The Wikipedia entries classify post hoc ergo proctor hoc and cum hoc ergo proctor hoc as logical fallacies, but I suspect this itself is an error.
The categories "true" and "false" belong to statements, while the categories "valid" and "invalid" apply to arguments.
In my recent writings on customer service and attending an event on the same I've been fascinated with the efforts that show a correlation between a measure of customer satisfaction and a measure of profitability. This is especially true when that measure is something like number of products purchased, or lifetime value.
The correlation itself is unsurprising - after all if I had decided to buy more would I say I wasn't satisfied. The question though is one of causation. Is there some magical process whereby I can "manipulate" your satisfaction and this then causes you to buy more?
the answer is clearly no. In reality the two measures are probably correlated because they have common causes.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Showing posts with label customer satisfaction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label customer satisfaction. Show all posts
Friday, April 29, 2011
Open letter to "asmith"
Interesting responses to my itNews column.
The very first response I got was by way of a feedback e-mail (to itNews) from the man at Harvey Norman, Gary Wheelhose, that read;
Hi David
Just a quick note and thanks for the feedback re the presentation last week. It's always good for us to do those events as the feedback afterwards is so valuable. I use social personally for my own service issues - two recent ones with telcos and one with BMW - so I think i know what works for the customer too.
Enjoyed your article and thanks again!
Gary
The comments section on the website scored one from a customer who actually said his provider (one notorious for high TIO stats) was getting better.
This was followed by one from someone in the telco industry. I think the name "asmith" is anonymous but I'm not sure. If it is the author is probably in breach of his own company's media policy. It read
The author of this article knows full well that the numbers reported by the TIO are fictitious and the number of real actual complaints that have any investigation by the TIO is less than 20,000 per annum. Using these numbers to justify the position is a very shaky foundation.
This has been picked up by almost every submission regarding the TIO and ACMA inquiries and also by independent academic research.
Yet for reasons unbeknown to the public but well acquainted within the Telecommunications industry, Mr Havyatt continue to bag Telcos without supporting evidence or true cause.
The new CA code will make things worse for consumers. Amongst many other things, it proposes no service delivery during cooling off periods, etc.
Do you think people want to wait 21 days for their DSL service to be connected?
Come on David, there's two sides to this story, and you know it. The populist route of Telco bashing is wearing thin.
I've placed a long comment on the itNews site. What I want to address here is the accusation that there is some reason why I would want to "bag telcos" - and that that reason would be well known to people in the industry.
I can only think the reason suggested is that I feel I have been thwarted in my more recent career aspirations. This is not only offensive, but just like the comment itself comes from within a heavily filtered world.
I went to the trouble of including the CHOICE presentation, the comment from David Jaffe, and the history of "telespeak" to try to provide some basis for my comments. In my post here I added the link to the submission I made to the ACMA to try to more fully explain why the market alone isn't a solution.
In case "asmith" or anyone else from a telco is listening I'll add to that theoretical piece.
Consumers who are constrained from making the “rational” decision expected of them in theory because of a lack of necessary information are said to exhibit “bounded rationality”. In a recent theoretical work Bounded Rationality and Industrial Organisation
, Ran Spiegler modelled a market in which firms were able to induce bounded rationality by “obfuscation”.
His conclusion was that increasing competition (by increasing the number of firms) either retained or increased (depending on other assumptions) the economic surplus retained by the firms. In the best case the firms were making an excess profit of half what a monopolist would obtain.
I really hope "asmith" takes up my offer on itNews and gets in touch with me. I don't think I am engaging in telco bashing - I think instead I'm identifying why the industry solution of "let us compete" is not a sufficient response to those who say "regulate".
Let's be clear I think direct regulation of customer service would be WORSE than what we have. But the industry needs to do something different.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
The very first response I got was by way of a feedback e-mail (to itNews) from the man at Harvey Norman, Gary Wheelhose, that read;
Hi David
Just a quick note and thanks for the feedback re the presentation last week. It's always good for us to do those events as the feedback afterwards is so valuable. I use social personally for my own service issues - two recent ones with telcos and one with BMW - so I think i know what works for the customer too.
