I’ve talked plenty of times in the past about the quality of service vs quantity of service debate. I’m a firm believer that “most” of our businesses can exist on sub 1meg broadband, so long as it is ubiquitously available and is reliable. It was interesting to read this post over on GeniusNet about Paul’s experience trying to get service and support for his phone/broadband issues.
It’s an issue lots of people moan about (voice activated auto-attendant and Manila call centres are portrayed as the cause of all ills somethimes), but I guess the bottom line is to question customers on which of two scenarios they prefer;
- Pay a premium to get a well supported (ie 24/7 NZ call centre with knowledgeable staff) service
- Pay the usual amount and talk to Manila a lot!
Yes, for the moment I’ve put aside all the discussions of super normal profits and the like – which will no doubt be contentious but the simplest way of doing things.
We’re all guilty of this – I tend to make supply decisions for my small businesses mainly based on price differentials (above a certain service level of course) but then moan at length when the cut-price offering comes with cut price service and support.
Do you think perhaps our expectations are unrealistic?
expectations are unrealistic, but also that’s how we’re educated by the marketing. No one is marketing better service, everyone talks about value [when there is none], or cost [when it’s low]
Eventually all the commodification will need to stop and business will have to return to real [high] quality, not the lip service paid to the unqualified quality that’s actually the lowest quality we can get away with.
Timely bonus, see : hugh’s rant on commodification here
I’m starting to sound like a grumpy old man aren’t I?
But some issues are worth standing up for. I’m on a roll this week.
Cheers.