12 ms·

I won't deny many companies are playing this game of skimping as much as they can get away with, and I despise this practice. There's also the other side of the

I won't deny many companies are playing this game of skimping as much as they can get away with, and I despise this practice. There's also the other side of the fence though: customers who are just a resource drain. I've recently been involved in some customer support efforts, and there are customers who are just unreasonable. They'll demand to have their cake, eat it too, and even get a new one. For the nuisance that a completely made up problem caused them. A problem that wouldn't even be your fault if it had been real. They are a vast minority, but they spoil it for everyone. They consume your time and especially your team's morale. There is only so much bullshit a support agent can take before getting fed up with it and degrading their service to subsequent customers. Now the organization has to figure out a way to detect those customers early enough to prevent them from screwing up everything for everyone. But false positives are very expensive: get one wrong and it becomes a PR nightmare. Furthermore, if you try to give the best possible support, you must empower your agents to act. They can now screw up and even get your company in legal trouble. Good training reduces this risk, but humans making calls means errors will be made eventually. In the end, reducing support to the bare minimum possible appears a reasonable option for many companies: it is the easiest to implement, it reduces legal/PR risks, and it has a very measurable and consistent effect (how many people stop buying/using your service after failing to get support). If that number is low enough, it just doesn't make economical sense to try to provide good support, which is a very hard endeavor for the reasons mentioned above.

