It looks obvious

“Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” — Albert Einstein

Customer service for example

Comments

One of the first place where companies looking to cut cost, or as it usually known : increase efficiency, is customer service. Competition and Pressure to cut cost are often leading to to further efficiency improvements, or in other wards - lower quality and worse service. The frustration I’m feeling every time after I need to deal with citibank’s customer service, for example, is motivating me to look for a different bank.

I can see some of you smiling, preparing to comment about how this is yet another failure of the extreme free market I advocate for. However the story isn’t complete yet, so you will have to wait before jumping into any conclusion.

Few months ago I switch my car insurance company to Geico, for a simple reason - they were cheaper than anyone else. I assumed that part of Geico ability to sell cheaper car insurance is because of poor customer service, but I was wrong. What I learned since than is that efficient automation, the kind that doesn’t make the customer ready to kill someone, and a local customer care center that working really well aren’t a fairy tales. I don’t know how Geico able to maintain low prices, I can guess that it is because they do not work with agents, and smart automation. However my experience with Geico, both their web site, and the NY call center - are simply great.

I’m sure it will not take long before many more companies will follow, at least the one that want to survive.

 

Tags:

Written by Rogel

February 23rd, 2007 at 9:31 am

Posted in The Free Market

« Substance and appearance
It doesn’t look very good… »

Viewing 6 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I've taken it on myself to comment in the name of all those smiling. Some of those may not know this, but as of now, I am our self declared leader. At least until someone else self-declares him or her selves…
    We're not smiling because we think we've found a good example against the so called open market religion. We've smiling because you've not yet understood that we really don't need any examples. All systems have their flaws, as they have their advantages too. It's not a matter of which system is best. It's about choice. A truly free market will also allow for it's agents to choose when it is that they want to limit the so called freedom of trade and make way for other concerns. Free market advocates (you may exclude yourself from this example if you wish) often disregard this aspect of freedom.
    • ^
    • v
    <div align="justify">

    <font size="2" face="Calibri">They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.</font>

    <font size="1" face="Calibri">Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775</font>

    </div>
    The only problem with your suggestion Zoolish is that it is eliminating choices, not allowing them
    • ^
    • v
    Forgive me for being blunt. Free market isn't liberty. It's just a power system where power is allocated according to economic wealth. It is, in and of itself, no more moral that any other type of power distribution. And, the attempt to portray it as such really overlooks any true meaning of the term "liberty".
    • ^
    • v
    It is all about the means of production isn't it?
    While you are focus on the market portion I'm much more interested in the free part of the term. And while I can argue that free is also more efficient it is less important to me than the simple argument that free is simply right.
    I love to see how the logic of a system that built on coercive confiscation, intervention and many other abuses of power claim to be "liberty".
    • ^
    • v
    I think you misunderstood me. I do not claim (here) that any other system offers more liberty, freedom or justice. I do claim that markets are inherently not free. Like every other system, they too are a "power system" in which goods (freedom, justice, and liberty included, among many other things) are distributed according to a power structure. In any system, the flow of goods is not equal. Rather, it is controlled by some form of elite, which accumulates power and uses it to its advantage by pre-dominating the system, and manipulating less powerful adversaries (you can replace that last word with peers, competition, or anything else). That said, my own opinion is that (a) markets are unrightfully described as a "neutral" power system (one with no elites and fair and equal opportunities) and (b) that that because of this, the so called comparison to other systems is really un-just. A true account of markets versus any other sort of social system should ask who are the power elites in each system, how do they affect other players in that system, and which mechanisms are available to control abuse of power. The portrayal of markets as un-biased systems prevents any real understanding of them.
    • ^
    • v
    It is rather surprising, mostly for me, but I did understand you. Your view of the "market" is a competitive one, where we have winners - and by product losers. You also describe the market as place where someone, some elite, seized the control - or at least the keys to control - the market and gaining all the benefits. it is the old argument about who controls the means of productions.
    But, and this is the second surprise today, do not share the same view of the so called market.
    The market, very much like the market I remember from my hometown Dimona, is a place where people engage in exchange, in what can be most of the time a "win win" activity. In a fair and free exchange of values both sides winning.

    Measuring markets by the levels of equality is not only a practical mistake but also a moral one.

Trackbacks

blog comments powered by Disqus