Complaining about companies is part of the market
My latest InfoWeek column, "In Defense of Complaining," went online while I was on break earlier this month -- it's a rebuttal to people who say that people who are upset about bad products should just buy something else, rather than complaining:
I'm always astounded by this reaction. Companies aren't charities. They're businesses. It doesn't matter why they're offering an unacceptable product -- all that matters is that the product is unacceptable. Companies aren't five-year-olds bringing their fingerpaintings home from kindergarten. We don't have to put on a brave smile and tell them, "that's just lovely dear," and display their wares proudly on the fridge. I don't care if Apple adds DRM because Lars from Metallica has incriminating photos of Steve Jobs, I don't care if Sony BMG put a rootkit on its CDs because they were duped into it by a trickster spirit that appeared to their technologists in a dream. I care whether their product is worth my money. It's the market -- there's no A for Effort.LinkEven weirder is the idea that companies shouldn't be criticized because in a market, you should just take your business elsewhere. Free markets thrive on good information. For a market to function, customers need to have good information about which goods are worth buying and which ones should be avoided -- that's why we complain in public, to help companies make better decisions.
the latest
latest episodes
I blame the trickster spirit, myself. On the one hand, this article could be seen as a rationalization for whiny blogs. On the other, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Also, first!
I think it's futile to complain about the anti-complainer complainers because they are simply too ignorant to remove their heads from the collective corporate ass. not to mention they would have a hard time pulling themselves out with their hands so firmly grasped in the reach-around position.
People who complain about crappy products are indeed doing us a service.
If you're planning on buying something, you can almost certainly hear an honest review of it by googling it before hand.
I have never understood why people attack others for complaining about things.
It certainly must take more effort than navigating away from the offending page.
Complaining is not to be underestimated. In many places of business, it is the only way to get things done.
Aren't people who complain about complaining caught up by their own "rule"?
Complaining about a product you've had direct experience with is appropriate, informative, and helpful. Complaining about a product that you have no direct experience with on the grounds that it doesn't meet your needs in some way is stupid and misses the point that it probably wasn't designed with your specific needs in mind. That doesn't make it a bad product, that just makes it unsuitable for you.
Put another way: if you don't have any idea WTF you're talking about, just STFU and move along.
What blows my mind is employees who, upon discovering that someone who has complained about their company's product or service, take it upon themselves to harass the dissatisfied customer. After a lousy experience with Hotwire.com last year, in which they claimed they hadn't charged my credit card but still placed a hold for over $800 for hotel rooms which of course were never booked, I blogged about their deceptive trade practices and the rude customer service drones who refused to help me.
Months later, I'm still getting trolled by individuals purporting to be Hotwire employees, who take it upon themselves to insult everything from my appearance to my sexual practices. What the hell kind of company considers this appropriate behaviour from its employees?
I take some solace, though, in that they're digging their own graves. I rather doubt that potential customers who stumble across the blog post in question will want to do business with a company that gives bad, deceptive service and attacks burned customers for speaking out about it.
It's depends on who you are complaing about. For instance, I know that some writers are very reluctant to complain about publishers or others in that industry. Pay back can be a bitch. Real complaints can easily turn into law suits.
I think people usually criticize complaining because people do it /instead/ of taking their business elsewhere, or boycotting the company. Essentially, people are saying "Don't just sit there bitching while you continue to play their game, do something about it!"
Which I think is excellent advice, and applies to more than just corporation-consumer relationships. Complaining isn't bad per-se, but many people see it as the primary method of reforming bad institutions, corporate, government, or even interpersonal.
In that context complaining can often be a worthless distraction, so it's bad for people to get too wrapped up in it.
Complaining about Apple DRM is *ALWAYS* acceptable, even if the fanbois don't like it. In fact especially if the fanbois don't like it.
Amused to see that one has already turned up on the Infoweek article.
I question the basic assumption of the free market in this age of conglomeration and unsupervised monopolies and duopolies. In a truly free market, you can take your business elsewhere, but in the market that we actually live in, there are few alternatives other than complaint or abstinence of purchase (and the latter is anathema to a raging-consumerism society).
If you're in the U.S., you need look no farther than the little box that's carrying your internet information right now. Nearly every market in the United States is served by only services, differing in type; a DSL line and a high-speed cable-internet connection. This not only provides substandard service (putting even well-wired Americans well behind many small European countries), but a very profitable lock on the markets for the telephone and cable providers (often the same company) that control them.
I question the basic assumption of the free market in this age of conglomeration and unsupervised monopolies and duopolies. In a truly free market, you can take your business elsewhere, but in the market that we actually live in, there are few alternatives other than complaint or abstinence of purchase (and the latter is anathema to a raging-consumerism society).
If you're in the U.S., you need look no farther than the little box that's carrying your internet information right now. Nearly every market in the United States is served by only two services, differing in type; a DSL line and a high-speed cable-internet connection. This not only provides substandard service (putting even well-wired Americans well behind many small European countries), but a very profitable lock on the markets for the telephone and cable providers (often the same company) that control them.
Feethinker @12: Don't forget about that little box most of us carry in our pockets or bags - the cellphone.
Don't get me started on that rant.
The problem with complaining isn't whether people should complain or not. People should complain, and have every right to do so. The reason we have to put up with things like DRM, locked-in contracts, poor quality, refill supplies that disappear from the market, etc. is because people don't complain. It's what emboldens the "I'll tell you what you want and you're going to like it and buy it, and buy it, and buy it, and buy it" mindset of companies because we let them get away with it.
