> Although it certainly doesn’t feel like it to people who hit edge cases, the tiered support model is a technology which took us decades to popularize and which made the world much better. It brought down the cost of financial services and supported product innovation which would have been impossible under the mid-century bank staffing model. We could not have credit cards or discount brokerages without the tiered support model. The biography of Charles Schwab makes this point persuasively at considerable length: competent telephone operations were instrumental to bringing equity ownership to the middle class. You should prefer a world with credit cards and discount brokerages to one which doesn’t have them, even as you listen to hold music occasionally
Tiered support is here to stay because tiered support is cheap and resistant to the "unintelligent customer DoS" (my words, not his). As he points out, you can have professional troubleshooters with the capability, authority, and expertise to troubleshoot the problem, but their labour costs in the hundreds of dollars an hour.
I personally think there is a reasonable model of the world where customers explicitly pay a hundred dollar fee to have a highest-tier escalation to the office of the CEO/equivalent troubleshooting team and have them take a look at your case, but this is a model that has not yet been developed or in wide use anywhere.
In that world - those who have QualityPoints can exert far more escalation force on all parts of their life (change the traffic signal now for 10 units) than lower level folks. Your comment reminds me of a world where paying fees gets you faster and better access. Sadly - Sounds familiar.
[0]https://www.bookbrowse.com/reviews/index.cfm/book_number/406...
It is tricky. On a first order I agree with you, but then i think about second order consequences: What if the escalation route becomes profitable? Will that incentivize the company to keep the pain points, or perhaps even engineer more of them?
Also, would it be clear what does the money pays for? Imagine a situation where the computer says no (that is the system makes a decision adverse to the customer’s interest, such as closing an account, not approving a loan, security freezing assets etc), and the costumer pays the fee to get it escalated. The CEO office person reads the case, applies their troubleshooting skills, and they independent of the computer come up with the same answer. Now from the point of view of the costumer it feels they paid hundreds of dollar for nothing. From the point of view of the company they gave the customer what they promised: spent valuable resources on escalating the customer’s complaint. If they give the fee back to the customer they are loosing money, if they don’t they further antagonise a bad situation. Which can have reputational effects, and or wasting even more resources.
And this might sound like an edge case, but if the system is well operating these kind of cases will be dominating. Simply because if the CEO’s office overrides the normal processes too often then either they are profiting from the escalation route (see first point) or the normal system is faulty.
How would you dodge these two bullets?
This already exists in a sense. High net worth clients/well established business clients with long term relationships do get priority remediation and troubleshooting. The cost is just much higher than $100.
As someone that's managed technical teams for 3+ decades, I've seen the deterioration, first hand. It's all about costs/profits.
C-suites view support (IT in my case) as a cost-center, without seeming to understand that our infrastructure is what all revenue travels over. We are a cost, but a cost with a purpose. In the pursuit of ever-higher numbers, they continue to replace local staff with 3rd party entities who are incentivized to close calls, not solve problems. These 3rd parties often have wholly unqualified staff. In some cases, the staff is qualified, but doesn't have the access or the information required to address the issue.
Let's not go to paid access to support. With humans involved, in less than a decade, there will be 1 person answering the "poor folks" line, that you'll wait for 2 hours to speak to, while being told every 30 seconds just how important your call is. The rest of support will be "generating revenue" by resolving problems for better-heeled clients.
I think that's well understood as cost-centers go. What's also understood is that improving that infrastructure beyond a certain point doesn't change how much revenue travels over it.
It works, so it doesn't need to be changed is how most infrastructure deteriorates. Ask me how I know this. :)
However listen to his explanations of the incentives, benefits, and downsides. Then remember that he was working within a company that had the exact same incentives (eg same regulatory regimes), who was going to be hiring people out of the same financial system. And remember that there are parts of this that he think really make the world better.
Therefore the expected result really should be, "Somewhat better iteration on the basic thing that everyone else does." And so it is no surprise that it would include enough of what you don't like that you'd see it as "exactly the same system".
(I save up my karma points precisely so I can burn them on comments like this.)