kartan 7y ago
> In the end, reducing support to the bare minimum possible appears a reasonable option for many companies: it is the easiest to implement, it reduces legal/PR risks, and it has a very measurable and consistent effect (how many people stop buying/using your service after failing to get support). I agree that this is the best short interest for corporations. And that is why it is so important laws to protect consumers. "Salmonella sickens 1.2 million Americans every year and causes 450 deaths ... But there’s a loophole when it comes to salmonella: It isn’t on that prohibited list of adulterants." https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/10/4/17936714/beef-recall-2018-salmonella https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/10/4/17936714/be... Corporations act in completely selfish economic interest. Mandatory customer support and hefty fines and regular inspections are the only protection for consumers. Also, it creates a fair environment where having good customer support is not an extra cost because of all companies having to provide it. Corporations have a social responsibility that needs to be enforced. Corporations are going to optimize their extractive capacity until we humans are just reduced to production machines that survive another day to feed corporations profits. Our society goal should be human wellbeing, not corporate profits.
AdmiralAsshat 7y ago
> There's also the other side of the fence though: customers who are just a resource drain. Sweet Jesus, this. At one of my older software support jobs, we had a Law of Inverse Size-to-Attention: the guys with hundreds of employees who paid us hundreds of thousands of dollars in support rarely called us (or if they did, they had actually competent IT staff we could work with), while the Mom-and-Pop shops that paid for the bare minimum licensing and support were the ones that called us every day and repeatedly refused to RTFM. Some would balk at the idea of paying anything at all, as though we should be so honored that Bob's Shack in Bumf*ck, ID decided to use our software that we should wave all associated costs.
- mathattack 7y ago
  This is a Sales problem. When you. Can sell profitably to large customers, should avoid the bottom.
  - ErikVandeWater 7y ago
    It could also be a pricing problem - Charge a profitable amount for support and you won't need to worry about refusual to RTFM.
    - mathattack 7y ago
      Yes - similar. Sometimes companies don’t have the courage to say No to bad revenue.
  - Spivak 7y ago
    But then you are leaving a lot of money on the table. My work built a business by selling specifically to the bottom since the market for selling to the big players was so saturated. As a result our sales and customer support departments are massive compared to our engineering arm but we're doing pretty well for ourselves.
- ProblemFactory 7y ago
  > the guys with hundreds of employees who paid us hundreds of thousands of dollars in support rarely called us (or if they did, they had actually competent IT staff we could work with) These are all related. Customers who are successful businesses tend to have money, and competent employees who solve many of the problems themselves. Customers who are not successful tend not to have money and less competent employees. This is why so many people recommend startups and contractors to raise their prices - not only do you get paid more, but also you filter out less competent customers.
hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
It's also possible, though, that companies are inadvertently training customers to be "bad customers" with the games they play around retention. Consider the example of the AT&T customer in the article. The agent said there was "nothing she could do" until right up to the moment when the customer was switching. It's now common knowledge that this is basically the best way to get a deal, so many people skip the whole "Can you please give me a discount?" and instead go straight to the combative "Just close my account" first, as that's often the only way to get a deal.
- doctorpangloss 7y ago
  That's funny, I regularly say please give me a discount or credit, politely, in person, emails or on phone. For the last four times I can remember, the CS rep was always nice and on top of that, does it.
  - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
    This happens so infrequently as to render your uncommon anecdote irrelevant to the broader conversation.
  - xtiansimon 7y ago
    Never works for me, but maybe you navigate the structure of the organization better? For instance, when I changed cable companies last, the ‘retention’ department stooge was dopey, didn’t know anything, and couldn’t offer anything. Whereas the sales person for the company I switched to was sharp, quick, ready to discuss options, and made me an offer. And as I recall, I had put a block on my credit report, so it took a few calls to the sales agents to close the deal. Each one was equally willing to deal, but then again, each time I called back I had to give more to get the same deal (1 year to 3 year, 100$ product gift certificate gone, and finally no free installation—uuug! They said I had the GC, but it never showed up. I called, they stalled, whatever)
  - mieseratte 7y ago
    For me it depends on the company. The large, "everyman" companies, the Comcasts and T-Mobiles of the world, have always had me dealing with a customer service representative on a script giving me friction about something that is completely within their reach, but they're made to be unhelpful until you cross some threshold. Start off polite, but the second they tell you something "isn't possible" you drop the polite tone, get stern, ask for supervisors, etc. That isn't to say swear and insult, and you should reset the politeness each time you get a new person. In my experience anything even a little more "targeted" tends to have more reasonable customer service. I've had good customer service experiences from major sportswear brands, and we're not talking crazy high-end, boutique brands but major, publicly traded companies. That isn't to say they will just cater to your every whim, no questions asked, but if you have a legitimate grievance they will handle it without ruining your day. Some companies care about reputation and customer satisfaction, and some just count every bean.
oceanghost 7y ago
I worked for a massively incompetent electronics conglomerate at one point. They decided to change all of our phone numbers for some reason. My number became a former support number, and if you had an old enough product and looked in the manual for our support number, I might have gotten that call. Most of the time I just gave the callers the correct number, but if it was a product I had worked on I would try to answer their questions... Some dumb f* called up once and claimed he had taken the batteries that came with a product of ours he bought, put them in his Apple keyboard, and they had leaked, ruining his keyboard. He was adamant he was owed a keyboard. I tried explaining politely that batteries leak from being over-discharged... But he wasn't having any of it. I eventually handed him off to customer service, who I assume told him to pound sand.
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  What most likely happened wasn't that they were overcharged, but that they dried out and expanded. He probably just needed to clean his terminals and put in fresh batteries. That doesn't just happen overnight. Either that or he tried to recharge non rechargable batteries.
dredmorbius 7y ago
If your CS dept. can't distinguish between (and silo) problem customers, you've got a CS organisational problem. And if you're finding that selling licenses and support bundled doesn't work, or that unlimited support doesn't work, start metering support. Mom'n'pop and enterprise markets are hugely different. Sounds as if a fair bit of the problem you're encountering is trying to map them the same. Then there's the alternative of providing a subsidy to transfer those customers to your competitors....
clairity 7y ago
> "...it just doesn't make economical sense to try to provide good support, which is a very hard endeavor for the reasons mentioned above." it's economically rational but it's also a classic externality. the cost of poor service is externalized onto customers not only as direct costs in time and money but also indirectly as human anger and violence, which trickles out socioeconomically as general incivility (e.g., road rage). i'm all for strengthening the legal equality of the individual so that corporations can't shirk off such externalities as simply a cost of doing business, as you suggest. most "bad" customers are reacting to unfairness and injustice, not trying to swindle the company. treat customers fairly, even erring on their side, rather than treating them like moneybags for the squeezing, and you'll find good customer service is fast and easy (if tricky to master).
g051051 7y ago
Back in the early 2000s, I could call up my internet provider (Bellsouth) and talk to an actual, technically trained person who could intelligently diagnose and fix problems with my service. Now, I get someone who parrots back my problem descriptions without understanding them, insists I perform useless steps that could never help, then shrugs and tells me a technician has to come to my house. That's if I can get through the phone system that forces me to use voice commands.
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  Never, ever sign up for residential Internet service. Always sign up for business service. You'll be amazed at how much better this type of situation plays out, for both you and the support rep.
  - close04 7y ago
    What about the price?
    - CamperBob2 7y ago
      Completely insignificant for many people here who regularly complain about incompetent or patronizing first-line tech support. You have to decide what you value more -- reliable and responsive ISP service, or a few extra bucks a month.
      - close04 7y ago
        > Completely insignificant Agree to disagree. For most people it's probably the most important criterion, a make or break. It's why so few people go for the business services. SLAs cost. And without SLAs you get to learn that "0" is also "up to xxx Mbps" for example The problem is companies like Comcast, AT&T and the likes champion low quality services for high prices because consumers have 0 protections.
        CamperBob2 7y ago

