We live in an age where manufacturing, production (and the "whatever I can get away with") costs literally change overnight. One night Sony makes a Playstation 3 that sells for $499, and the next for $399. The only thing that changed is the night before a new process was put into place that makes it easier and cheaper to manufacture the Blu-Ray components.
Apple is a good example, but try that with an automobile. The dealership will not rearrange a loan or payment based on an advertisement that occurs a week or even a day after your purchase the vehicle. This speaks to customers who want to renegotiate their service contracts after already entering into them.
In the end it has more to do with financial flows than right or wrong. Customer feelings don't enter into it, and that's a sentiment I'm rather partial to. The main issue in that is customers don't think like businesses. If a business alters a price such as in the scenario above, many customers take it personally when it is quite literally "just business."
I don't understand the emotion behind that. I see the math, and I can anticipate that a customer might be frustrated one day versus the next because of a price change, but businesses change their prices regularly. I don't understand why when that happens to a particular customer, that person feels as though the company explicitly set out to rope them into a purchase only to change it the next day.
Speaking to customer loyalty, really customers went first. Businesses adjust to customer behaviors, not the other way around. It's when customers started regularly looking for "greener pastures" that DISH began cracking down on people who played the system. Former customer promotions suddenly didn't look as good as they used to. DISH stopped wasting money on base-jumpers that move from company to company with the hottest promotion.
As far as the CSR's intelligence...yeah, I'm just not touching that one. There's no excuse, and I'm not thrilled with Charlie making promises he has little if any intention in that regard of following through with. Outsourcing with DISH seems to be growing, not shrinking. But Charlie's happy to make a dog and pony show at any summit or convention in town stating the contrary.
Apple is a good example, but try that with an automobile. The dealership will not rearrange a loan or payment based on an advertisement that occurs a week or even a day after your purchase the vehicle. This speaks to customers who want to renegotiate their service contracts after already entering into them.
In the end it has more to do with financial flows than right or wrong. Customer feelings don't enter into it, and that's a sentiment I'm rather partial to. The main issue in that is customers don't think like businesses. If a business alters a price such as in the scenario above, many customers take it personally when it is quite literally "just business."
I don't understand the emotion behind that. I see the math, and I can anticipate that a customer might be frustrated one day versus the next because of a price change, but businesses change their prices regularly. I don't understand why when that happens to a particular customer, that person feels as though the company explicitly set out to rope them into a purchase only to change it the next day.
Speaking to customer loyalty, really customers went first. Businesses adjust to customer behaviors, not the other way around. It's when customers started regularly looking for "greener pastures" that DISH began cracking down on people who played the system. Former customer promotions suddenly didn't look as good as they used to. DISH stopped wasting money on base-jumpers that move from company to company with the hottest promotion.
As far as the CSR's intelligence...yeah, I'm just not touching that one. There's no excuse, and I'm not thrilled with Charlie making promises he has little if any intention in that regard of following through with. Outsourcing with DISH seems to be growing, not shrinking. But Charlie's happy to make a dog and pony show at any summit or convention in town stating the contrary.
