Behind The Veil Part 5: Comcast Metrics For All Employees As Simple As ABC, Always Be Closing

from the anybody-but-comcast dept

In the ongoing fallout Comcast is facing due to the high-pressure sales tactics of their non-sales employees, the company has consistently indicated that these employees are not behaving in a manner consistent with the company's wishes. The common thread in most of these stories consists of customer service duties being handled by customer retention reps as often as not and complaints or attempts to cancel service being met with sales pitches instead of service. Comcast has specifically indicated that these examples are outside of the way they train employees to conduct their business.

Comcast, as it turns out, is completely full of shit. The latest reveal via past and current Comcast employees spilling their guts to The Verge is all about employee metrics. And it seems that Comcast sees everyone as part of the sales team.

Guidelines for repair reps, which show how a trouble call can be segued into a sales call, are part of S4, Comcast's "universal call flow." S4 is an evaluative measurement to ensure that all agents "give every customer a great call experience every time." It stands for: start, solve, sell, summarize. Part S3, or "sell," includes four parts: "transition to relevant offer," "present offer," "overcome objections," and "proactively close sale."

That's not even a retention rep being trained in that document; it's a repair tech. Because, hey, the thing I most want when Comcast's service is failing is the person fixing it to sell me more of that failing service. This is the kind of pressure tactics that lead repair calls down the dark path to an angry customer who likely subsequently finds out that Comcast has a monopoly on service in their area. Where are my free-market conservative friends on this stuff? This is supposed to be in your wheelhouse!

It doesn't get any better for customer service reps.

Similarly, a scorecard for customer service reps in the Pennsylvania area shows that sales are explicitly worth 18 percent of an agent's performance. Sales are measured again in the general customer service "Pinnacle" metric, which is worth 27 percent. An excerpt from the Pinnacle guidelines says "Sales/Conversion" is one of eight categories measured in an employee's interaction with a customer.

A fifth of a customer service reps performance is judged on their salesmanship. Let that sink in for a moment and then remind yourself of this fact the next time you call for a complaint or help with your service. That person you're speaking to is being judged on whether they can sell you on something when they're supposed to be helping you.

You can see the full dump of the metrics documents here, but don't eat much before you go looking. You may not be able to keep your meal down.

Filed Under: broadband, customer service, selling, upsell
Companies: comcast

Corruption Index: If A State Moves To Ban Tesla Direct Sales, It's A Sign Of Corruption

from the the-most-logical-explanation dept

A year ago, NPR's Planet Money podcast had a show detailing one of the most horrific consumer experiences around: buying a car. The main reason it was deemed that the process was so ridiculous and unpleasant was a variety of state laws that ban car makers from selling directly, and instead require a network of dealerships. A research paper highlighted how these state laws have been a massive boon to the owners of dealerships, but have seriously harmed automakers themselves. It has also shown how these laws are open to significant corruption issues, since dealers generate tremendous local tax revenue:

States earn about 20 percent of all state sales taxes from auto dealers, and auto dealerships can easily account for 7-8 percent of all retail employment.... The bulk of these taxes (89 percent) are generated by new car dealerships, those with whom manufacturers deal directly. As a result, car dealerships, and especially local or state car dealership associations, have been able to exert influence over local legislatures. This has resulted in a set of state laws that almost guarantee dealership profitability and survival--albeit at the expense of manufacturer profits. Given these laws, manufacturers do have a financial interest in closing down new car dealerships, and in choosing which ones wil close. Additionally, available evidence and theory suggests that as a result of these laws, distribution costs and retail prices are higher than they otherwise would be; and this is particularly true for Detroit's Big Three car manufacturers--which is likely another factor contributing to their losses in market share vis-a-vis other manufacturers.

There is basically no valid reason for such laws. They serve no purpose other than to enrich local car dealership owners and state tax coffers at the expense of everyone else -- especially the public.

And yet, because these laws benefit both the politicians in charge and local dealerships, which tend to have strong lobbying power, they stay in place. That fight has been getting more notice lately, in large part because of Tesla, the innovative electric car company that has wowed nearly everyone who's driven one. A few years ago, we wrote about dealerships starting to complain about Tesla and it's plan to sell direct via the web, but with company-owned "showrooms." Tesla reasonably argued that these are not dealerships, and such laws didn't apply. Car dealers have flexed their political muscle to get various states to basically make it illegal to buy Teslas. This has even reached insane levels, with dealerships claiming that Tesla's website violates California DMV rules.

