This is the big one for me. Corporations have every right to treat customers like dog shit. But, they shouldn’t choose to do so, because, in a real free market, such a corporation should go out of...
So what about the idea that frustrating customers has consequences on customer retention and long term reputation? For example, some experts advise companies with upset customers to reach out to them directly to win them back. But, some companies have little regard for their reputation, especially those who control a large market share. This is reflected by the fact that the Carey School of Business survey respondents said they’re most frustrated with airlines, internet, cable, and telephone service providers. Most of us, for example, remember seeing the video of a bumped passenger being violently removed from a United Airlines flight in the spring of 2017. While the airline incurred a few payouts for the mess it created, it remains highly profitable with no noticeable loss in market share. Unfortunately, this means companies with few competitors may find worthwhile to alienate angry customers in order to save on redress costs.
This is the big one for me. Corporations have every right to treat customers like dog shit. But, they shouldn’t choose to do so, because, in a real free market, such a corporation should go out of business quite quickly. Real capitalism is a lie at this point. If the 'invisible hand of the market' were real, it would bitch-slap companies that act like this so hard their 'invisible heads' woulds spin. But, the 'invisible hand' isn’t real, because corporations have extinguished all meaningful competition through lobbying and acquisitions. When customers have no option to switch to a competitor when services or products are not of expected quality, the idea of a 'free market' goes out the window, and it must be expected that corporations will treat captive customers as resources to be exploited for maximum profit with least cost. If corporations had any fear of customers switching to a competitor (and this does happen still in some markets), they wouldn’t act like this.
I'd turn this on its head: US customer service is so bad because consumer protections in the US are so bad. As with many other frustrations and seemingly absurd situations in American society,...
I'd turn this on its head: US customer service is so bad because consumer protections in the US are so bad.
As with many other frustrations and seemingly absurd situations in American society, these things feel "natural" since it's always been that way, or people ascribe these things to huge concepts like capitalism.
It's eye-opening to see how consumer rights and other things are regulated in other western countries.
Customer service as it is in the US is a feature of decades of dysfunctional national politics and a corporate strategy of divide-and-conqueror pitting states against each other as they seek jobs from large corporate players.
The behaviour you're describing is not restricted to economists: all scientists worth their salt will summarise their study with "This is what we saw." and leave it at that. A study is just that:...
The behaviour you're describing is not restricted to economists: all scientists worth their salt will summarise their study with "This is what we saw." and leave it at that. A study is just that: a study. They observe something (whether it's a crow or a climate or a call centre) to gain a better understanding about its nature. It's a learning exercise, not an activist uprising. Scientists study, learn, and report. The decision about what to with that learning is up to other people.
This ties (vaguely) into the "is/ought problem". Scientists observe something and tell you what it is. Deciding what that something ought to be is up to you. Scientists are supposed to be objective, and just report the facts. If you want to change the facts, that's up to you, not them.
But the universe and human society are both things which exist. Whether it's a photon or a phone centre, it's something which can be studied. Its behaviour can be observed and studied and reported...
But the universe and human society are both things which exist. Whether it's a photon or a phone centre, it's something which can be studied. Its behaviour can be observed and studied and reported on. And that's what scientists do: they observe, study, and report. That's as far as their role goes.
If you dislike the phenomenon that scientists report to you, that's your cue to do something. They told you a phenomenon exists, and you're applying your moral values to that phenomenon, and you're deciding that the phenomenon is not acceptable - so you should do something about it. It's not the scientists' job to decide for you or anyone else whether what they're studying is good or bad; it's their job to inform you so that you can make that decision. They can tell you that a photon hitting a photovoltaic cell will generate electricity without producing any carbon emissions; it's up to you to decide whether to put solar panels on your roof. They can tell you that a phone centre is profitable because it prevents customers from making claims; it's up to you to decide whether to change how customer service works.
As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In this case, the outcome of a call centre discouraging customers from making claims is beautiful if you're the owner of the company and ugly if you're a customer. It all depends where you stand and how you feel. It's not a scientific fact, it's a subjective decision.
