Shipping Cost Fraud and Misrepresentation on Ebay

One of the problems with buying on eBay is that, although there are many legitimate sellers, there are also many sellers who engage in dubious or even fraudulent business practices, and even in cases of unambiguous fraud eBay seems to do nothing to shut down dishonest sellers. (Similar problems seem to be arising on Etsy - it looks like they shut down some obviously fraudulent sales, but the vendor is still going strong.)

One convenience of eBay is that you can search by price, with or without shipping, to sort through the offerings of vendors who are selling the same product at various price points. By including shipping in your sort, you avoid the vendors who try to trick you into buying what seems like a low-priced item, but makes up for it (or more than makes up for it) with excessive shipping fees.

Or, at least, that's the way it should work. eBay's listing policies should ensure that there's no confusion:

When you create a listing, make sure all your text and other information are complete and consistent throughout. For example, you can't say one thing in the title and then describe it differently in the description....

Not Allowed: Inconsistent details throughout your listing (titles, descriptions, product details, shipping, payment information, and so on)

To push misleading shipping costs into the search feature not only necessarily involves hiding additional fees somewhere in your listing other than the area in which shipping costs are to be described, it undermines the integrity of the search feature - the abusive seller can rank above honest sellers who accurately list their shipping costs.

I expect that regular users of eBay are well aware of this type of fraud. It's the less frequent user who is apt to get burned. Shipping cost manipulation has been going on long enough that last year somebody did a study of how hidden shipping charges affect sales. They did not do the experiment on the U.S. eBay site because the U.S. site is designed to "automatically reveal[] shipping charges in its search listings". But that, of course, presupposes an honest vendor.

Let's take a look at how this works. Here's a screen capture of a sale by a vendor named garrys_world_exchange_square (Yee Mei Tam):

Very clearly, shipping to the U.S. is listed as $3. Does that seem low? If so, you probably click on "See details" to see additional terms.

And right there, you find a shipping calculator. Enter your ZIP code and, sure enough, it confirms that shipping to your address is $3.

So you place your order and next thing you know, you're being told that you have to pay an additional shipping charge. "What?", you say, "I made this purchase based upon the flat shipping fee you described in your listing. I confirmed it with your calculator! What gives?" And a vendor like garrys_world_exchange_square will respond, "If you read the description for the product you'll see that I said there's an additional charge for shipping to the United States."

Note that as eBay listings are described, when you click that "See details" link for shipping - you know, to get to the place where any additional details related to shipping are supposed to be described - the description is no longer visible on the page. So unless you click back to the description and scroll way down "below the fold", you are not going to learn about the additional charge. The content is hidden from the "Shipping and payments" view of an eBay sales page.

Again, this seems to be a painfully obvious violation of eBay's rules for listings - you aren't allowed to have inconsistent details in your listing, including inconsistent details pertaining to shipping. But a very useful site called Toolhaus provides a more comprehensive look into a seller's conduct than you can get directly through eBay - particularly given the games and tricks that dishonest sellers use to get negative feedback removed from their profiles.

With this particular seller you learn that he has a long history of misleading consumers about his products (e.g., for movie sales, "Never told in description it is uncut. Already listed the total running time" and "I have never mentioned that it is the remastered version"), has many complaints about misleading shipping prices ("False Advertising - stated shipping 3.00 then wants 30.00 let money to pay ebay"; "If you buy from this seller, scroll all the way down for TRUE shipping charges"; "Ensure DVD region code works in your country +Read fine print on his shipping"), and on top of it all he's obnoxious ("Refused to pay and left me -ve feedback! Are you nuts?"; "I already return your money order, Why do you leave bad feedback? How absurd !!"). I like this one:

Feedback: Dvd did not contain complete movie. No reply to my emails. Got Taken !

Response: You're already left Negative for me, How can I refund payment for you ? Crazy !!

I had no idea that it became impossible to refund a purchase price if the buyer complains that you sent a poor product. You learn something every day.

Seriously, hasn't eBay established a sufficient base of sellers that it can afford to enforce its rules and purge sellers who engage in sales tactics that are fraudulent or intentionally misleading, even to the point of diminishing the quality of its search and rendering its postage calculator useless?

Thomas Friedman's 'Lake Wobegon' America

Thomas Friedman trips over his own words with his claim, "Average is Over". He skips over the easiest ways to join the wealthiest Americans - being born rich - and the second best way, his personal method, marrying an exceptionally wealthy heir or heiress.

In the past, workers with average skills, doing an average job, could earn an average lifestyle. But, today, average is officially over. Being average just won’t earn you what it used to. It can’t when so many more employers have so much more access to so much more above average cheap foreign labor, cheap robotics, cheap software, cheap automation and cheap genius. Therefore, everyone needs to find their extra — their unique value contribution that makes them stand out in whatever is their field of employment. Average is over.

This is fair to a point. I do sense that unless you're firmly ensconced in the privileged class, a typical job of the future will demand a lot of you - continuously working to stay at the top of your field. Fewer and fewer jobs will let you coast, or allow you to be the person who knows the way things used to work.

But Friedman doesn't appear to understand the law of averages, or the joke of Lake Wobegon. Average is determined mathematically, so even if everybody improves there will remain an average. It's not possible for everybody in every field to find an "extra" that makes them above average. People who can distinguish themselves and prove their value will find it easier to earn a decent wage, and some will rise in wealth and position, but that won't eliminate either the average or the fact that our society includes a lot of dead-end jobs in which being above average simply means you work harder for the same or a slightly higher rate of pay.

Friedman is excited at the idea of going to a restaurant and ordering his food using a tablet rather than being served by a waiter. I expect he's excited for the rest of us, as it's difficult for me to imagine Friedman spending much time in a restaurant where his napkin is not recovered and folded neatly, awaiting his return from the restroom.¹ That is to say, Friedman is in a class of wealth that makes it unlikely that he wants to play with a tablet computer to learn what's on the menu, or where he would have to tap the equivalent of a call button to get his water glass refilled.

I think a tablet could be an effective tool at restaurants where people presently queue to place their orders. Rather than waiting in line, trying to decide what you want, you can sit down, take your time, and not have the person behind you sighing loudly at your lack of familiarity with the menu.

