First, do no harm

It struck me recently that many firms that provide products and services to me seem to succeed when I fail, or at least don't have any interest in providing me with a consistently high quality outcome.  Evidence in the first case is probably best seen in the financial services sector, where fees and penalties apply in so many different cases.  Most banks make money when I bounce a check or go over my limit on my credit card.  This is an intentional business model for revenue generation.  In the second case, terrible to non-existent customer service, is an intentional cost saving approach.  I believe many firms make it as difficult as possible to find and receive decent customer service as a money saving device.  Both of these business models violate the Hippocratic oath, and while I understand it is usually applied to the medical profession, perhaps we should investigate the business models of the companies we work with to understand their philosophies.

Winning when a customer loses is probably the worst possible business model if your headquarters isn't in Las Vegas.  People will willingly play the slots and craps because they get entertainment value from the experience. They know the tables and slots are rigged against them.  However, it is asinine and just short of criminal to expect customers to have any loyalty to firms that profit when a customer makes a mistake or to provide a product or service that your firm has no intention of supporting.  Today I read Paul Williams Think for a Change blog and he was discussing the same topic, and used several examples to make his point.  Delta and his bank both stood to profit from changes or mistakes that Paul could make.  In the case of his bank, they were charging him a fee for access to money he didn't need, in case he made a mistake!

Offering a product or service and then failing to provide decent customer service is also a terrible business model.  If you are interested in the revenue and profits generated by your product, then understand as well that there are customers ("users") of your product who may need help.  Strangely, some of the best customer service I receive is on small web apps where there is little margin or revenue, while I have documented previously my issues with ATT phone and DSL service.  That ATT cannot provide decent person to person service for phone and DSL is simply beyond me.  It can't be a lack of capability - ATT is one of the dominant and largest telecommunications firms.  In this case it has to be a decision to minimize customer support.

Well, perhaps we need to find new firms with new perspectives that have business models aligned with customer success rather than with customer failure.  In this market, where information flows freely and I can shift assets from one bank to another, one telecommunications provider to another, how long before the firms that "win when I lose" will see a shift of customers?  Paul uses the shift from legacy carriers to Southwest.  How about the movement from ATT and other legacy carriers to Skype?

I'd like a firm that structured itself to win when I win, but I'd settle for just doing no harm.

Comments

[Dan]

I think there are layers in between here.

I (reluctantly) agree with the banking model of charging when you do something wrong - generally it means they have to *do* something, when most other things tick along fully automated without much intervention.

As someone who enjoys free banking / credit cards etc, I'm conscious that it's all the people who make 'mistakes' who pay for my account (that and when I stuff up my addition or timings...!).

Poor customer service, or the example you link to of charging for a product not needed, I do agree are indefensible. Although customer service is in the eye of the beholder.