Enjoyed your article and thanks again!
Gary
The comments section on the website scored one from a customer who actually said his provider (one notorious for high TIO stats) was getting better.
This was followed by one from someone in the telco industry. I think the name "asmith" is anonymous but I'm not sure. If it is the author is probably in breach of his own company's media policy. It read
The author of this article knows full well that the numbers reported by the TIO are fictitious and the number of real actual complaints that have any investigation by the TIO is less than 20,000 per annum. Using these numbers to justify the position is a very shaky foundation.
This has been picked up by almost every submission regarding the TIO and ACMA inquiries and also by independent academic research.
Yet for reasons unbeknown to the public but well acquainted within the Telecommunications industry, Mr Havyatt continue to bag Telcos without supporting evidence or true cause.
The new CA code will make things worse for consumers. Amongst many other things, it proposes no service delivery during cooling off periods, etc.
Do you think people want to wait 21 days for their DSL service to be connected?
Come on David, there's two sides to this story, and you know it. The populist route of Telco bashing is wearing thin.
I've placed a long comment on the itNews site. What I want to address here is the accusation that there is some reason why I would want to "bag telcos" - and that that reason would be well known to people in the industry.
I can only think the reason suggested is that I feel I have been thwarted in my more recent career aspirations. This is not only offensive, but just like the comment itself comes from within a heavily filtered world.
I went to the trouble of including the CHOICE presentation, the comment from David Jaffe, and the history of "telespeak" to try to provide some basis for my comments. In my post here I added the link to the submission I made to the ACMA to try to more fully explain why the market alone isn't a solution.
In case "asmith" or anyone else from a telco is listening I'll add to that theoretical piece.
Consumers who are constrained from making the “rational” decision expected of them in theory because of a lack of necessary information are said to exhibit “bounded rationality”. In a recent theoretical work Bounded Rationality and Industrial Organisation
, Ran Spiegler modelled a market in which firms were able to induce bounded rationality by “obfuscation”. His conclusion was that increasing competition (by increasing the number of firms) either retained or increased (depending on other assumptions) the economic surplus retained by the firms. In the best case the firms were making an excess profit of half what a monopolist would obtain.
I really hope "asmith" takes up my offer on itNews and gets in touch with me. I don't think I am engaging in telco bashing - I think instead I'm identifying why the industry solution of "let us compete" is not a sufficient response to those who say "regulate".
Let's be clear I think direct regulation of customer service would be WORSE than what we have. But the industry needs to do something different.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Telco Customer Service
I get stuck into telcos on the subject of customer service in my itNews column today.
I don't think this will win me many friends, might even alienate some I already have who work in "Customer Experience" functions.
I don't really doubt the will and intent of all the people in telcos from CEOs down who are stating the importance of customer service, striving for customer-centricity and implementing various programs with these goals in mind.
What I do doubt is that they really acknowledge the depth of the issue. The starting point isn't they are good and can get better than everyone else, it is that they are bad and until the industry as a whole improves no one will notice their efforts.
There is a very imprtant economic issue - more correctly game theory issue. In the presence of high information asymmetry the market will not value good customer service.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
I don't think this will win me many friends, might even alienate some I already have who work in "Customer Experience" functions.
I don't really doubt the will and intent of all the people in telcos from CEOs down who are stating the importance of customer service, striving for customer-centricity and implementing various programs with these goals in mind.
What I do doubt is that they really acknowledge the depth of the issue. The starting point isn't they are good and can get better than everyone else, it is that they are bad and until the industry as a whole improves no one will notice their efforts.
There is a very imprtant economic issue - more correctly game theory issue. In the presence of high information asymmetry the market will not value good customer service.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)