Text archives Help


Aw: RE: RE: Re: [projectvrm] Unhappy Customer: Balancing the Books at Comcast


Chronological Thread 
  • From: "Graham Reginald Hill" < >
  • To: "StJohn Deakins" < >
  • Cc: "'ProjectVRM list'" < >
  • Subject: Aw: RE: RE: Re: [projectvrm] Unhappy Customer: Balancing the Books at Comcast
  • Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:04:01 +0200
  • Importance: normal
  • Sensitivity: Normal
Hi StJohn

Perhaps surprisingly, I am no fan of the devil's advocacy.
 
My challenge is 'what is the minumum level of service that I can get away with that would maximise financial return?'. This implies that no service is almost certainly not enough to maximise financial return. The question remains as to the minimum level that a company like Comcast can get away with. Comcast is not a charity. 
 
A monopoly is a fine thing to have id you are the monopolist. And it is commercial human nature to try and become one. There is nothing unbalanced about the profitability of having a monopoly. Having said that, monolpolies are not like diamonds; they can easily fall away with disastrous consequences. You only have to look at how British Telecom's CSAT, customer base and prices plummeted when it faced competitive pressures from freshly deregulated new competitors for the first time in the 90s. A smart monopolist would extract the maximum profit from its monopoly sitiuation, hinder new entrants into a freshly deregulated market, and use its deep pockets, aggressive pricing and customer inertia to outcompete new entrants. But not by so much that regulators believe they need to break it up to foster competition.
 
I fully agree with you about the need for smart regulation to create open, fair and level competitive playoing fields in markets. The difficulty is in finding smart regulatiors. Just look at the relatively low intellectual calibre of the FCA in the UK compared to the banks it regulates. Why would any smart, educated, motivated individual want to work for a regulator when they can earn a fortune working for a bank?
 
Best my best regards from Bristol, Graham
-- 
Dr. Graham Hill

UK +44 7564 122 633
DE +49 170 487 6192
http://twitter.com/GrahamHill
http://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamhill
http://www.customerthink.com/graham_hill

Partner
Optima Partners
http://www.optimapartners.co.uk

Senior Associate
Nyras Capital
http://www.nyras.co.uk

Associate
Ctrl-Shift
https://www.ctrl-shift.co.uk
 
 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 09. Oktober 2014 um 09:38 Uhr
Von: "StJohn Deakins" < >
An: "'Graham Reginald Hill'" < >
Cc: "'ProjectVRM list'" < >
Betreff: RE: RE: Re: [projectvrm] Unhappy Customer: Balancing the Books at Comcast

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

 

 

Inline images 1
citizenme


StJohn Deakins

email: " target="_parent">   mobile: +44 7500 802020

skype: stjohndeakins  twitter: @stjohndeakins / @ctznme

 

From: Graham Reginald Hill [mailto: ]
Sent: 09 October 2014 09:14
To: StJohn Deakins
Cc: 'ProjectVRM list'
Subject: Aw: RE: Re: [projectvrm] Unhappy Customer: Balancing the Books at Comcast

 

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
Von: "StJohn Deakins" < " target="_parent"> >
An: "'Graham Reginald Hill'" < " target="_parent"> >, "'Doc Searls'" < " target="_parent"> >
Cc: "'ProjectVRM list'" < " target="_parent"> >
Betreff: RE: Re: [projectvrm] Unhappy Customer: Comcast Told My Employer About Complaint, Got Me Fired

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

 

Inline images 1
citizenme


StJohn Deakins

email:   mobile: +44 7500 802020

skype: stjohndeakins  twitter: @stjohndeakins / @ctznme

 

From: Graham Reginald Hill [ " target="_parent">mailto: ]
Sent: 08 October 2014 17:28
To: Doc Searls
Cc: ProjectVRM list
Subject: Aw: Re: [projectvrm] Unhappy Customer: Comcast Told My Employer About Complaint, Got Me Fired

 

Hi Doc


Thanks for your rapid reponse. I only wish I had more time to respond to more of your posts more thoroughly.

 

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
Von: "Doc Searls" < >
An: "Graham Reginald Hill" < >
Cc: "Adrian Gropper" < >, "ProjectVRM list" < >
Betreff: Re: [projectvrm] Unhappy Customer: Comcast Told My Employer About Complaint, Got Me Fired

On Oct 8, 2014, at 7:45 AM, Graham Reginald Hill < " target="_parent"> > wrote:

 

Hi Adrian
 

I suggest that there may be more to this story than just the one-sided tale of woe reported on the Consumerist. Comcast does have a poor reputation for customer service. In that it is not alone.

 

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:

 

 

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.

 

 

But wouldn't it be prudent to try and uncover all three sides of the story before jumping to a premature conclusion? 

 

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.
 

Incidentally, looking at the earlier comments reminds me of someone who erroneously wrote about trolling a little while back.

 

If you're talking about me, I stand by what I said.

 

Doc

 

 

Best regards from Bristol, Graham

 

 

and doubly so coming from a Doc

 

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:16 AM, John Wunderlich < > wrote:

That's an insult to hearts and bile - both of which consistently provide service

 

 

John Wunderlich

Privacist @PrivacyCDN

 

On 8 October 2014 10:12, Doc Searls < > wrote:

Interesting story.

 

It should be clear by now that Comcast has a heart of bile, and the last company to welcome VRM of any kind.

 

Doc

 

On Oct 8, 2014, at 5:12 AM, Tom Crowl < > wrote:

 

Talk about bad VRM...

 

Unhappy Customer: Comcast Told My Employer About Complaint, Got Me Fired

 




--
Adrian Gropper MD


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

§