There's something else that Friedman is missing in his excitement over iWaiters. The fact that they're not actually a labor saving device - they're a labor shifting device. Perhaps that's why I see them falling into place in a restaurant that doesn't have waiters. In those restaurants you're already used to having what was once the restaurant's job shifted to you - collecting your food at the counter, carrying it to your table, filling your own drink, throwing away the trash at the end of your meal. Banks use ATMs and online banking, grocery stores have self-serve checkout, bag your own groceries. In most states it's rare to find a full-service gas pump. The need for labor hasn't disappeared - it has just been shifted from the provider to the customer.

Friedman is also excited at the idea that a Chinese factory can retool on a moment's notice, and can pull its thousands of workers out of their dormitories to be retrained for the new system. "Sorry for waking you up - here's a biscuit and a cup of tea." No American plant can match that? Well, yeah. But for those of us who don't fetishize China, it would not be such a big deal if workers were trained on a more human schedule when they came to work from their homes, where they live with their families. As excited as Friedman gets about the idea that China is turning all of its workers into highly educated high performers, his anecdote belies that idea - he's describing a society of drones. Where does the reward of not being average fit into that world? "Good for you, you were 3% more efficient than your peers in fitting screens into frames. You get another biscuit."

Friedman is also excited about Siri, the voice interface to the latest iPhone. He quotes an executive of the company that developed the software, gushing about how good it is.

“Siri is the beginning of a huge transformation in how we interact with banks, insurance companies, retail stores, health care providers, information retrieval services and product services.”

Well, yeah, I guess I can see how Siri and similar programs going to take over the world's voice mail systems, perhaps reducing the frustration of the absurd menus most companies impose on consumers by allowing you to have a "conversation" with a computer. But we're not even to that point of the revolution. And many people, particularly those with more complex problems, will still prefer to talk to a human being.

I can imagine the frustration, also, of having a computer keep redirecting you from real answers to your issues, a'la Comcast, because the last thing they want to do is actually help you resolve a problem that should involve their crediting your account. Siri may become smart enough to understand what you're asking, but I can see her being programmed to give you a partial or inaccurate answer, anyway.

Friedman states that, as we enter an era in which "average is officially over,... nothing would be more important than passing some kind of G.I. Bill for the 21st century that ensures that every American has access to post-high school education." Friedman should take a hard look at China, or at least his perceptions of China, as if he thinks about what is happening in that country he should be able to see that they are not trying to turn everybody into an "above average" performer. They'll help the children of the wealthy and of party elites through special schools and opportunities, and will identify some students by talent and nurture that talent, but in large part they understand that they need a lot of drones and, ultimately, their system collapses if their drones become too few or too expensive.

By G.I. Bill, does Friedman actually mean a G.I. bill? Join the military, get a college education? It seems not - I think he means a "G.I. bill" that does not actually require being a G.I. I agree with the sentiment that every American should have access to college, and will take it a step further and state that they should also have access to a K-12 education that gives them a chance to succeed in college. But I think Friedman falls into the class of people who believe that school makes you smarter, and that everybody is or can be college material. We will do better for our society by recognizing that some people aren't cut out for college, or should do something else first, than by trying to push everybody into college without regard for interest or aptitude. We do our nation no favors by pretending that everybody can be above average, or that everybody needs to be. We're a long way from being a true meritocracy.
--------------
1. In fairness, perhaps Friedman believes the iWaiter tablet will have an app that refolds his napkin.

Comcast - The Worst Product Support in the World?

If you have Comcast, at one point or another you have probably had to try to navigate through their voice mail system. And you've probably experienced how it includes helpful suggestions such as, when you're calling over a loss of Internet connectivity, suggesting that you use their online support to address the problem. The navigation to product support is so cumbersome, and the hold times are so long, it seems as if they designed their phone support system to get people to give up and hang up long before they reach a real person. It can easily take half an hour to reach a live person.

As a basic rule of thumb, if you are having recurring problems with all of your services at the same time the source of problem will typically be somewhere between the utility pole and your in-home devices. If you are having problems with some services while others function well, and the resetting of your cable box or cable modem doesn't fix the problem, odds are the problem is Comcast's.

A while back I worked through their phone support to ask about a repeated problem with Internet and phone connectivity. Cable TV was working, so I expected to find that the problem was at Comcast's end. By the time I got through the problem had resolved itself, their "computer" didn't indicate that there was any work going on in my area, and they couldn't test for the source of the problem because the system was working. "Call back when the problem is still going on." So I did just that, via cell phone, again working through their ridiculous menu and tolerating their excessive wait times, and was told that this time their "computer" indicated that there was work going on in my area so that was "probably" the source of the outage.

I indicated that the problem had been recurring, that in the past I had difficulty getting through their phone system before the problems cleared up, and that it would be very helpful if they could provide a direct number so that I could more easily have somebody test for the source of the problem when it happened again. "We don't have a direct line." Well, I find that difficult - but not impossible - to believe. Many years ago I had phone service through a carrier that deliberately didn't assign direct lines to customer support so that you couldn't bypass their menu system (unless you're a VIP, because pretty much every company has special support numbers for special people, but ordinary customers aren't special). Intentionally terrible customer service. So here I am again, hearing a story that tells me either that the support person is lying to me or that Comcast is giving intentionally terrible product support for customers with repeat problems.

Now, let me travel back in time a few years. I had a cable installer come to the house to install high speed Internet and, as part of that process, he tested the completed installation including the television. He recommended setting a PIN for pay-per-view, both because that way we couldn't accidentally order a PPV movie and because children grow up and figure out how to use remote controls. Fair enough. It was a simple process, and the installer demonstrated it in action.

Fast forward to the present. My daughter, using the xfinity iPad app, manages to order a PPV show without entering the PIN. I check online and sure enough, the website suggests that this is not possible.

If the program is protected by your parental control settings, you will need to use your Comcast remote to enter the 4-digit PIN you have established.

The Internet is working so, why not? I'll try that online support they recommend over their inefficient phone support system. I explain the problem and get an obvious boilerplate reply, not responsive to the issue. I cycle through that a few times and then finally get a boilerplate reply indicating that their current system uses two separate PINs, both the parental control PIN and a purchase PIN. even though you won't find any mention of a separate "purchase PIN" in their Xfinity TV App FAQ, and even though this was a reprogramming of their system to effectively turn off the PIN protection I had previously implemented, I was at fault for not knowing that the system had changed.