Things have been heating up quite a bit in the past few weeks. In late February, New York moved forward with some anti-Tesla legislation. On Monday of this week, Bloomberg had a long article about how dealers were freaking out about Tesla, with various challenges in Texas, Ohio, Arizona and elsewhere. Then, Tuesday morning Tesla itself announced that it may be forced to close the doors on its showrooms in New Jersey, after dealers went to the NJ Motor Vehicle Commission to complain about Tesla daring to sell direct. By late Tuesday afternoon, the Commission had officially approved the regulation banning Tesla from selling the car in the state.

This is insane on any number of levels. Not only is the car better for the environment, reviewers write about the car and talk about how it may be the best car ever built.

In response to this, entrepreneur/investor Paul Graham put it succinctly that banning Tesla "is an index of the corruptness of state governments" in the same manner as cities banning Uber or other disruptive new services. As in nearly all of those cases, the dealers are (laughingly) trying to argue that this is a "consumer protection issue." Again, the research linked above notes there's basically nothing to that argument, and safety reviews of the Tesla have suggested the car is incredibly safe. Besides, what does the safety of a car have to do with dealerships? Dealers try to claim that local dealers are "more committed to taking care of that area's customers." And yet they provide no evidence to support that -- mainly because there is none.

What's particularly hilarious, is that this move comes just days after New Jersey Governor Chris Christie talked up the power of the free market and against government intervention in business:

“We need to talk about the fact that we are for a free-market society that allows your effort and ingenuity to determine your success, not the cold, hard hand of the government.”

Right up and until the biggest supporters of state taxes demand your own government kills off sales of an innovative new competitor. Then, the "cold, hard hand of government" smacks you down.

The facts here are pretty simple: Tesla has built an innovative car, and gone with a pretty standard way of selling almost every non-automobile product: sell direct to a public who wants it. Dealers and state politicians, on the other hand, are basically teaming up in a corrupt manner to harm everyone (especially the car buying public) but themselves, and then having the gall to claim that they're doing so for the sake of "consumer protection"? No one's buying that excuse. Beyond the research above, plenty of others have pointed out the absurdity of this argument. Last year, professor Dan Crane debunked that basic claim:

A second argument is that having local dealers is necessary to ensure that customers are adequately served. For example, Bob Glaser of the North Carolina Automobile Dealer’s Association has asserted that the restrictions are a form of “consumer protection,” since “a dealer who has invested a significant amount of capital in a community is more committed to taking care of that area’s customers.” The obvious rejoinder is that Tesla has as much or more of an interest as the dealers in seeing that customers get the level of service they’re willing to pay for. If Tesla gets a bad reputation for quality, it will fail. I suppose that one might worry if Tesla were a fly-by-night operation selling customers an expensive durable good at a high price and then fleeing with its profits and leaving customers without support. But that’s obviously unlikely of a company that’s pouring billions of dollars into the creation of a new product and a recharging and battery swapping infrastructure. Car manufacturers make considerably larger fixed capital investments than do dealers and I’m sure that the dealer failure and exit rate is considerably higher than that of manufacturers.

A related argument is that dealers play an important role in complying with local laws regarding titling and safety inspection. But this argument doesn’t work either. First, observe that at present most states only prohibit manufacturers from opening their own dealerships—they don’t prohibit online sales from outside the state. (North Carolina recently passed a statute banning online sales as well). There’s no reason why a manufacturer-owned dealership should be less capable of complying with local laws than an independent dealer. Second, why should Internet sales involve evasion of state titling and safety inspection laws? Internet sales can just as easily be subject to the same titling and inspection requirements as dealer-initiated sales.

Furthermore, if it were true that consumers were harmed by letting companies sell directly, you'd think consumer advocates would be supporting the dealers. But they're not. They're supporting Tesla:

Jack Gillis, with the Consumer Federation of America, disagrees. Customers actually don't like haggling over prices, as evidenced by the fact that we haggle over almost nothing else except cars. A one-price system, like Tesla's, is fairer, Gillis said, because it's more transparent and doesn't put less belligerent shoppers at a disadvantage. If the price is too high, customers just won't buy the product.

In the end, New Jersey's actions just confirm what lots of people already knew, that New Jersey is hopelessly corrupt. But, this is nothing new. As Dan O'Connor points out in his story about all of this, a century ago, people did the same thing against the automobile, and in favor of horses. The (I'm not joking) Horse Association of America was created more or less to fight back against those evil cars, and presented talking points like the following:

If the extended displacement of horses and mules by motors resulted in economic gain to the nation as a whole, the campaign of the Horse Association of America to increase the production and use of horses and mules would not be warranted. The Association states that ample evidence has already been secured to prove that in many instances, such displacement is economically unsound, resulting in less reliable, less efficient service at greater cost. Consumers, grain dealers and grain producers alike suffer from such substitution, which, according to a leading traffic manager in New York City, is due chiefly to ignorance on the part of business men regarding the actual cost of operating horse drawn and motorized equipment.

