreover most of his customers will be picky (easily by the shitty support provided by you and your pairs) or dumb/lazy (totally unable/unwilling to think/act usefully by themselves), and their demands will only grow, leading him tto somewhat reduce his margins (and you will buy him, because he as less customers and less profit per customer) or raise his prices (and enter some high-end/luxury (<=> small) niche).
If they want a war of attrition, a war of attrition they could get.
Also likeable, social customers, who get shafted, become basically anti-evanglists of a brand and product. Im pretty sure, if marketing would do some research, these "Warning"-network effects would show up. I had several family dinners, where one or another would tell horror stories about a product they tryied and these are shunned afterwards.
Only companys who can get away with it are entrenched network effect companys like google.