Email support provides little but cut-and-paste answers, each from a new support person who identifies his or herself by "name" and then disappears into the ether. There's no continuity of service. Each email goes to a new person who has no knowledge of the history of the exchange, and no apparent interest in reading that history. Half don't even seem interested in, or perhaps it's capable of, understanding what you are saying.

Within that context, I received a cut-and-paste response instructing me how to set the "purchase PIN". So I go to the television to set the purchase PIN and, sure enough, the instructions are wrong. I find the exact same, incorrect instructions on Comcast's website. Wonderful. So I muddle around in the menus to find where they've buried the setting and create the purchase PIN. I then respond to Comcast explaining that their instruction was incorrect, that the instruction on their website was incorrect, and a walkthrough of the actual steps to set the purchase PIN. I also informed them that the instructions on their website for setting up a parental control PIN were also out-of-date.

The "helpful" response I received? Instructions on how to set up a parental control PIN. That's right, the one PIN that was set from the beginning. And the instruction on how to set that PIN? A cut-and-paste version of the same instruction from their website that I had just informed them was inaccurate.

The biggest problem, it would seem, is that Comcast has outsourced its email support services to the developing world and that although it's staff is competent to cut-and-paste simple answers to simple questions, many or most of their support staff lack the English language skills to respond to anything more than a simple question and instead scan for keywords or phrases to try to figure out what the customer is asking about.

At the end of this, having failed to understand my inquiry, failed to provide accurate information, and failed to correct their cut-and-paste "support" materials even after being put on explicit notice of their erroneous content, one of their reps not-so-helpfully suggested that I send feedback to some other division of Comcast to give feedback on my customer support experience. Here's the thing: When it's clear that they've dropped the ball on customer service, a customer service representative should take the initiative to pass along the issue to customer care himself.

Cue from above: A bluebird just flew past my window and, while not knowing if it is in fact the bluebird of happiness, it's time to move on to happier thoughts.

What's Going On With Netflix

I read today that I probably have an email, buried somewhere in my inbox, telling me that Netflix is cutting itself in half.

For those of you just catching up, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings sent out an email early this morning announcing that the DVD and Internet Streaming services in the Netflix plan would be split off into two separate companies. Netflix will now be all streaming, while DVD’s will be delivered via a new company called Qwikster.

(The changes are scheduled to occur on April 1? Whose idea was that?)

Okay... So I subscribed to Netflix to get DVD's, they added on a streaming service "whether I wanted it or not," revised their pricing to make it less appealing (IMHO) to continue to get DVD's, and are now telling me that if I want what I purchased from them to begin with I will have to do so through the new company? To me, this smacks of a company telling consumers, "Don't worry about what you think you want - we know what you really want." No, you actually don't.

Across the Internet, I see that all's not well at Netflix. Their stock market valuation is half of it was at its July peak, and they're expecting to lose about a million subscribers over the short term. I suspect that the change has a lot to do with their vision of a future in which streaming dominates the market, and that they perceive their continued DVD offerings as complicating their anticipated business model, both in their pricing model and in their efforts to obtain content.

Right now, I don't find the streamable content on Netflix to be particularly compelling, but they have quite a few kids' TV shows and movies such that there's always something that can entertain my daughter in a pinch. I occasionally scan through their streaming options, including the films available in my queue, and typically find that the most compelling content is either stuff I've seen or falls into the broad category of, "That looks interesting... Maybe I'll watch it some other day."

What do I expect from the "new" Netflix? I expect that they'll offer a basic streamed subscription and premium streamed content. I expect that they'll offer pay per view choices that, unlike their DVD service, will be able to offer movies for viewing the same day they're available through other pay per view providers. Why spin off the DVD side? Because you don't really want to have your customers see in their queue that a movie will be available starting in three weeks, at which time they will have a "long wait" before it is mailed to them, if you're going to be offering the same movie by instant streaming for $3.99.

I expect that the past - once Netflix's entire business model - is being pushed into the new company for two reasons: First, all of Netflix's existing customers will be subscribers to the new all-streaming service and, second, the company sees the DVD business as part of the past. Spin it off and let it turn into a boutique-level service on somebody else's watch.

Grouping Friends is a Good Idea....

But as far as implementation goes, this is a big "oops" for Facebook:

The problems started on Thursday, the day after Facebook revamped groups, giving users a way to compartmentalize their Facebook lives and post certain items to pre-designated groups of people. That's when technology blogger Michael Arrington, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Mahalo founder Jason Calacanis all found themselves added to a group called NAMBLA.

The response so far is inadequate:

A Facebook spokeswoman confirmed that group members can only add their friends to the group. "If you have a friend that is adding you to groups you do not want to belong to, or they are behaving in a way that bothers you, you can tell them to stop doing it, block them or remove them as a friend -- and they will no longer ever have the ability to add you to any group," she wrote in an e-mail. "If you don't trust someone to look out for you when making these types of decisions on the site, we'd suggest that you shouldn't be friends on Facebook."

Why do I say that? Because Facebook has become a tool for organizers, marketers, celebrities and politicians, many of whom "friend" anybody who asks. As is evidenced by the magnitude of the "friends" list of the people involved in this incident:

Arrington himself was added to the group by someone named Jon Fisher, one of Arrington's 4,824 Facebook friends. Fisher is also one of Calacanis's 4,740 friends.

The article highlights a few more examples of how the feature can be abused. Sure, there's something to only "friending" real friends, but a huge percentage of Facebook members prefer to have a high friends count than an accurate total. And if you're using Facebook in some of the ways that has gained it so much attention, such as by allowing politicians to "friend" pretty much anybody who asks, absent a fix you're going to see a rapid exodus of that class of user from Facebook.

Looking For Five Star Treatment In All The Wrong Places

I'll admit it. I haven't done much five star travel. With a few fleeting exceptions, my travel tops out at four stars, maybe 4.5. When I was recently planning a second honeymoon, I saw some wonderful deals on five star resorts. For one, sure, I may have had a celebrity neighbor and enjoyed an expansive private beach... or, should I say, being bored to tears on an expansive private beach... but that's not for me. For the other, the photographs of the resort made it clear that they were targeting a clientele that has a weekly wardrobe budget approximating what I spend in a year, maybe two. So no, even at "bargain prices" I knew those destinations weren't right for me.