That sounds mighty familiar. A century ago, politicians mostly saw through the insanity of it. But there wasn't so much money at stake back then. Today is different, and we all suffer because of it.

Filed Under: auto dealers, car dealers, cars, competition, corruption, new jersey, selling, selling direct, state taxes
Companies: tesla

Connecting Authors To Tangible Goods They Can Sell?

from the business-models... dept

When we talk about business models for content, one question we get asked a lot is how these business models could possibly apply to authors. We're always told that such business models might work for music, but couldn't possibly work for authors. To be honest, I find this sort of response incredibly uncreative. If you look around, it's actually not hard to find authors who are making use of new and innovative business models, and even publishers who are willing to embrace that kind of thinking. This is definitely a good thing, but we're always interested in hearing new and more examples of this happening.

Ross Pruden alerts us to an LA Times story about a company called OpenSky that is apparently helping authors implement additional business models by helping them find tangible products they can sell in association with their books. Indeed, the whole concept seems to fit in with our concept of using infinite goods to make scarce goods more valuable:

A cookbook author, for example, not only sells books through OpenSky but also hawks a favorite barbecue sauce and grill. The author pockets 50% of the profit, with the rest going to OpenSky and others involved in the transaction.

[...]

David Hale Smith, a Texas literary agent, was about the only one who hadn't morphed roles since Naples last saw him. After they sat down at a table near that escalator, Smith immediately handed her a copy of a client's newest novel: "So Cold the River" by Michael Koryta. Smith mentioned that it's set in an old hotel in central Indiana known for its Pluto Water, believed to have healthful effects.

Naples lit up: "If [Koryta] was on OpenSky, the novel could be tied to a promotion of the hotel. He could have a button on his site for readers to buy the book and the water." (OpenSky would find a supplier to bottle and ship it.) She described other commercial possibilities: a sneak-peak download of a chapter of his next book, a "webinar" with him discussing his stories.

I can already hear the critics complaining about this sort of "crass commercialism" that I'm sure is "destroying" the concept of "art for art's sake," but I find it odd that those who focus on the whole "art for art's sake" argument are the same folks who also complain that the changing marketplace means content creators can't make money any more. No one is saying anyone has to adopt these models -- just that for those who feel comfortable doing so, it's now easier than ever to embrace infinite concepts -- and use them to make scarce goods more valuable.

That said, after reading about all of this, I went and looked at OpenSky, and I don't see any of this on their website. Instead, it looks like a plain old store. If they're really focused on helping content creators, it seems like they would be a lot better off promoting content creators on their site as well.

Filed Under: authors, business models, sales, scarcities, selling, tangible
Companies: opensky

Murdoch's Daughter Recognizes That 'Piracy' Can Be Good

from the tell-your-dad... dept

Even as Rupert Murdoch is calling aggregators and other sites "pirates" and claiming that fair use can be blocked, it seems his daughter has a more enlightened view. Copycense points us to a recent talk by Elisabeth Murdoch, who owns a TV production house, where she basically admits that blocking what people want to do is a bad idea:

"Fans remain the best salesmen of our content, even if that behavior is on the borderline of piracy. Danger of the new world is that we must concede that we'll lose some control."

Nice to hear. Now, if only her Dad would listen to her before he pisses off a bunch of his best content salesmen.

Filed Under: elisabeth murdoch, piracy, promotion, rupert murdoch, selling

Is It Really Such A Problem If People Sell Your Works? Or Is It Just Free Market Research?

from the not-too-hard-to-figure-out dept

One of the key questions that comes up when you discuss the concept of a world without copyright is "what's to stop others from just copying that book/DVD/CD etc. and selling it themselves, thus making the money that you could have made." The answer is that there's usually a lot preventing it. Filmmaker Nina Paley, a big supporter of culture without relying on copyright, has a great post discussing the "what's stopping you" question, where she notes that most people simply won't go through the hassle. However, what's more interesting is that even if people do start selling your works, it's not necessarily a bad thing. This is the similar to the discussion we recently had about others making money off of your content. If they're able to do so, it often suggests some sort of demand that you haven't met. As Paley notes, it's free market research:

In general, I would much prefer you bought Sita merch from the Sita Merch Empire than from a CafePress store. Reasons include: I know the Merch Empire merch is high quality, I personally designed and like all the products there, and a much higher % of the money goes to me. CafePress merch tends to be overpriced for the quality, and CafePress takes almost all the profits unless the seller sets prices absurdly high.