I don't disagree with your opinion about the behaviour reported by these scientists. However, I strongly believe that scientists are not - and should not be - in the business of applying value...
I don't disagree with your opinion about the behaviour reported by these scientists.
However, I strongly believe that scientists are not - and should not be - in the business of applying value judgements to what they report. They should be impartial and unbiassed. We need them to be be impartial and unbiassed, or we would never be able to trust anything they tell us.
It's a stark phrase to describe the human condition. You sure they're as bad as you paint them?
but ending with "This may help us understand [...] why customer service, unfortunately, remains so frustrating." instead of spending even a paragraph on how to solve this problem is morally bankrupt.
It's a stark phrase to describe the human condition.
This is the big one for me. Corporations have every right to treat customers like dog shit. But, they shouldn’t choose to do so, because, in a real free market, such a corporation should go out of business quite quickly. Real capitalism is a lie at this point. If the 'invisible hand of the market' were real, it would bitch-slap companies that act like this so hard their 'invisible heads' woulds spin. But, the 'invisible hand' isn’t real, because corporations have extinguished all meaningful competition through lobbying and acquisitions. When customers have no option to switch to a competitor when services or products are not of expected quality, the idea of a 'free market' goes out the window, and it must be expected that corporations will treat captive customers as resources to be exploited for maximum profit with least cost. If corporations had any fear of customers switching to a competitor (and this does happen still in some markets), they wouldn’t act like this.
Usually small, local markets that have real competition. E.g, if your town has multiple local barbers, or butchers etc.
I'd turn this on its head: US customer service is so bad because consumer protections in the US are so bad.
As with many other frustrations and seemingly absurd situations in American society, these things feel "natural" since it's always been that way, or people ascribe these things to huge concepts like capitalism.
It's eye-opening to see how consumer rights and other things are regulated in other western countries.
Customer service as it is in the US is a feature of decades of dysfunctional national politics and a corporate strategy of divide-and-conqueror pitting states against each other as they seek jobs from large corporate players.
The behaviour you're describing is not restricted to economists: all scientists worth their salt will summarise their study with "This is what we saw." and leave it at that. A study is just that: a study. They observe something (whether it's a crow or a climate or a call centre) to gain a better understanding about its nature. It's a learning exercise, not an activist uprising. Scientists study, learn, and report. The decision about what to with that learning is up to other people.
This ties (vaguely) into the "is/ought problem". Scientists observe something and tell you what it is. Deciding what that something ought to be is up to you. Scientists are supposed to be objective, and just report the facts. If you want to change the facts, that's up to you, not them.
But the universe and human society are both things which exist. Whether it's a photon or a phone centre, it's something which can be studied. Its behaviour can be observed and studied and reported on. And that's what scientists do: they observe, study, and report. That's as far as their role goes.
If you dislike the phenomenon that scientists report to you, that's your cue to do something. They told you a phenomenon exists, and you're applying your moral values to that phenomenon, and you're deciding that the phenomenon is not acceptable - so you should do something about it. It's not the scientists' job to decide for you or anyone else whether what they're studying is good or bad; it's their job to inform you so that you can make that decision. They can tell you that a photon hitting a photovoltaic cell will generate electricity without producing any carbon emissions; it's up to you to decide whether to put solar panels on your roof. They can tell you that a phone centre is profitable because it prevents customers from making claims; it's up to you to decide whether to change how customer service works.
As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In this case, the outcome of a call centre discouraging customers from making claims is beautiful if you're the owner of the company and ugly if you're a customer. It all depends where you stand and how you feel. It's not a scientific fact, it's a subjective decision.
I don't disagree with your opinion about the behaviour reported by these scientists.
However, I strongly believe that scientists are not - and should not be - in the business of applying value judgements to what they report. They should be impartial and unbiassed. We need them to be be impartial and unbiassed, or we would never be able to trust anything they tell us.
It's a stark phrase to describe the human condition.
You sure they're as bad as you paint them?