In reading about the economic downturn I read how luxury travelers, those who routinely go to five star hotels and resorts, fall into two categories - the phenomenally wealthy whose assets and income are such that nothing ever puts a dent in their travel budgets or plans,¹ and those who are feeling the pinch of the decline in the economy. That latter set, it's said, would rather carve a few days off of a vacation than go downscale - or, as the article put it, once they've spent time in the Turks and Caicos, they would rather have a four day vacation there than take a week in the Dominican Republic. You know, facing the horror of 4.5 star treatment. (And I found myself thinking, "You're still talking about the type of vacation that would bore me to tears.")

So at this point, let me skip to the middle of this complaint about how the staff of luxury hotels hate their customers:

And I remembered that the happiest I have been on holidays in recent years is when I stayed in a five-quid-a-night hostel in Jerusalem with a big hole in the wall covered by a rug. Because I actually went out and I saw Jerusalem. When you stay in a luxury hotel, the luxury is the destination. You are essentially visiting a bathroom. You don't see anything except the luxury. And the luxury is the same wherever you go.

If you choose to think of the hotel as the destination, how can you expect to have a great vacation? If you spend thousands of dollars to travel to an exotic location and shutter yourself inside the local Ritz-Carlton, you may have a wonderful hotel experience (or not - we'll get to that part later), but the whole point of staying in that type of hotel is to be separated from the local culture. Once you get past the luxury, it's no different than staying in a good business traveler's chain hotel - the point is the consistency and predictability of your treatment and experience. If you're the type who won't leave your hotel room unless it's a literal flea trap, then stay in a flea trap or enjoy your luxury cocoon, but don't complain to me that you made the wrong choice.

The staff of these hotels are usually educated people from poor countries who spend all day waiting on people who are much stupider - and nastier - than them. As a result, they - entirely naturally - become bitter and are turned into status police. Their job is to assess if you belong there or not.

That will depend upon the location you pick and your choice of hotel. It's usually not too difficult to figure out from a hotel's literature or website whether it's the type of place where you're going to be expected to dress expensively, and it's easy enough to find another hotel where the other guests don't have quite the same sartorial expectations. Or if it's a smaller hotel staffed by people with long connections to the hotel and city, versus a huge commercial enterprise staffed by whomever will work for a salary as close as possible to minimum wage. But make no mistake, even if you feel that it's the staff that notices that you're underdressed, that expectation comes from your fellow five star travelers. When it comes to taking your money, most businesses aren't inclined to impose much of a dress code beyond "No shirt, no shoes, no service" - if that - but if doing otherwise makes other wealthy travelers unhappy they're going to start requiring jackets, ties, and the like. It's business.

I have also seen profound differences in the way my wife and I interact with hotel staff and the interactions of certain other people. We were recently at a small resort, being served our dinner, when another couple interrupted our server to demand his immediate attention - they wanted him to put more wood in the fireplaces near where they were sitting. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they were concerned that they weren't supposed to add wood themselves - something that would have taken all of the time and effort of walking six steps, picking up boards sitting next to the fireplace, and putting them into the fire - but they left no doubt that, in their mind, they were the most important people at the resort, justifying their insistent interruption of our table service.

My guess is that if they were to open their eyes, they would see something similar to what the author of the complaint describes as a consistent attitude of five star hotel staff: "This hate has followed me around the luxury hotels of Europe". Honestly, you can see a change in the eyes of a staff member who is asked to smile and serve an obnoxious guest. But at the same time, it helps you differentiate what happens when you treat the staff with respect and consideration.²

Consider this anecdote about President Obama's recent visit to the U.K.:

As the president stepped up to 10 Downing Street, he leant over, made eye contact, said something courteous, and shook the hand of the police officer standing guard. There’s always a police officer there; he is a tourist logo in his ridiculous helmet. He tells you that this is London, and the late 19th century. No one has ever shaken the hand of the policeman before, and like everyone else who has his palm touched by Barack Obama, he was visibly transported and briefly forgot himself. He offered the hand to Gordon Brown, the prime minister, who was scuttling behind.

It was ignored. He was left empty-handed. It isn’t that Mr. Brown snubbed the police officer; he just didn’t see him. To a British politician, a police officer is as invisible as the railings.

Whatever the price range, you'll probably find a lot less "hate" in the eyes of a hotel staff member if you notice them and treat them like they're human beings. When the "hate" follows you wherever you go, you need to stop and ask yourself a question: If the hotels are different, the cities are different, and the staff members are different, can you perhaps identify one element that remains the same through each encounter? Dare I ask, could that be where the problem lies?
_____________

1. What a difference a year can make. The same author on a ludicrously expensive, star-studded resort:

I am in Paradise. I am lying by the sparkling Caribbean Sea in Barbados, in the shadow of a palm tree, drinking fruit punch and reading the Daily Mail.... Of the stars and Masters of the Universe who come here, all will pay at least £40,000 and others, with parents and children in tow, will pay up to £400,000, because a 14-night stay is mandatory over Christmas.

Tell us about the staff?

Entering is thrilling - you pass through bright white gates and a grassy fairyland, studded with gushing fountains and floodlit palm trees and lackeys well practised in appearing overjoyed to see you....

A flunkey brings me a menu to goggle at. A hamburger is $30. A pizza is £25. An olive is £2. But it's cheap at the price, to eat near Michael Winner, film director and restaurant critic, and Philip Green, who sold me the dress I'm wearing, although he doesn't know it.

Although I'm sure she would argue that her choice of words is technically correct, their connotation is something else. How long would it take a normal person to recognize that the people she describes as "lackeys" and "flunkeys" pick up on her attitude?

2. For an interesting glimpse into the human psyche - how quickly somebody can be drawn into a world where she doesn't recognize the existence of an "us" and "them" so as to even be aware of what others are doing to float her luxurious lifestyle, see the PBS series Manor House.

Where Have All The Agents Gone?

It's a good question. Seth Godin's correct that differentiation is key - if you wish to survive as a travel agent, stock broker, real estate agent... you need to find some way to either justify your commission or fee.

I recently took a trip to Chile, made much better by the advice of Ellen Craig, who unabashedly bills herself as a "luxury travel consultant". She helped us find and stay in properties we were unlikely to either identify or choose on our own, and those properties proved to be excellent to amazing.

