Good VS Bad Service - Coursework Example

Halls of Fame and Shame: Between Amazon and AOL First and of Halls of Fame and Shame: Between Amazon and AOL Introduction Based from MSN, the Amazon company (AMZN) is named as one of the ten companies that serves its customers quite right. Meanwhile, the AOL company is considered as the number-one company in the top 10 Hall of Shame (Inside CRM Editors, 2011). Amazon and AOL are two opposing companies with respect to the way they cater their customers. This paper discusses what is right and what is not right in serving the customer with regard to the transactions or dealings done by AMZN and AOL.

It also attempts to make recommendations on how to improve good customer services. Doing right Catherine Holahan (2009) quotes three of Charlie Kindel’s ten reasons why Amazon.com is favorable to Internet users: (1) the web site’s good performance, (2) enormous product selection, and (3) subsidized shipping transaction. First, Amazon’s web site is functional, intuitive, and easy to use. The visual features apparent in this site are remarkably clear and understandable even for beginning Internet users.

(It is assumed here that users know how to read the labels visible in the web site.) The labels, for instance, direct the Amazon customer where to go and the places they want to go. For book lovers, Amazon has provided a book label that leads them to the vast array of reading materials. The Amazon’s good performance rating is also attributed to the fact that customers can get what they want when they want it; Kindel (2008) says “[i]f I want it, they have it.” Second, Amazon possesses a number of products for online customers to choose from.

(The book material is more common to Amazon with respect to the Internet users.) Even Colin Robinson (2010), one of AMZN’s critic, admits that the way Amazon sells the book materials “enriches cultural diversity and expands choice” (emphasis by the author of this paper). Indeed, the Amazon company has a bulk of book products available for bookworms. And third, Amazon does not tax its customers in shipping their products. By and large, the good customer services prominent in Amazon make the company very alluring to customers -- in fact, it has undergone a dramatic change of momentum in terms of market share (Brian, 2011).

Doing wrong Why AOL company has poor customer service is mainly because of the bad treatment it has towards its customers. The experience of Vincent Ferrari, one of AOL’s former online customer, is a gruesome tale of how the company tricks its customer. AOL fails to serve its customers in an acceptable way. When Ferrari decided to cancel its AOL account, the company -- via its customer representative -- failed to listen to his request. Randall Stross (2006) describes Ferrari’s encounter with John -- the self-identified name of the AOL’s customer representative whom Ferrari talked over the phone -- as follows: “To listen as Mr.

Ferrari tries to cancel his membership is to join him in a wild, horrifying descent into customer-service hell.” Stross (2006) seems to say that there are many AOL customers who had undergone such horrible encounter as a common yet under-the-table policy of the company. In a survey, AOL received a forty-five percent (45%) poor rating from certain respondents (Microsoft News Center, 2009). Such company has retained its crown in MSN’s Customer Service Hall of Shame. This only shows how disgusted the Internet users are to AOL’s method of approaching its customers.

Results of the actions With respect to Ferrari’s case, the AOL company had fired John, sent an apology letter to Ferrari, and finally cancelled his account. These actions were the responses of the company to correct what it had done wrong. By firing John, rumors that Ferrari’s story is a hoax are laid to rest (Stross, 2006). Further, the company sent a personal letter to Ferrari as a gesture of admitting its mistake on how to properly deal the customer. Whether or not the AOL was sincere in publicly admitting its error remains to be debatable.

But the public perception, that such company is worst when it comes to customer service, lingers up to the present time. In terms of the general public, the actions of the AOL are ineffective and lack a sense of integrity. On the other hand, Amazon company expands its reach for the online customer by establishing affiliates to other states in America. In Plainfield, New Jersey, the Amazon planned to create a new warehouse (“Failed bank execs,” 2011). In doing so, new workers will be hired, approximately hundreds of them.

The company attempts to erect warehouses for books and other materials to be placed and stored. In the process, Internet users -- who request shipment for their chosen product or goods -- pay less when a particular AMZN warehouse is just nearby. In addition, Amazon tries to put a discount in particular books or items that it sells. As an effect, customers are hooked to the benefits offered by such company. Recommendation For Amazon, there is a paradox in the way it selects the book materials in showing or viewing for the Internet-savvy user.

Robinson has criticized the algorithm used by the company in presenting, via online, certain materials or items. In quoting Barry Schwartz, furthermore, Robinson (2010) argues that the enormous product selection leads to worst choices by the customer. The rationale for this paradox lies in the truth that choice, amidst the numerous materials, is evaluated in terms of an easier way of choosing. Amazon’s algorithm makes the user easier for him or her to view certain AMZN items. In the process, he or she chooses what is not important but rather what is easier to see and read.

My recommendation for Amazon is to review its method of how to present or show books to its customers -- especially the visual arrangement of what is important from the less important. For AOL, I recommend to review and change the traditional approach employed by the company management. AOL appears to sacrifice the customer satisfaction over the company’s profit. Moreover, the company has to show and prove to the public the sincerity to renew its policy and style of management. Conclusion Amazon and AOL are two companies with different records of customer service rating.

On the one hand, AMZN is fairly good in terms of its customer philosophy; that is to say, it values the customer more than the publisher. On the other hand, AOL is worst when it comes to providing good customer services. Unlike the Amazon, AOL puts emphasis to the company rather than to its online Internet users. It is arguable that the success of the companies such as Amazon and AOL greatly lies to its clients or how they deal with them. Amazon will continue to win the hearts of the people as long as it highly considers the importance of the customer.

And AOL will linger to be in the Hall of Shame as long as it does not change its ways. References Brian, C. (2011). Amazon.com: 52-week high recently eclipsed (AMZN). Retrieved from http://www.zacks.com/research/get_news.php?id=187l4512 Failed bank execs must return pay. (2011, July 7). Retrieved from http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20110707/BIZ/307079989/1031/BIZ Holahan, C. (2009, June 10). 10 companies that treat you right. Retrieved from http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SmartSpending/ConsumerActionGuide/10-companies-that-treat-you-right.

aspx Inside CRM Editors. (2011). The 10 best (and 10 worst) companies for customer service. Retrieved from http://www.focus.com/fyi/customer-service/ 10-best-and-10-worst-companies-customer-service/ Kindel, C. (2008, August 11). I love Amazon.com. Retrieved from http://ceklog.kindel.com/2008/08/11/i-love-amazon-com/ Microsoft News Center. (2009, June 10). AOL and Comcast top the MSN money 2009 customer service hall of shame. Retrieved from http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2009/jun09/06-10msmoneyhospr.

mspx Robinson, C. (2010, July 14). The trouble with Amazon. Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/article/37484/trouble-amazon?page=0,0 Stross, R. (2006, July 2). AOL said, ‘if you leave me I’ll do something crazy.’ Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/business/yourmoney/02digi.html