Customer Service and Fat-free Mayonnaise
By Mel Copen June 28, 2001
© Mel Copen, June, 2001
I like mayonnaise! The real stuff is by far the best. But, unfortunately, reading the label can result in real “sticker shock” – one hundred calories per tablespoon, every one of which comes from fat. With great reluctance I have learned to compromise, adapting to the low-fat 25-calorie version, only 10 of which are derived from fat. I’ve tried the fat-free versions, but it just doesn’t work. To me, without any fat content, the white “paste” is tasteless. Thus the only reason that I can see for using it is for the sake of appearance, and although I might fool someone else, hard as I try, it is impossible to delude myself into thinking that I am actually eating mayonnaise.
A few weeks ago I took a plane trip from Atlanta. I was assured that I had received the window seat that I had requested. When I boarded the plane I discovered that my seat was in the very back row. Aside from the fact that it was as hard as a wooden bench, did not recline and the leg room was ample only for someone under 5 years of age, there was no window. I sat up against side of the plane, serenaded by the noise and vibration of the engine that was located just outside where the window should have been.
The plane was full, and there was no where else to move. My wife, a step ahead of me, volunteered to let me use an extra set of earplugs she was carrying, but I consoled myself with the fact that it was a short flight and that nothing would happen to me that a good physical therapist and otolaryngologist couldn’t fix. Rather than stare at the wall where my window should have been, I decided to read the conveniently provided airline magazine, no mean feat given the missing window and and poorly focused reading light.
The first thing I saw, upon opening the magazine, was a warm letter from the President of the airline, informing me how important I was as a customer, how much everyone wanted to make sure that my trip was safe and comfortable. Another entire page told me how pleased they would be to get my feedback. It provided an email address which I used once I got back home. I suggested that the airline might eliminate this back row and use the extra space either to provide more legroom for the other rows or for extra storage of carry-on luggage. At the very minimum, I felt that they should inform people that there is no window and let them know what they are getting into, perhaps charging a lower fare (horrors) to anyone willing to endure the ordeal.
I got a response. It apologized for any discomfort and stated: “It is our intention to provide all of our customers with a safe and comfortable flight.” As for the issue I had raised, it suggested that “for future travel you may wish to arrive slightly earlier than recommended ” so that I could get a better seat. It also mentioned that I consider upgrading to its “affordable business class service.”
I had just been served fat-free mayonnaise!
I responded to their email, expressing disappointment with their reply and indicating that the policy to relating to customer concerns has meaning only if action is taken to resolve problems that are brought to their attention. Arriving earlier to get another seat only transfers the problem to someone else. If it truly was their “intention to provide all of [their] customers with a safe and comfortable flight” they should do something to remedy the problem, not just pass it around.
The result: a message from the email system indicating that my response could not be delivered. The address the use to respond to customer complaints was not designed to receive incoming mail.
Too many times companies just go through the motions, working on a type of “pyramid” theory. If they provide channels to respond, they look good, and only a small number of people will use them. Then if they provide a standard, non-response to those who do respond only a small portion of the recipients will be upset. And by that time they have reduced the field to a negligible population, without having to do anything meaningful. Clark Howard recently indicated that much of what has happened is a function of economics, citing costs of $30 or more to answer a telephone call vs. less than $1 to handle complaints via email. But if the email does nothing, then why bother – yep, more fat-free mayonnaise.
That same trip highlighted another type of non-service issue. There are two baggage pickup locations at Hartsfield, depending upon which airline you fly. One maintains security, requiring you to show your claim check before you leave the area. The other now has none. Why? The airline that controls the latter applies another twist on the “pyramid” theory. Few bags are likely to be stolen. And for those few that are, the cost of compensating customers is less than the cost of maintaining security. And as far as the airline is concerned, the time spent by the passenger and the loss of belongings is a cost that they, the airline, are willing to accept.
Coincidentally, also on that same trip I was carrying a recently purchased digital camera, manufactured by very respected European company. The camera, still under warranty, was faulty. A telephone call was answered promptly and courteously. I was given instructions where to send the camera. Less than a week later a new camera was delivered to my home. This was the real thing! No fat-free mayonnaise here!
There is an interesting contrast here relating to frequency of “purchase.” From a purely economic point of view, you might think the patterns might have been reversed. In the airline cases, the likelihood of repeat business is high – people fly frequently. Treating a customer kindly should raise the chance for repeat business. Conversely, people don’t buy expensive cameras very often. The difference is in the philosophy of the organization, the latter being concerned about a total quality image – encompassing both products and service.
Not too long ago a senior executive of a software company explained to me his company’s policy of charging for technical support from customers – “We need to keep our costs down to be competitive. If we built service in, we would have to charge more for our product and we would lose ground to our competition.”
A well-run organization should focus on cutting costs. But eliminating customer service is only possible if customers are willing to accept it. And that’s the essence of the message. The “real thing” is not always possible or desirable. But there is a middle ground, and there is no reason to settle for the fat-free version. We need to become more active in voicing concerns and in taking action to reinforce them. Too many of us just grumble and do nothing on the assumption that “that’s the way it is.” That’s not the way it has to be, but it will become so if consumers do not actively make their positions known. I am convinced that there are enough enterprising business people out there who will respond to the “call” if the message is loud and clear enough!