Here, differentiation is the price point. But if you're planning a fifth anniversary trip (as we were), maybe it's time for some self-indulgence.

Planes, Automobiles... But No Trains

(Unless you count the airport shuttles.)

For those who have somehow managed to miss the wacky weather, yesterday morning was not a good time to be connecting through Atlanta.

If I may state the obvious:

• If you're working in an airport and somebody is connecting on a return international flight, it's not particularly helpful to ask them why they didn't make their travel plans around U.S. weather forecasts from the preceding few days.

• If you're running an airline and have hundreds of passengers - literally hundreds - lined up for help, even if no flights are going out, it's beyond obnoxious not to have more than one person working the reservations counter. (And no, it doesn't make up for much when you finally bring somebody in to help out an hour or so later.)

• If you're in a part of the country that rarely gets snow, yes, it's cool to stop your truck and take pictures of your small child making and throwing snowballs. But in a safe location - not on the side of the most treacherous, slippery, snow-covered exit ramp in your state.

• If you are providing roadside assistance for car rentals, and your customer calls about replacing a car due to a potentially dangerous problem, you're correct to answer "yes" when the customer asks if they'll be expecting you at the nearest rental location so you can exchange the car - but you have to follow that up by ensuring that the people at that location actually will be expecting the customer.

• If you're driving from Atlanta to Michigan, even if it's entirely necessary due to the weather, it's painful to have to drive around Tennessee.

• Real life road trips are nowhere near as interesting as those in movies - they don't even come with a laugh track.

But even considering the 40+ hours of travel time on the return trip, it was still a great vacation.

When was the last time you took a winter trip (at least in this hemisphere) and sighed, "Thank goodness we're back in the north, out of the snowstorms and flurries, where the roads are clear and dry."

Coordinated Bankruptcy for the Auto Industry

The Times offers an interesting editorial proposing that the federal government facilitate the simultaneous bankruptcy of the "Big Three" auto makers, accompanied by extension of sufficient credit to sustain their operations through that process. This beats the current congressional proposal of, "Come to us with a business plan we like and maybe we'll lend you money," as it would allow the auto companies to address problems they cannot discuss as part of such a business plan - for example, how to eliminate failing brands and close hundreds of auto dealerships. If Ford announces, "We're going to close down Mercury," or even more modestly, "We're going to close it down as an independent line, while making select Mercury models available through Lincoln dealerships", they would create immediate consumer concern about Mercury vehicles, and would be immediately sued by Mercury dealers. If they say, "To control expenses, we need to cut the number of dealerships by a third," again they would be facing lawsuits by car dealers afraid of being among that third.

Meanwhile, the fact is that the manner in which cars are sold and distributed in this country is out-of-date, excessively costly, and anything but consumer friendly. At this point if you want to buy an iPod and only an iPod, you can go online to the Apple Store and buy one. But if you want to price shop or compare the iPod to other brands, you can choose from thousands of online and retail vendors who carry multiple brands of MP3 players. While iPhone sales are more constrained, once again you can find stores that offer contracts through multiple services, so you can go in and choose between an iPhone and a variety of service plans, and similar products from other vendors and service providers.

Try that with a car.

What if you're interested in offering a new type of dealership - a concierge type service that caters to professionals at their offices, allows them to arrange to drive a car model of their choice on their schedule, and offers the full range of makes and models they are apt to want to buy? Good luck with that.

What if an auto maker wishes to take the Saturn model to its next logical level, and build a Dell-style website where customers can pick a model - any model they offer - customize it, and have it delivered in days to a dealership with them with no haggling, no surprises, no post-sale pressure for "paint protection" or similar add-ons, no concern about financing (you've already been approved online) or confusing over rates. Get a good price, don't worry that you're paying more than the next guy or being otherwise hoodwinked, and show up at the dealership to inspect your vehicle, go over any special features, and drive away. The manufacturers are already about 90% of the way there with their "design your own vehicle" features on their websites. But do you think there's any chance that the crucial remaining 10% will get past NADA?

Bankruptcy only touches on these issues - facilitating the dropping of brands and closure of dealerships - but it doesn't do anything to overcome anachronistic, protectionist state laws that prevent innovation in vehicle distribution and sales, reduce manufacturer and customer cost, and increase customer convenience. But really, you're unlikely to hear anything about this from the CEO's of the Big Three.

I continue to favor something similar to bankruptcy but legislated by Congress, as opposed to Chapter 11, as being a possible path to reforming the auto industry with a much lower risk of failure. For those who complain, "Foreign auto makers will think it's unfair," I say, "They're not complaining about protectionism in their own nations, and you know what else - they're welcome to join in." If Congress is unwilling to act, cannot act with sufficient speed (as the authors of the editorial surmise), or forces bankruptcy upon the domestic auto industry, I think it's fair to say that it will be the result of a failure of leadership - in Congress, the auto industry, the UAW, and the nation's auto dealers and their "union", NADA (who are strangely omitted from most discussions of the industry's problems).

"No, You Can't Have That Discount"

You've probably seen banner ads for Lamps Plus on major media websites, including newspaper websites, offering $10 off a purchase. Well, I was in the market for a new lamp, and thought I would try them out. They have a really clever database design, "powered by EasyAsk", they have nice, clear images of their merchandise, their prices are comparable to other online vendors, and they do a great job trying to upsell accessories at the end of your purchase.

So what are they doing wrong?

They wouldn't honor their discount.

Now I'll grant, when you click through their ad you get a paragraph-long set of exclusions from the $10 discount offer, but they do nothing to explain to you why a particular lighting fixture doesn't qualify for a discount. You just get an impersonal error message and no discount.

To me, that's worse than not offering a discount in the first place.¹

So what did I do? I searched the same product at Yahoo! shopping, used Google to look up coupon codes for the various merchants listed, and found one that offered a ten percent discount plus free shipping. Lamps Plus ended up saving its $10, and I ended up saving quite a bit more.
________________
1. It feels like enough of a cheat when you see the "coupon code" box and don't have a code. I like the approach of KidSurplus, where they offer up a coupon code on every page of their site - so you have the easy opportunity to get a discount if you don't have a better code from another source.

How About a $100 "We'll Treat You Like a Human" Fee?

