5 ms·

Hmm. It is an interesting question. Personally, this is one of the things I credit Amazon with ( "removing friction","customer obsession" ). Whether I call, cha

Hmm. It is an interesting question. Personally, this is one of the things I credit Amazon with ( "removing friction","customer obsession" ). Whether I call, chat or send an email, the result is a consistent and decent customer service that can get stuff done ( and where it can't, it can escalate to those that can ). I am not sure you should equate me signing up for a 3rd party broker not only accepted, but a given. I personally do not believe it is old fashioned to have your business reachable by phone, when things go wrong ( in fact, I am not sure how Google and others have been able to get away with it so far ). In other words, it is nice that T-Mobile extends their online presence to accommodate social media, but they may want to stick to their core strengths, because this is what I actually pay them for. In your restaurant example, I go to a restaurant and I am greeted by a pimp, who happens to know Maître d' and can get you a good seat as a result. This is ok for some and I accept some people choose this as their default option. I like to go the actual restaurant ( T-mobile webpage or their call center ). << why would their 'A team' be there waiting for you? Because I am a paying customer. That is why.

randomdata 4y ago
> I personally do not believe it is old fashioned to have your business reachable by phone You can reach them by phone, but it's not the way things are commonly done, so you're going to get suboptimal results. You can also mail them a letter (the snail mail kind), but I expect you'll receive even poorer results than by phone doing so given that it is even less common to conduct business by mail. For better or worse there is only so much time in the day so you have to focus on what works for the 90% common case and just try your best for the remaining 10%. > Because I am a paying customer. That is why. You're paying for something, but apparently not phone support, else you would not be a paying customer anymore when they failed to provide what you thought you were paying for. What is in it for them to provide you something that you're not paying for?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  << For better or worse there is only so much time in the day so you have to focus on what works for the 90% common case and just try your best for the remaining 10%. I did, eventually, and I am voicing my discontent over having to do so. << You're paying for something, but apparently not phone support, I received some support ( as flawed as it was, which reflects poorly on the company ) and that customer service number exists, therefore phone support exists and therefore I ,also apparently, pay for phone support. In other words, I think your argument is flawed. That said, I think you are wrong in a much grander sense. The question is not whether I pay for non-existent support. The question is why we allow oligopolies to run amok, because I am fairly certain if more options were available, this run towards the bottom would not be so awful from customer experience perspective, where CEOs are only focused on 'how to squeeze out more out of this rock' with the solution being: "I know. We will let them complain online and use that as our call center. Think of the savings." and NOT "How can we make our service better so that customers don't leave for greener pastures?". That is the question.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    > therefore phone support exists and therefore I ,also apparently, pay for phone support. My misunderstanding. So, in that case, you got what you think you are paying for and are clearly happy with what you got in return for your money as you continue to pay for it going forward. What's your concern again? > I am fairly certain if more options were available, this run towards the bottom would not be so awful from customer experience perspective Perhaps there aren't more options because you're too price sensitive? I'll give you all the top quality telephone support you could ever want for $10,000,000 per year, but I strongly suspect already that your answer is "no thanks". If I had to offer you phone support at the same price as T-Mobile it would be unquestionably worse, not having the economies of scale they have. Since you are clearly happy with the product they offer, at least given the price they offer it at, how could any other options rise up? Anyone smaller trying to offer an alternative would have to charge more just to provide the same level of support, and a lot more to provide better support. Are you getting out your wallet to see that happen or is this one of those fake rants that "actions speak louder than words" was coined for?

randomdata 4y ago

> I personally do not believe it is old fashioned to have your business reachable by phone You can reach them by phone, but it's not the way things are commonly done, so you're going to get suboptimal results. You can also mail them a letter (the snail mail kind), but I expect you'll receive even poorer results than by phone doing so given that it is even less common to conduct business by mail. For better or worse there is only so much time in the day so you have to focus on what works for the 90% common case and just try your best for the remaining 10%. > Because I am a paying customer. That is why. You're paying for something, but apparently not phone support, else you would not be a paying customer anymore when they failed to provide what you thought you were paying for. What is in it for them to provide you something that you're not paying for?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
<< For better or worse there is only so much time in the day so you have to focus on what works for the 90% common case and just try your best for the remaining 10%. I did, eventually, and I am voicing my discontent over having to do so. << You're paying for something, but apparently not phone support, I received some support ( as flawed as it was, which reflects poorly on the company ) and that customer service number exists, therefore phone support exists and therefore I ,also apparently, pay for phone support. In other words, I think your argument is flawed. That said, I think you are wrong in a much grander sense. The question is not whether I pay for non-existent support. The question is why we allow oligopolies to run amok, because I am fairly certain if more options were available, this run towards the bottom would not be so awful from customer experience perspective, where CEOs are only focused on 'how to squeeze out more out of this rock' with the solution being: "I know. We will let them complain online and use that as our call center. Think of the savings." and NOT "How can we make our service better so that customers don't leave for greener pastures?". That is the question.
- randomdata 4y ago
  > therefore phone support exists and therefore I ,also apparently, pay for phone support. My misunderstanding. So, in that case, you got what you think you are paying for and are clearly happy with what you got in return for your money as you continue to pay for it going forward. What's your concern again? > I am fairly certain if more options were available, this run towards the bottom would not be so awful from customer experience perspective Perhaps there aren't more options because you're too price sensitive? I'll give you all the top quality telephone support you could ever want for $10,000,000 per year, but I strongly suspect already that your answer is "no thanks". If I had to offer you phone support at the same price as T-Mobile it would be unquestionably worse, not having the economies of scale they have. Since you are clearly happy with the product they offer, at least given the price they offer it at, how could any other options rise up? Anyone smaller trying to offer an alternative would have to charge more just to provide the same level of support, and a lot more to provide better support. Are you getting out your wallet to see that happen or is this one of those fake rants that "actions speak louder than words" was coined for?