Re:Robinhood to pay $70M for 'systemic supervisory failures'
by andrewmutz on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @05:08PM
(#27693434)
If consumers are not willing to pay for the product, it makes sense that they would not get good customer service. The users are not customers of Robinhood or Google. The users are the product that Google sells to advertisers and Robinhood sells (in the form of data) to hedge funds and HF traders.
Schwab and Fidelity can deliver a good product with good customer service because users pay money for the product and are actually customers.
Re:Robinhood to pay $70M for 'systemic supervisory failures'
by mixmastamyk on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @09:22PM
(#27695402)
I've paid close to nothing to Schwab for decades. They even refund my ATM fees. Of course, I assume they take a bit off the top from money market accounts, etc on large balances.
They were one of the early companies that learned that treating your customer right is a better long-term business than screwing them at every opportunity. Wasn't so common in the 80s and 90s.
Re:Robinhood to pay $70M for 'systemic supervisory failures'
by fumar on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @02:33PM
(#27691976)
That is right Google operates under the assumption of people as in large groups of individuals. Their primary drive is to add billions of more people to their graph, https://nextbillionusers.google
If you read through the marketing material, you will notice that they use the word people and not individuals or persons or you. "People are at the center of everything we build."
For what is worth, Fidelity customer service is quick and reliable. They've always answered by questions or solved my issues over the phone.
Re:Robinhood to pay $70M for 'systemic supervisory failures'
by hef19898 on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @02:36PM
(#27692002)
During my time at Amazon we used to joke about an, alleged, Bezos quote: He hates CS and wished he could live without. The narrative was, that operations weren't good enough to make CS unnecessary. Well, it sometimes seems it was just a question of scale, as you said. And maybe Amazon is just figuring out whether or not they can get away with it, little by little.
Re:Robinhood to pay $70M for 'systemic supervisory failures'
by standardUser on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @06:49PM
(#27694428)
I can't imagine anyone doing "serious trading" using Robinhood. I also can't imagine a scenario where I would need to talk to a customer support rep at Robinhood. What kind of support might I need while occasionally placing limit buy and sell orders?
This is the standard people have become trained to expect. Google does the same thing. The idea is basically that a certain level of scale, you can completely ignore customer support. There's always new users signing up, and placating any single one is no longer worth your time.
Anyone who does serious trading knows the value of actual 24/7 human customer support, and uses a platform like Schwab or Fidelity. But Robinhood is arbitraging the naivety of the millions of people who've never invested.