With the rising cost of fuel, the commoditization of ticket prices, and an apparent zeal to gouge every spare cent out of a passenger's pockets, the nation's (probably the world's) airlines have collectively made air travel an unpleasant experience. Frequent flyers may benefit from upgrades to a higher class of seat, assuming they're available, but pretty much everybody else must choose between the often absurd price of a "first class" or "business class" ticket or flying in the cattle car coach. Airlines don't appear inclined to lower fares for their first/business class sections, and to date the airlines offering all first class or all business class seating seem to be faltering and failing. So what's another option?

How about letting any passenger who wants pay a flat $100 (perhaps more for international flights), and treat them as if the clock has been rolled back to when air travel was more pleasant. For that money, give them a day pass to the airline's "club" lounge at the airport, the right to be screened through the expedited "first class" security line, the right to check at least one bag without an extra fee, a seat toward the front of the coach section of the plane, and a somewhat upgraded in-flight meal or snack (if they wish)? This could also be offered to frequent flyers who would otherwise qualify for a free upgrade when there's no room in first/business class, and to other flyers who want to cash in some saved miles for the privilege of being treated decently.

That's Helpful....

If your Internet service is out and you call Comcast, they tell you that you can avoid a wait for a customer service representative by... using their website.

LexisNexis Pulls An AOL

You know, as somebody who has used LexisNexis for years (and yes, it costs a lot of money), I didn't expect them to give me such great difficulty in canceling my account. But they "pulled an AOL".

When I tried to find a contact number to reach them on their website, well, they don't make it obvious. When I got through to a representative I was told, "You can only cancel your account through your account representative." (Every time I have had to contact my representative, it has been a different person.) The reason is obvious - they want to try to talk you out of ending the service, instead of simply complying with your request.

My representative? I had to leave a voice mail. Her message indicated that she was out of the office for the week, and would not be checking her messages during that time. There's some great customer service for you. She called back today, apparently having been too busy on Monday to return my call, and immediately went into her "Why, why, why" routine. When I told her that I didn't want to explain my decision, but simply wanted my request to be granted, I got a very curt response. I indicated that she was doing a pretty good job of ensuring that they don't get my business in the future and I got the complaint, "You're not telling us how we can get your business, anyway."

Sure I was. It's just that she wasn't listening. If they wanted my business in the future, they would have treated me with respect, would have honored my request to cancel my account, and would not have required that I jump through hurdles. If they truly wanted my business, they might even have thanked me for my years of patronage.

She then imposed yet another hoop for me to jump through - I had to send her an email requesting cancellation.

If they really want to know the "big secret" for why I was canceling, here goes: When my contract was almost up, I got an impersonal letter from them indicating that if I did not promptly renew my fees would be increased. The rep who was so interested in why I was canceling didn't call to see why I hadn't renewed. Then WestLaw called, and offered a really nice package. Which isn't surprising, because that's what people do when they want your business - they call you and try to sell you their services.

I switched from WestLaw to Lexis a number of years ago. At that time, all I had to do was contact West and request that they cancel my account. They were very polite, and didn't impose any further hurdles or hoops. I will be disappointed if that's not the case in the future, should I cancel my WestLaw account, but... Let's just say it's a good thing for Lexis that it will be a few years before my contract with West is up. I have no present interest in switching back to Lexis.

A Mistake? On Our Website? Impossible!

After a couple of days trying to book a flight on NWA.com, and receiving a variety of error messages, I received an error message instructing me to call their reservations center. So I did. The person who answered instructed me that she could take my reservation, but it would cost an extra $10 per person. I objected on the basis that I had to call because there was an error on their website. The rather condescending response? No, the problem was that I was entering my information incorrectly, and if I wanted she could put me through to technical support so somebody could tell me how to enter it correctly.

I explained again that the problem was with the website. I was told again, no, the only possible cause of an error had to be me. But she could book the flight for that extra $10/person fee. So I instructed her that if there was somebody who could magically fix the problem with their website over the phone, I would love to speak to that person. (Yes, a little bit of condescension in return.) Again, "There isn't anything wrong with our website." So, I instructed her, by all means, please... transfer me to the magical person in technical support.

I know - you'll be shocked to learn this. It took about thirty seconds for their technical support person to recognize that they had an error on their website which was preventing my online reservation.

The tech support person was great. But as we could not work around the error on the website, ultimately she had somebody from reservations book the flight.

A Note To Dell Customer Service

Dear Dell,

1. When I purchased my computer from you, you presented a list of warranty options. I chose what I wanted.

2. You don't need to call me to try to sell me a more expensive warranty. I already had that opportunity, and chose what I wanted.

3. And if you are going to call me, don't robocall me. Have a real person at the other end of the line when I answer your completely unwanted solicitation, not an awkward pause while your attack dialer tries to connect me with a sales agent.

Thank you.

How Sears Continued To (Un)Distinguish Itself

Following up on my prior post about customer service, the redelivery date rolled around. Sears has an interesting system where they computer call you to inform you of the time you can expect delivery, and to confirm that an adult will be present to receive the delivery. That's fine, but both times I used the system after confirming that the delivery window was acceptable and an adult would be present, I was connected with an operator and had to repeat that process with a live person. If the electronic system doesn't work, fix it or scrap it.

The delivery crews both times were very good. The washer and dryer were redelivered in new condition. After the washer and dryer were installed, though, there was a problem with the washer. It kept producing an error code indicating a lack of water flow and, after the installer had followed the instructions in the trouble-shooting guide a few times, he indicated that the washer appeared to be defective. He indicated that Sears could send out a technician, but that I could also request a replacement unit. When I called the Sears 800 number to describe the problem, I was told that I could also try "rapid resolution" - basically, technical support by phone. I tried it; at least in my case it wasn't worth the time.

When I was reconnected to the department responsible for service and replacement, the person I spoke with seemed to be under instructions to encourage service over replacement, but it wasn't a hard sell. And when I was transferred to another person to schedule the replacement, that person (to her credit) checked to see if a technician was available prior to the first available delivery date to minimize my time without a washer. (The service call would have been to repair the unit pending replacement, not in lieu of replacement.)

Looking at my growing laundry pile, and not feeling particularly inclined to go to a laundromat, I decided to take another look at the washer. Following the troubleshooting instructions for the 100th or so time didn't work (big surprise). As the error related to water flow, I decided to disconnect the water hoses just to see what might happen. (They had previously been repeatedly examined for kinks.) Not surprisingly the hoses were fine, water ran through them.... they're pretty simple devices. So I reconnected the washer, plugged it back in, and sure enough, it worked. Perhaps an air bubble was blocking air flow?

