4 ms·

i dealt with a company that did this: after a short time it became obvious what was going on. as customer i no longer trusted the company: they were lying to m

by dododo 16y ago

i dealt with a company that did this: after a short time it became obvious what was going on. as customer i no longer trusted the company: they were lying to me, trying to make their business look bigger than it actually was. if they were dishonest about this, what else were they being dishonest about? at the first opportunity, i took my business elsewhere.

jason_tko 16y ago
This opens up an interesting discussion. To what degree is it alright to 'peacock' your business and appear bigger than you are, if (a) you're absolutely certain you can cover the client requirements, and (b) the client is choosing between you, and a few other solutions/providers? Out of interest, did this company do something bad to you? Was the service unacceptable, and did you previously have a good working relationship with them?
- dododo 16y ago
  after some time, they delivered me a faulty product: i wanted to return it. it turned out they were 'peacocking' their customer service team as well as their accounts team. i don't think it's ok to 'peacock'; it's tantamount to fraud. if your clients are concerned that you cannot cover their requirements, you should address these concerns, not lie to them as this impedes their due diligence. if you get caught, your reputation is destroyed, and i would be surprised if there were no legal recourse.
  - jason_tko 16y ago
    Interesting - so there was only an issue when they caused you a problem through their negligence. It didn't actually have anything to do with the accounts team or customer service itself. I certainly agree with your sentiment though - misrepresentation is bad, and to be avoided. For a sole proprietor who is trying to win business, but has no resources, funds, or choice, I view this kind of 'peacocking' as a functional but temporary solution; especially if the sole proprietor is certain they can fulfill the clients requirements.
  - bugsy 16y ago
    It's amazing you took your business elsewhere because they were "peacocking" and not because their products were faulty, as you said. Most people would take their business elsewhere when they find the quality is unacceptable. But you were OK with the unacceptable quality and planned to continue to be a customer, it was only because of the peacocking that you left.
    - dododo 16y ago
      you're right---consistently faulty products would certainly make a bigger (negative) impression than peacocking. but in this instance, for some time, the products were just fine. a customer's trust is most tested when things are going wrong, not when they are going well.
    - prodigal_erik 16y ago
      Sounds to me like dododo was initially willing to give them a chance to rectify their mistakes, but not after discovering "they" was a lying weasel.
- Encosia 16y ago
  Don't "peacock" your business. Most of the business you're going after cares less about this than you think. That's especially true during economic downturns, where big is synonymous with overpriced. In the long run, you aren't fooling anyone with that (they're going to figure it out), it's a terrible, unnecessary mental burden, and your customers will probably find out that you've been deceiving them. In my first company, my partner and I fell prey to that need to exaggerate our stature. It was almost entirely fueled by our own insecurities, not actual client expectations. In retrospect, we both believe that a large part of our inability to weather the dotcom bust was tied to things we did out of an imagined need to "peacock".
bugsy 16y ago
So dododo, why were you refusing to pay that company for the product you received? Really, I am not surprised that you took your business elsewhere. Probably did them a favor - most companies prefer paying customers.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- dododo 16y ago
  unfortunately for them, i was a paying customer. sorry if my comment gave you a different impression.
  - bugsy 16y ago
    Thanks for the clarification. I thought when you said that the "same thing" happened to you you meant you were contacted by a fictional Accounts Payable department after not paying a bill. But I see in a later comment, by "same thing" you just meant the part where the owner pretended to be an employee.

by dododo 16y ago

jason_tko 16y ago

This opens up an interesting discussion. To what degree is it alright to 'peacock' your business and appear bigger than you are, if (a) you're absolutely certain you can cover the client requirements, and (b) the client is choosing between you, and a few other solutions/providers? Out of interest, did this company do something bad to you? Was the service unacceptable, and did you previously have a good working relationship with them?

dododo 16y ago
after some time, they delivered me a faulty product: i wanted to return it. it turned out they were 'peacocking' their customer service team as well as their accounts team. i don't think it's ok to 'peacock'; it's tantamount to fraud. if your clients are concerned that you cannot cover their requirements, you should address these concerns, not lie to them as this impedes their due diligence. if you get caught, your reputation is destroyed, and i would be surprised if there were no legal recourse.
- jason_tko 16y ago
  Interesting - so there was only an issue when they caused you a problem through their negligence. It didn't actually have anything to do with the accounts team or customer service itself. I certainly agree with your sentiment though - misrepresentation is bad, and to be avoided. For a sole proprietor who is trying to win business, but has no resources, funds, or choice, I view this kind of 'peacocking' as a functional but temporary solution; especially if the sole proprietor is certain they can fulfill the clients requirements.
- bugsy 16y ago
  It's amazing you took your business elsewhere because they were "peacocking" and not because their products were faulty, as you said. Most people would take their business elsewhere when they find the quality is unacceptable. But you were OK with the unacceptable quality and planned to continue to be a customer, it was only because of the peacocking that you left.
  - dododo 16y ago
    you're right---consistently faulty products would certainly make a bigger (negative) impression than peacocking. but in this instance, for some time, the products were just fine. a customer's trust is most tested when things are going wrong, not when they are going well.
  - prodigal_erik 16y ago
    Sounds to me like dododo was initially willing to give them a chance to rectify their mistakes, but not after discovering "they" was a lying weasel.
Encosia 16y ago
Don't "peacock" your business. Most of the business you're going after cares less about this than you think. That's especially true during economic downturns, where big is synonymous with overpriced. In the long run, you aren't fooling anyone with that (they're going to figure it out), it's a terrible, unnecessary mental burden, and your customers will probably find out that you've been deceiving them. In my first company, my partner and I fell prey to that need to exaggerate our stature. It was almost entirely fueled by our own insecurities, not actual client expectations. In retrospect, we both believe that a large part of our inability to weather the dotcom bust was tied to things we did out of an imagined need to "peacock".

bugsy 16y ago

So dododo, why were you refusing to pay that company for the product you received? Really, I am not surprised that you took your business elsewhere. Probably did them a favor - most companies prefer paying customers.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
dododo 16y ago
unfortunately for them, i was a paying customer. sorry if my comment gave you a different impression.
- bugsy 16y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. I thought when you said that the "same thing" happened to you you meant you were contacted by a fictional Accounts Payable department after not paying a bill. But I see in a later comment, by "same thing" you just meant the part where the owner pretended to be an employee.