3 ms·
> this is yet another instance where companies automate processes that previously involved humans, then compensate for the newly introduced errors by blaming th
by shawnz 8y ago
> this is yet another instance where companies automate processes that previously involved humans, then compensate for the newly introduced errors by blaming the customer
In either the digital or analog cases of your example, the end result is that the customer ends up paying the intended price. The only difference is that with the digital case, they might find out about it slightly later. How is this a "newly found error" in that case and how is it "blaming the customer"? It sounds to me like the potential for error has always been there and nothing about the assignment of blame has changed whatsoever between the two examples.
- mikeash 8y agoThat’s not the end result at all. There are three possibilities: 1. The error is corrected before the sale and the customer pays the corrected price. 2. The error is corrected before the sale and the customer changes their mind. 3. The error is not corrected before the sale and the customer pays the erroneous price. Companies are trying to change a 3 into a 1 by blaming computers and saying the error should have been clear to the customer, when in fact it’s their own fault for not noticing the error before completing the transaction.
- mmt 8y agoTo be fair, they may also be trying to change a 3 into a 2 (or providing that option), but "trying" is the key word. There are enough high-value and/or physically large items that aren't cars (e.g. HDTVs, furniture) where undoing the transaction can be a huge imposition, even not considering that the merchandise is now no longer brand new and the customer must duplicate effort in the purchase process.