3 ms·

I've also got serious problems (as in, the service we're paying real money for is totally broken) solved by contacting a friend who worked at $BIG_COMPANY and t

I've also got serious problems (as in, the service we're paying real money for is totally broken) solved by contacting a friend who worked at $BIG_COMPANY and the friend escalating internally. The point is that I shouldn't have to bypass the official channels that way. These organisations are operating at the level of ad-hoc individual heroics, which is the lowest tier in terms of organisational maturity. In a start-up where everyone has to do everything and no-one has worked anything out yet, that's completely understandable. In a many-billions-of-dollars business with enough influence that someone's quality of life or the viability of some other business could be profoundly affected if the giant screwed up, we should be demanding better by now.

pvorb 5y ago
What I've seen so far is that companies in general don't get better at this as they grow. They add process over process and each level makes tackling 90 percent of support requests more efficient (for them) but the more difficult requests just don't make it to the person who could help.
- Silhouette 5y ago
  That is certainly one pattern we see repeating, but I don't think it's what is happening with many of the big tech companies. They're opting for the alternative where tackling 90% of support requests is highly efficient because those requests are simply routed to /dev/null. In one sense, it's hard to blame them. After all, if no-one who matters to their revenue stream is actually going to change behaviour because of that dismissive policy, it saves them all the overheads of providing useful support and costs them practically nothing. It's just good business, right? What is strange is how they've got away with it for so long and most people still don't seem to be switching to alternatives, even as the tech giants casually squash them without even noticing. At some point around here, the words "competition" and "regulation" enter the room.

pvorb 5y ago

What I've seen so far is that companies in general don't get better at this as they grow. They add process over process and each level makes tackling 90 percent of support requests more efficient (for them) but the more difficult requests just don't make it to the person who could help.

Silhouette 5y ago
That is certainly one pattern we see repeating, but I don't think it's what is happening with many of the big tech companies. They're opting for the alternative where tackling 90% of support requests is highly efficient because those requests are simply routed to /dev/null. In one sense, it's hard to blame them. After all, if no-one who matters to their revenue stream is actually going to change behaviour because of that dismissive policy, it saves them all the overheads of providing useful support and costs them practically nothing. It's just good business, right? What is strange is how they've got away with it for so long and most people still don't seem to be switching to alternatives, even as the tech giants casually squash them without even noticing. At some point around here, the words "competition" and "regulation" enter the room.