kartan 7y ago

> In the end, reducing support to the bare minimum possible appears a reasonable option for many companies: it is the easiest to implement, it reduces legal/PR risks, and it has a very measurable and consistent effect (how many people stop buying/using your service after failing to get support). I agree that this is the best short interest for corporations. And that is why it is so important laws to protect consumers. "Salmonella sickens 1.2 million Americans every year and causes 450 deaths ... But there’s a loophole when it comes to salmonella: It isn’t on that prohibited list of adulterants." https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/10/4/17936714/beef-recall-2018-salmonella https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/10/4/17936714/be... Corporations act in completely selfish economic interest. Mandatory customer support and hefty fines and regular inspections are the only protection for consumers. Also, it creates a fair environment where having good customer support is not an extra cost because of all companies having to provide it. Corporations have a social responsibility that needs to be enforced. Corporations are going to optimize their extractive capacity until we humans are just reduced to production machines that survive another day to feed corporations profits. Our society goal should be human wellbeing, not corporate profits.

AdmiralAsshat 7y ago

> There's also the other side of the fence though: customers who are just a resource drain. Sweet Jesus, this. At one of my older software support jobs, we had a Law of Inverse Size-to-Attention: the guys with hundreds of employees who paid us hundreds of thousands of dollars in support rarely called us (or if they did, they had actually competent IT staff we could work with), while the Mom-and-Pop shops that paid for the bare minimum licensing and support were the ones that called us every day and repeatedly refused to RTFM. Some would balk at the idea of paying anything at all, as though we should be so honored that Bob's Shack in Bumf*ck, ID decided to use our software that we should wave all associated costs.

mathattack 7y ago
This is a Sales problem. When you. Can sell profitably to large customers, should avoid the bottom.
- ErikVandeWater 7y ago
  It could also be a pricing problem - Charge a profitable amount for support and you won't need to worry about refusual to RTFM.
  - mathattack 7y ago
    Yes - similar. Sometimes companies don’t have the courage to say No to bad revenue.
- Spivak 7y ago
  But then you are leaving a lot of money on the table. My work built a business by selling specifically to the bottom since the market for selling to the big players was so saturated. As a result our sales and customer support departments are massive compared to our engineering arm but we're doing pretty well for ourselves.
ProblemFactory 7y ago
> the guys with hundreds of employees who paid us hundreds of thousands of dollars in support rarely called us (or if they did, they had actually competent IT staff we could work with) These are all related. Customers who are successful businesses tend to have money, and competent employees who solve many of the problems themselves. Customers who are not successful tend not to have money and less competent employees. This is why so many people recommend startups and contractors to raise their prices - not only do you get paid more, but also you filter out less competent customers.

hn_throwaway_99 7y ago

It's also possible, though, that companies are inadvertently training customers to be "bad customers" with the games they play around retention. Consider the example of the AT&T customer in the article. The agent said there was "nothing she could do" until right up to the moment when the customer was switching. It's now common knowledge that this is basically the best way to get a deal, so many people skip the whole "Can you please give me a discount?" and instead go straight to the combative "Just close my account" first, as that's often the only way to get a deal.