I then went to the Sears.com website where I was instructed on their customer service contact page that I could contact them,

By Email: Our system will route your question to the proper place.

Should it go without saying? The response to the email was that I could not cancel the redelivery by email and would have to call their 800 number. Because, you know, I'm trying to save them money....

But I do like the new washer and dryer (which I selected with the assistance of Consumer Reports Greener Choices).

Sears and Customer Service

Oh, the problem's not so much Sears, but Sears exemplifies the problem. Also, given that there was a time when Sears could literally deliver your doorstep to your doorstep, it's amazing that the 21st century successor makes no apparent effort to distinguish itself from its competitors.

Sears also has the problem that they have been around long enough that a large proportion of the population is likely to have had a customer service problem with them, and pretty much everybody else is going to know somebody who has had a customer service problem with them. (Case in point.) Sears made the mistake a few decades back of letting its quality control slip, and by doing so it alienated an enormous base of consumers. I was one of them, so I was a bit surprised at myself for giving Sears another chance with my recent purchase of a washer and dryer.

The delivery crew who brought the appliances was very polite and professional. But unfortunately, somebody at the warehouse had crushed the top of the dryer (a v-shaped impression, probably 1-1/2 to 2 inches deep at the front of the unit and reaching all the way to the back), and had scraped both sides of the washer. I probably could have been convinced to keep the washer (for a discount), assuming I tested it and it worked, but the damage to the dryer was a bit much (and I'm not at all sure that it would have worked).

This is where Sears could have gone the extra mile, to ensure a positive customer experience. They could have apologized and arranged for a very rapid shipment of replacement units. But Sears doesn't choose to distinguish itself in its treatment of customers. Its shipping department punches product information into a computer and if the computer says "two weeks", you get your replacement shipment in two weeks. If you ask for an explanation, you get to talk to a supervisor who will also tell you want the computer says. In fairness, the supervisor I spoke with seemed to make a genuine effort to find out if a faster shipment was possible, but she had no discretion to go outside of channels - so the date the computer spat out is the date of redelivery.

I would also like to tell you that calling customer service was easy, but you probably already know better. The first time I called, using the number on the receipt from the order, after I was told that my phone number isn't in the system for delivery (it is) and punching in my phone number (the same one they automatically detected when I called), I was given an abrupt recorded message that there was a problem with my call, and was disconnected. When I called back, after again punching in my phone number, I was connected to a representative. The first thing she wanted from me, of course, was my phone number. (This is hardly unique to Sears, but is absurd.) After a brief discussion, she transferred me to home delivery. Home delivery told me that I had already spoken to somebody from home delivery when the problem with the shipment was detected. That was true, I responded, but that person told me to call customer service as I could probably get an expedited shipping date. "I don't know why they would have told you that." (Don't you just love that reply?) Then it was suggested that customer service should help me - "Do you want the number before I transfer you?" You guessed it - the same number I called earlier, which resulted in my being transferred to home delivery.

After another attempt to discuss the situation with customer service, I was offered the aforementioned opportunity to speak to a manager. I asked if the manager could do something, or if she would simply repeat what I had previously been told. The response was that I could expect to hear what I had previously been told. "Do you still want to talk to her?" Sure. Why not. I'm now more than twenty minutes into the phone call, and what's a few more minutes.

The person who took over the call identified herself as a supervisor, and I do think she tried to find a way to expedite the delivery, but as I previously noted she seemed locked into channels. She had neither the power nor authority to "find a way to make the customer happy". Toward the end of our discussion, the line dropped. I didn't get a call back; perhaps she thought I hung up on her. Needless to say, two dropped calls in one exchange with customer service is two too many.

The issue here is that Sears does have the power and capacity to obtain and redeliver the washer and dryer in less than two weeks - they simply don't find that level of customer support to be worth the investment. I know that I could as easily be writing this complaint about another appliance vendor, and my thoughts would be the same: Customer service is easy when things go as planned. But if you don't care enough to distinguish yourself when the customer has a problem, particularly when the problem is your fault, you will send the message that you don't care about the customer.

Declining NetFlix Service

(I'm not talking about their intentionally slow service for people whom they deem to be returning movies too quickly. I'm also not speaking of their seemingly chronic problem with ordering too few copies of newly released films to reasonably satisfy customer demand.)

Over the past two months my experience with NetFlix has involved repeated problems with movies being lost (and ultimately found) in the mail. They made an unexplained mistake in shipping one of the movies on my queue which, as a result, shows a "Shipped" date of "3/06/06" and a "Est. Arrival" date of "3/28/06" - twenty-two days! I have had two other movies "lost" in shipment to me, one due to an envelope coming apart in the mail (I received the portion of the envelope with my address on it - the part you tear off and discard before returning the movie) and another that simply didn't arrive (but was later found by NetFlix).

The processing time for returns is often much longer than it used to be, and now often seems to be three or four business days, and I don't believe that the USPS is responsible. It also seems to be more common for them to mail the new movie one or two business days after their receipt of a return.

I will grant that this could just be bad luck - a statistical anomaly which is unfortunately affecting my account. Are other Netflix subscribers having a better experience?

Modern Customer Service

One of the biggest problems of the manner in which many businesses offer what presently passes for "customer service" is that there is no consistency in who is working to resolve a problem, and thus there is nobody who is responsible to resolve the problem. Some companies, such as (at last check) MCI, claim not to have individual extensions for their employees. (A phone company wihtout extensions? C'mon.) Even if you have the employee's name, you have to try to work your way through an invisible labyrinth of switchboards to be reconnected.

Some more recent examples of this phenomenon:

* My webhosting company, eager to make me wonder why I stayed with them after last year's experience, tried to pair customer service highs with customer service lows. The highs? Their employees are for the most part very good at dealing with increasingly frustrated customers. The lows? Pretty much everything else.

