Hi Graham, I sense you may be playing devil’s advocate…. :) No customers = no revenues = no profit for shareholders Monopoly = locked in/exploited customers = “unbalanced” profits Hence smart regulation is required to build sustainable market economies (although those unbalanced profits are a mighty tempting carrot – market cap, taxes, national pride, campaign expenses etc, etc). StJ
email:
">
mobile: +44 7500 802020 skype: stjohndeakins twitter: @stjohndeakins / @ctznme From: Graham Reginald Hill [mailto:
] Hi StJohn Why would any company want to put its customers first? Customers are an important but most certainly not the most important stakeholder in any company's value network. Any company putting its customers first is at risk of putting other more important stakeholders, such as share and bondholders, second. By implication, the question I would be asking Comcast is what is the minumum level of service that I can get away with that would maximise financial return. Easy peasy. Best regards from Bristol, Graham -- Gesendet: Mittwoch, 08. Oktober 2014 um 18:09 Uhr Hi Graham, Doc, As a thought exercise - how would you help Comcast evolve to put the customer first? It’s a challenge as from what I can see on this side of the pond, they’re: - In a monopoly position (state by state), - Have an entrenched Industrial business model (DRM) - centralised & hierarchical (organisationally and culturally) - an ISP (personal data issues) Could they be saved or are they a lost cause? StJ
email:
" target="_parent">
mobile: +44 7500 802020 skype: stjohndeakins twitter: @stjohndeakins / @ctznme From: Graham Reginald Hill [
">mailto:
] Hi Doc
My problem with the Consumerist story is almost a syllological one. The story seems to go... 1. A customer has an awful experience with Comcast 2. Comcast complains about the customer to his employer 3. Because of the complaint the customer is fired. I have no experience of Comcast but they do seem have a well deserved reputation for awful customer service. Many other large telecoms companies do too. As you rightly point out, this is not a defence. There is no detail provided of the complaint Comcast allegedly made to the customer's employer, so we are completely in the dark as to what was actually said, if indeed anything was said. And then there is a huge leap to the unfounded conclusion that because Comcast allegedly complained that the customer was fired as a consequqnce. This is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The story as written does not hold water. Certainly not without a lot more thorough journalistic fact checking (that apparently was not carried out). I agree that there are lots of companies out there that treat their customers with almost disdain. But that doesn't mean we can assume that all of a customer's problems, even the ones that we would like to be related, are actually caused by these companies. Best regards from Bristol, Graham -- Gesendet: Mittwoch, 08. Oktober 2014 um 16:27 Uhr On Oct 8, 2014, at 7:45 AM, Graham Reginald Hill <
">
> wrote:
Poor doesn't cover it. And not being alone is no excuse for Comcast's well-earned reputation for awfulness. Here is a short summary in Wikipedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast#Criticism_and_controversy> And there are many other stories: <https://www.yahoo.com/tech/6-jaw-dropping-cable-provider-horror-stories-from-yahoo-91950382669.html> And flat-out bad reviews: Consumer Reports, the fairest of the fair doesn't bottom-rate Comcast for service:
(That's from behind a paywall, or I'd point to it.) But the American Customer Satisfaction Index bottom-rates Comcast and Time Warner, which will soon merge, thanks to the legislators and regulators both companies have bought.
There were other sides to that story, and it could be that the dude was fired for reasons other than whatever it was that Comcast did. But it's still hard to ignore the degree to which Comcast is a well-documented bad actor in the marketplace.
If you're talking about me, I stand by what I said. Doc
|
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.