06/21/2004 Archived Entry: "It's all about the money"

It is in the best interest of companies to keep their consumers happy, to have some kind of redress policy and open channel for complaints to be delivered because retaining a disatisfied customer is usually cheaper than obtaining a new one. We as consumers are getting smarter and have more options than ever before, companies have to step up their ability to satisfy consumers to compete with each other.

As a rather cynical person, I think it's almost..dishonest when a company tries to keep you interested, reason being that the company isn't truly invested in your satisfaction with their product or service but in your money. If they were in a monopolistic environment, this kind of concern would be nonexistent because they would have no need for it. It's like in Fight Club, if it costs more to solve your problems than it would to just go out and get a new consumer, then you're screwed.

Similarily, an employer is interested in keeping its employees happy and satisfied not because it likes to see happy people, but because happy people are productive people. Employers like to keep turn over rates low, because training and hiring are expensive. HR and managerial science programs are not in place to keep employees smiling, but to keep production flowing. If it was financially beneficial to treat employees as numbers and black boxes, I'm sure that's what would happen. This is what happens in a lot of low skill level jobs in developing countries.

Take Maple, for example, the company has an on-staff maid that will go around running errands for its employees. While that is a pretty nice perk, the goal isn't to make the employees' lives easier but to keep them at work and working. A maid's day of pay is probably worth a lot less than time lost to programmers having to rush around during work hours.

In the end, employee and consumer satisfaction aren't what's important to organizations, they are merely a means to an end - more money. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with looking out for your bottom line, I certainly wouldn't advise against it, but there's always a sense that that is the only motivation behind everything a company does.

Replies: 4 comments

I know that keeping the customer happy so they keep coming back is formost in the general manager of my stores mind. Why else would he let one woman return a house coat that was falling apart, that she bought 6 years ago and give her a full refund. Or let that other lady return underwear she'd been wearing for a year and now is declaring them faulty cause they're wearing out. He gave her a free pair and then 50% off as many others as she wanted. Idiot. /end rant

Posted by Andrea @ 06/21/2004 11:15 PM EST

oh rayne, you cynic

and besides, isn't money what capitalism is all about?

and any warm fuzzy feelings you get from keeping your employees and/or customers happy is just a pleasant perk

Posted by melpie @ 06/22/2004 09:50 AM EST

Andy: your GM sounds rather crazy, I mean you should only take refunds to a certain point...but maybe she doesn't care cuz you know, it doesn't affect her at all.

I know capitalism is all about money, I just wish it weren't so obvious, you know?

Posted by Rayne @ 06/25/2004 07:13 AM EST

I think he's just an idiot. ;)

Posted by Andrea @ 06/25/2004 12:41 PM EST