When a Company is Too Big for Quality

I wonder why it is that companies such as AT&T, Comcast, etc can deliver such shoddy service and get away with only 'sorry' when a complaint is made? On top of this, in certain markets - e.g cable services - there's little competition to choose between them.

Is the future secure for such organizations? Immune to the reality of their customers (low) satisfaction, can they really survive or will it be 'business as usual'?

Re: Too Big for Quality

A few years ago Fairpoint purchased a major telecom in my area. The "merger" proved disastrous for many customers and earned the telecom the Turkey badge of dishonor.

Legislatures have not always been helpful. See how a New Jersey bill was introduced to remove telecom consumer protections.

Does it matter? Depends on who you ask. Now that it's emerged from the bankruptcy folllowing its disastrous market expansion, Fairpoint seeks to thrive but its creditors may not be happy from their losses.

If I keep going we may need to move this to the contro versial forum.

Re: Too Big for Quality

From the other side of the globe, I'll point my fingers squarely at Wall Street - they have unrealistic expectations parallel to returns from hedge funds and what not (which had since proven to be unsustainable).

CEO's live from quarter to quarter keeping an eye on the reaction from Wall Street, squeezing everything in order to please the major shareholders so as to keep themselves in favor and with similarly unrealistic remuneration packages. The same disease had spread over here.

My

Re: Too Big for Quality

AndyN said:

I wonder why it is that companies such as AT&T, Comcast, etc can deliver such shoddy service and get away with only 'sorry' when a complaint is made? On top of this, in certain markets - e.g cable services - there's little competition to choose between them.

Is the future secure for such organizations? Immune to the reality of their customers (low) satisfaction, can they really survive or will it be 'business as usual'?

Click to expand...

You have answered your own question. If the customer has nowhere else to go, what is a dissatisfied customer going to do?

Geoff Withnell

Re: Too Big for Quality

AndyN said:

I wonder why it is that companies such as AT&T, Comcast, etc can deliver such shoddy service and get away with only 'sorry' when a complaint is made? On top of this, in certain markets - e.g cable services - there's little competition to choose between them.

Is the future secure for such organizations? Immune to the reality of their customers (low) satisfaction, can they really survive or will it be 'business as usual'?

Click to expand...

Why would an effective monopoly/duopoly reduce it's profitability?

Re: Too Big for Quality

AndyN said:

I wonder why it is that companies such as AT&T, Comcast, etc can deliver such shoddy service and get away with only 'sorry' when a complaint is made? On top of this, in certain markets - e.g cable services - there's little competition to choose between them.

Is the future secure for such organizations? Immune to the reality of their customers (low) satisfaction, can they really survive or will it be 'business as usual'?

Click to expand...

For individuals caught in the jaws of a monopoly (utilities, cable, local, state, and federal governments), the situation seems to beg for "risk assessment." In effect, we sit down and say to ourselves [and family]:
Since we are in this jurisdiction, what are the hazards we face? What preventive action can we take to avoid them? What preparations can we make to ameliorate their effect if they do happen? What if prevention and preparation are NOT enough, then what will we do if each or any of those hazards occur?

One example:
For electric utilities which seem to break down every time it rains, we can consider removing ourselves to a different jurisdiction with a more reliable service OR we can purchase backup generators and sufficient fuel OR we can make arrangements for temporary housing outside the jurisdiction or area of discontinued service.

In the long run:
Ann Landers, the advice columnist, wrote almost 50 years ago:
"No one can take advantage of you without your agreement." (That agreement is overt or tacit, but, by continuing to stay in the same situation, it is voluntary agreement.)

Re: Too Big for Quality

True Position said:

Why would an effective monopoly/duopoly reduce it's profitability?

Click to expand...

????????? Huh?

Re: Too Big for Quality

True Position said:

Why would an effective monopoly/duopoly reduce it's profitability?

Click to expand...

AndyN said:

????????? Huh?

Click to expand...

I understand the rhetorical question posed by True Position to be:
"I am a powerful monopoly. My investors have bought shares because I make big profits. Why on earth would I alienate those investors by reducing profit to make life better/easier for my customers unless someone forces me?"

Re: Too Big for Quality

True Position said:

Why would an effective monopoly/duopoly reduce it's profitability?

Click to expand...

OK, so if Wes is correct in the true meaning (if not position) of this comment, I'd ask, is customer satisfaction mutually exclusive to profitability? Effectively working to prevent problems isn't adverse to profitability is it? When I was at Xerox, in the 70s, the biggest department was 'Customer Service' which handled (almost uniquely) complaints about poor machines. Once patent protection was lost...

Re: Too Big for Quality

AndyN said:

OK, so if Wes is correct in the true meaning (if not position) of this comment, I'd ask, is customer satisfaction mutually exclusive to profitability? Effectively working to prevent problems isn't adverse to profitability is it? When I was at Xerox, in the 70s, the biggest department was 'Customer Service' which handled (almost uniquely) complaints about poor machines. Once patent protection was lost...

Click to expand...

Customer service is mutually exclusive to profitability if you have a monopoly based on either government mandate or the huge sunk capital costs.

Your experience at Xerox is exactly the point, when the monopoly broke up the quality of the machines likely improved due to competition. Those poor quality machines actually were likely huge profit centers for the service department and Xerox as a whole. Why would you make good machines when you could make poor quality ones and profit from repairing them? (if you have monopoly power)

Unfortunately nobody is going to be breaking into Comcast's market since they have government mandated monopolies and that ignores the costs of re-wiring neighborhoods with another coax network. Also there's the huge back end costs, and if you decide to try it, Comcast can easily lower their margins and put you right out of business.

If there only existed a large power structure to help with such imbalances. Oh well.