3 ms·
For instances like these, I would happily pay $x per minute to talk to a real person. A high call charge would prevent random crazies from calling (e.g. "why i
by gdp 17y ago
For instances like these, I would happily pay $x per minute to talk to a real person.
A high call charge would prevent random crazies from calling (e.g. "why isn't my website top of the search rankings!?!?"), but would at least give the chance for people for whom Google's service has financial implications the chance to talk to a real person who can get appropriate answers from within the company.
And if random crazies do end up calling it, then maybe that's a new revenue stream for Google?
- dhimes 17y agoPerhaps they should be responsible for lost revenue in cases where their incorrect assessment hurts the business. That would at least make it somewhat important to them to implement a working solution, scalable or not. While I'm willing to pay $x for a call, if I'm in the right I want to be reimbursed for it (MS is actually quite good about this).
- gdp 17y agoAs has been pointed out here before, Google are essentially a customer in this situation, therefore they are under no real obligation to keep buying ad impressions from you, so I'm not sure 'lost revenue' liability would be particularly fair or enforceable. But I agree that reimbursement for the cost of a call that results from their inability to deal with your problem through any other channels would be appropriate.
- dhimes 17y agoIn the Adsense cases, the argument can be made (not sure I fully agree, but I don't use Adsense so I can't really speak specifically about it, but customers can be held accountable for interfering with business operations). In the Adwords cases (patio1, e.g.), Google is the vendor.