That said, Drakar's store offers Sita merch that doesn't exist at the Merch Empire. If I offered mugs, mousepads and stickers, he wouldn't have needed to make a Cafe Press store in the first place. If he actually sells any, it will demonstrate there is demand for such products. Then I can offer the same or similar products at my store. Drakar is essentially providing free market research, as are any other "competitors." If any of them do exceptionally well, I'll know what merch I should be selling.

This is why old-school economists say competition is good for businesses. It is. Too bad there's so little real competition in our supposedly "free market democracy."

Indeed. This is also why we've said time and time again that it's perfectly fine if you want to copy this blog and try to sell ads against it (or make money some other way). If someone actually figures out something that works well, then that's useful info to us, and would allow us to then incorporate those findings into our own offering. That's actually good for everyone...

Filed Under: copyright, market research, nina paley, selling

BitTorrent Site Mininova Makes It Easier To Sell Scarcities With Downloads

from the neat dept

A bunch of folks have been sending in the news that popular BitTorrent site Mininova is now making it much easier to monetize your own BitTorrented music. Basically, it makes it easy to sell other things alongside the torrent. This is very much about using the free music to sell related scarcities, such as concert tickets, CDs or other promotional goods. Imagine taking the various tiered upsell solutions that are becoming popular and connecting them directly to your own torrent of the music? As the story notes, at least one indie record label, Beep! Beep!, has signed up and is releasing all of its music via this system -- and even offering those who download a 20% discount on products as a thank you for helping to seed the files:

"It's only fair not to pay for something you haven't heard yet. In our opinion torrents are an excellent way to present you with our music. That's why Beep! Beep! and Mininova have teamed up. We like the fact that you're taking the effort to get to know new music. In fact, we'd like to thank you for downloading and seeding our music by giving you a discount on our hardcopies."

But, of course, we'll probably still hear from people about how such torrent sites are destroying the recording industry... even as it helps enable exactly what's coming next.

Filed Under: business models, music, scarcities, selling, torrents
Companies: beep! beep!, mininova

EMI Sets Up Its Own Online Store As YouTube Tries Selling Music

from the try,-try-again dept

Lots of folks are trying to figure out new business models in the music space, and here we have two separate big companies testing out ideas that seem unlikely to work all that well. First up is EMI, the big record label that keeps insisting that its going a different route but can't seem to reign in its lawyers from taking the same old route. This time around, it's launching its own music download site, where it's promising lots of extras and goodies -- including some stuff for free. It will be interesting to see how the actual site is set up, but the idea of setting up just a label specific site seems destined to fail. People want a one-stop shop. They don't want to have to know that the music they like is on EMI. Imagine, back when people bought CDs, if they had to go to a different store for each record label. Maybe there's more to it than what's being described, but at first pass, this sounds like more of the same: a big record label sticking a square peg into a round hole, covering it with shiny paint, and talking about how awesome it is.

Then there's Google, which has been struggling mightily to come up with ways to make money off of YouTube. At the same time, record labels have been complaining about how much "music" (accompanied by videos, of course) is available on YouTube, and the folks at Google put two and two together and will start offering options to buy the songs you hear on YouTube at partner sites such as Amazon or iTunes. While it's not a bad idea (why not offer people a chance to buy if they want it), it's hard to see this really getting that much traction. Some people may go ahead and buy out of convenience, but it's hard to see people actually doing that much music "shopping" this way.

Filed Under: advertising, clickthroughs, music, portals, selling
Companies: emi, google, youtube

Selling Stuff On The Internet? Why, That Infringes On A Patent!

from the prepare-to-get-sued dept

Erich Spangenberg was mentioned here earlier this week for having to pay $4 million for shuffling some patents around to shell companies and suing a company he had already agreed not to sue over those patents. Of course, that's not slowing him down apparently. Not only has he asked for a new trial on that ruling, he's continuing to file new patent lawsuits -- with the latest one apparently being for a patent on selling stuff on the internet. Yes, the patent may say it's about selling vehicles, but of the 47 new companies being sued over this patent, it looks like they're all selling other stuff, not cars. Basically, it looks like he's trying to sue every internet retailer there is -- because, of course, none of them ever would have come up with the concept of selling stuff online if this patent didn't exist.

Filed Under: erich spangenberg, online selling, patents, selling