I was having some problems with a server, so I requested that they reboot the server. The site didn't come back online, which isn't a particularly good sign - but also one they should catch. When they did get the server restarted, it wouldn't run Apache, which is to say it wouldn't run any websites. They ran a diagnostic and, surprise, the hard drive was failing

I asked the technician who called with that news how long I could reasonably expect one of their hard drives to last. "We use Seagate drives." Yes, but how long should they last? "I've seen them last a month, and I've seen them last five years." Yes, but how long should I reasonably be able to expect them to last? "If you need to be absolutely certain that your data is always online there are systems which can do that. For $100,000.00 you can set up a...." I'm aware that if I spend an unlimited amount of money I can get a much more reliable system; I'm asking about this hard drive on this system. I know I'm not one of your heavier users, so what can I reasonably expect? "I've seen them last for years, or sometimes just a month or two." Egad....

Rather than sticking a new hard drive into the old system, I contacted customer service to upgrade to newer, more capable hardware. "You're aware that we won't be able to transfer your IP's over to the new machine?" Well, not ideal, but I still wanted to upgrade. I made clear that I wanted to cancel the old machine, as it wasn't running anyway and I wasn't going to bring it back online even if they put a new hard drive in it. I added on their backup solution which, although in my opinion a bit overpriced for what you get will perhaps save me some grief the next time my hard drive fails after a period of time they cannot approximate.

So I go to the new server's administrative interface and start setting up the websites. At which time I notice that the only IP Addresses I can assign to websites are those from the old server. I contact customer service. "The new block of IP's should have been assigned to your server." Well, yeah. "Hey - you say you're cancelling the old server. We can transfer that block of IP's to your new server if you want." I thought you couldn't do that. "It's pretty easy. I'll take care of it for you." It should be done in about sixty to ninety minutes.

Later that evening I still can't work with the IP's, so I call back. "It says here in the notes that everything is fine." What does it say if you attempt to verify the notes, rather than just reading them. "Oh. It looks like it wasn't completed. And the guy who does that went home for the night." So? "He comes in about 8:30 in the morning. I'll put a sticky on his screen and he'll probably take care of it first thing."

At 9:00 the next morning.... "That was done last night." Did you see the sticky on your screen? "Yes, I did, but the notes say it was done." Did you attempt to verify the notes, rather than just reading them? "Oh. Let me look into this." [Insert 40 minutes on hold here.] "It was done yesterday." If it was done yesterday, why isn't it working now? "Our system has to reset itself for the changes to take place, and it reboots every six hours. So everything should be working by noon." Didn't the system reboot, then, at 6 AM? And for that matter at midnight last night? And at 6 PM yesterday? "Um, the system will reboot at noon and it should work after that."

That was accurate - shortly after noon, everything seemed to be working... except for the fact that I couldn't access the server by FTP or POP or SMTP. I spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out if there was a problem at my end... nope. Back to technical support. "The ports are closed." Yes, when I called you I told you that the ports were closed. I need them open, so I can set up my websites." "I don't know why they are closed." I don't care. I need them open. "It may be a security reason, because they should be open." Well, find out if there is a security problem then, fix it, and open them. "I can't see from the account history if you closed them or if we did. If you closed them there will be a charge to reopen them." I'm telling you right now that you closed them. "Let me check something. Can you hold for a couple of minutes?" [Insert a couple of minutes on hold here.] "We can't figure out who closed the ports, so we'll open them without charging you." You closed them. Thank you for agreeing to reopen them. "I said we couldn't figure out...." Well, as I said, I didn't close them, which leaves you.

"Which ports do you want open?" How about the ones which are supposed to be open by default? "I can't advise you as to which ports to have open." I'm not asking for advice, just the default settings. [Insert tedious discussion of ports here.] "We can have those open for you in one to two hours, and I've made the note extremely clear so that they will do it right." Is this something I can fix from my end? "No, this has to be changed here... wait, yes. On your machine you can open these ports yourself." Can you tell me how? "Sorry, I can't do that."

Two hours later, a return call to indicate that the SMPT and POP ports (those for email) remained closed (although I had been happily transferring files to the server to bring the sites back on line). "Let me tell you how to fix that yourself" (Less than thirty seconds later....)

Although the summary doesn't necessarily convey it, that last technician was highly professional, courteous, and knowledgeable. He was unable to be more helpful because company policy is to charge by the task for as much support as possible unless a customer is paying a monthly fee to have support included with their server. So even though every single problem I had was the fault of the webhost, their own policies prevented their technicians from providing actual customer support... because I hadn't paid them for the privilege of helping them troubleshoot their own screwups. It says something that at the end of the day (well, actually, the end of the second day) their own technical support representative was sufficiently exhausted with their system to break the rules by giving me instruction, rather than issuing yet another ticket to have things fixed in-house "in an hour or two."

* I sent an inquiry to Comcast over some email problems, noting that AOL was rejecting emails I was sending. In the first email I described the correction that AOL requested they implement in order to resolve the problem. In the second email I summarized the problem and pointed out a minor incorrection in the first email.

The response to the first email explained that they could not make individualized changes to Comcast accounts, then presented a lengthy (and entirely irrelevant) description of how to configure email for an Outlook Express account. (Even if I used Outlook Express, that wouldn't be the problem....)

The second email, which by any sensible measure should have been sent to the same person, went instead to a different person. That second person, looking at exactly the same problem, indicated "We are aware of this issue and we apologize for any inconvenience that it may cause you. Our engineers are in contact with the email administrators at AOL, and they are working together to resolve this issue."

In my opinion, they're working a bit too slowly at one end or the other, but at least the second communication was relevant and helpful. However only the first communication was given a customer service ticket number, so I can't follow up to the second without being routed to yet another random customer support person.

Giving Customers What They (Don't) Want

Recent changes over at the New York Times, specifically their moving editorials into a "for pay" category while adding additional services for paying readers, reminds me of a place I used to work. They had two subscription products, one of which ("Product A") was popular and lucrative, the second of which (("Product B") was a big money loser. They got the brilliant idea of eliminating both products and replacing them with a single new product - giving buyers less of "Product A" at a lower price, and throwing in "Product B" for free. But the customers weren't thrilled, pointing out that had they wanted "Product B" they would have signed up for it in the first place. After about four years, the combined product was changed to offer all of both the original products; but at a lower price than the organization had been able to charge for Product A alone before making the changes.

Let's just say, I'm not convinced that the best way to convince customers to pay for a product they want is to add features that the customers haven't previously used or requested. If the editorials themselves aren't expected entice people to sign up for Times Select, perhaps the pricing model (or subscription model) should be reconsidered.

As they say, time will tell.