doctorpangloss 7y ago
That's funny, I regularly say please give me a discount or credit, politely, in person, emails or on phone. For the last four times I can remember, the CS rep was always nice and on top of that, does it.
- mlthoughts2018 7y ago
  This happens so infrequently as to render your uncommon anecdote irrelevant to the broader conversation.
- xtiansimon 7y ago
  Never works for me, but maybe you navigate the structure of the organization better? For instance, when I changed cable companies last, the ‘retention’ department stooge was dopey, didn’t know anything, and couldn’t offer anything. Whereas the sales person for the company I switched to was sharp, quick, ready to discuss options, and made me an offer. And as I recall, I had put a block on my credit report, so it took a few calls to the sales agents to close the deal. Each one was equally willing to deal, but then again, each time I called back I had to give more to get the same deal (1 year to 3 year, 100$ product gift certificate gone, and finally no free installation—uuug! They said I had the GC, but it never showed up. I called, they stalled, whatever)
- mieseratte 7y ago
  For me it depends on the company. The large, "everyman" companies, the Comcasts and T-Mobiles of the world, have always had me dealing with a customer service representative on a script giving me friction about something that is completely within their reach, but they're made to be unhelpful until you cross some threshold. Start off polite, but the second they tell you something "isn't possible" you drop the polite tone, get stern, ask for supervisors, etc. That isn't to say swear and insult, and you should reset the politeness each time you get a new person. In my experience anything even a little more "targeted" tends to have more reasonable customer service. I've had good customer service experiences from major sportswear brands, and we're not talking crazy high-end, boutique brands but major, publicly traded companies. That isn't to say they will just cater to your every whim, no questions asked, but if you have a legitimate grievance they will handle it without ruining your day. Some companies care about reputation and customer satisfaction, and some just count every bean.

oceanghost 7y ago

I worked for a massively incompetent electronics conglomerate at one point. They decided to change all of our phone numbers for some reason. My number became a former support number, and if you had an old enough product and looked in the manual for our support number, I might have gotten that call. Most of the time I just gave the callers the correct number, but if it was a product I had worked on I would try to answer their questions... Some dumb f* called up once and claimed he had taken the batteries that came with a product of ours he bought, put them in his Apple keyboard, and they had leaked, ruining his keyboard. He was adamant he was owed a keyboard. I tried explaining politely that batteries leak from being over-discharged... But he wasn't having any of it. I eventually handed him off to customer service, who I assume told him to pound sand.

cannonedhamster 7y ago
What most likely happened wasn't that they were overcharged, but that they dried out and expanded. He probably just needed to clean his terminals and put in fresh batteries. That doesn't just happen overnight. Either that or he tried to recharge non rechargable batteries.

dredmorbius 7y ago

If your CS dept. can't distinguish between (and silo) problem customers, you've got a CS organisational problem. And if you're finding that selling licenses and support bundled doesn't work, or that unlimited support doesn't work, start metering support. Mom'n'pop and enterprise markets are hugely different. Sounds as if a fair bit of the problem you're encountering is trying to map them the same. Then there's the alternative of providing a subsidy to transfer those customers to your competitors....

clairity 7y ago

> "...it just doesn't make economical sense to try to provide good support, which is a very hard endeavor for the reasons mentioned above." it's economically rational but it's also a classic externality. the cost of poor service is externalized onto customers not only as direct costs in time and money but also indirectly as human anger and violence, which trickles out socioeconomically as general incivility (e.g., road rage). i'm all for strengthening the legal equality of the individual so that corporations can't shirk off such externalities as simply a cost of doing business, as you suggest. most "bad" customers are reacting to unfairness and injustice, not trying to swindle the company. treat customers fairly, even erring on their side, rather than treating them like moneybags for the squeezing, and you'll find good customer service is fast and easy (if tricky to master).

g051051 7y ago

Back in the early 2000s, I could call up my internet provider (Bellsouth) and talk to an actual, technically trained person who could intelligently diagnose and fix problems with my service. Now, I get someone who parrots back my problem descriptions without understanding them, insists I perform useless steps that could never help, then shrugs and tells me a technician has to come to my house. That's if I can get through the phone system that forces me to use voice commands.

CamperBob2 7y ago
Never, ever sign up for residential Internet service. Always sign up for business service. You'll be amazed at how much better this type of situation plays out, for both you and the support rep.
- close04 7y ago
  What about the price?
  - CamperBob2 7y ago
    Completely insignificant for many people here who regularly complain about incompetent or patronizing first-line tech support. You have to decide what you value more -- reliable and responsive ISP service, or a few extra bucks a month.
    - close04 7y ago
      > Completely insignificant Agree to disagree. For most people it's probably the most important criterion, a make or break. It's why so few people go for the business services. SLAs cost. And without SLAs you get to learn that "0" is also "up to xxx Mbps" for example The problem is companies like Comcast, AT&T and the likes champion low quality services for high prices because consumers have 0 protections.
      - CamperBob2 7y ago