That said, the problem with complaining, and why a lot of companies belittle the value of "customer service" is that most people don't know how to complain. Most people do just wind up, not complaining, but whinging and whining without a clue what they're actually complaining about, what they can rightfully expect of the company, how to respectfully voice the anger they feel over their experience of the product or service, and in a timely fashion, or who they should really address their comments to.
We get taught a lot of skills in school but some of the most valuable lessons one needs in life are never taught there; things like reading contracts, talking to your doc, how to discuss and address issues with various levels of government, how to find a good bank manager ... or how to complain properly.
The two year old mindset exists on both sides of this debate, and both sides are infested with them.
There's a steep learning curve required that's unfortunately very one-sided. It's not the responsibility of companies to educate people how to complain effectively. And so long as people continue to buy their products, they're attitude is, and always will be, vindicated.
The onus is definitely on the part of the consumer to self-educate, and most people just don't have the time, or can't be bothered. For those who are concerned, the education is mostly trial and error, which is always extremely frustrating and time-consuming. A few will succeed and find the education to be well worth the effort. But most will fall short of the mark and give in to the mounting dissatisfaction over their results.
You're absolutlely right to defend the "practice" of complaining. But you should qualify it with some equally sage commentary on the need for, and how to invoke, the "art" of complaining from those who complain.
Bad complainers is what gives complaining a bad rep.
Wait, I get it. It's not that we shouldn't complain because it doesn't help them; but that we shouldn't complain because it DOES.
I understand, now. ;p
I absolutely agree people have the right to complain. After all, if you're spending your hard earned money on something, I think you should get what you paid for. And an honest review of something helps spread the word and maybe save someone else some grief and money.
But there's complaining in order to effect some change in design, behavior, etc... and then there's just complaining. Just to complain.
I work in PR for a tech company (please don't throw rocks at my head) and sometimes I hear complaints about products that sound reasonable and actually make sense. Those I try to push through as far as I can internally because... well, they make sense. Sometimes the guys designing the products take into account what they hear and work with that. They usually appreciate the time it took for a consumer to think critically about how a product would be made better. I know that sounds corny but it's true. They like feedback- good or bad; it can inspire change.
And then there are complaints like, "It's not working, your product sucks so therefore you suck."
I totally agree with Martymcbarfly: "Bad complainers is what gives complaining a bad rep."
A friend of mine, who's a business consultant, uses the phrase, "I'm considering sending a strongly worded letter to...." It seems to work for her. The threat of putting something in writing (on paper) seems to snap people's heads back, as if resorting to something so archaic as a letter tells them that you are prepared to go the distance to have them fired.
Ironically enough, NOT complaining DOES help the marketplace. It doesn't help the consumer, or our planet. But yes, it DOES help the marketplace. It also helps economies and societies grow, albeit in rather twisted ways.
When we willingly and willfully argue, "just buy something else," as the best solution to bad products and services, we condone and foster the very thing that drives manufacturers and marketeers, the "disposable" society.
Bad products and services are inherent, and in many ways, necessary to the market system. "Just buy something else" is the Holy Grail of Consumerism. Envy and dissatisfaction are what drives sales, even repeat sales.
Fridges that last 50 years aren't good for the marketplace. But fridges that break down two weeks after the one-year warranty runs out are.
So yes, NOT complaining DOES help the marketplace.
But it also fills legions of landfills the world over. It's a question of priorities.
@Cory, there's nothing wrong with constructive complaining, as it provides feedback to companies. And the volume of complaints should correlate to the extent and severity of the problem. There's also nothing wrong with voting with your wallet and buying an alternative; that's a valid free market recourse if you don't like a company's product or service.
BUT, the statement that companies are treated like charities and not for-profit entities is a bit over the top. As much as you or I may dislike DRM, most consumers don't care. If they did, Apple wouldn't now be the #2 music retailer in the US. Amazon has more DRM-free music currently than Apple I believe, but how's that going? Cell phone service contracts and device locks are evil, but consumer still buy the stuff en masse. In other words, there can be a free market that doesn't fully address every concern of every consumer, if most people decide that whatever it is Is Good Enough, and clearly they do.
@Thinkerer, good points. I don't even have cable as an option in my area, so I'm stuck with DSL as my one choice.
LET's attack the real problems... things like abusive consolidation of market power (e.g., telecom industry) and undue influence from special interests in our government (e.g., RIAA/MPAA). Let's get some laws passed that support Fair Use, or at least let's get it tested in the courts so we can strike down things like DMCA anti-circumvention.
There's been a bit of a cultural shift. I recall, in my not-so-distant youth, American pundits appearing on British TV mocking Britons for putting up with stuff and never complaining about bad products or services. Yet in recent years, if I ever point out the defects in something on an internet forum, I get lambasted for "whining" by USians. What happened?
Cory, Didn't you recently belittle someone for complaining about one of your posts, since they 'didn't like the flavor of the free ice cream'?
Do you think people shouldn't complain/criticize things that are free? or well, ad sponsored...
In the one and only issue of Forbes I've ever read, there was a hilarious cover article about the evils of the internet - how it was ruining lives and (sob) destroying brands.
They were referring, of course, to websites containing feedback and product reviews written by the common folk. Poor old Forbes - the author sounded like a mistreated puppy.
cool!what issue? that could be a BoingBoing item
@Nelson.C, I think it's probably important to differentiate what kind of defects we're talking about, and what kinds of things you get accused of whining about.
Are you pointing out defects in something you actually have experience with (i.e. have purchased and/or used) or merely criticizing a product for not having some feature that you think is critical for your enjoyment of a product?
I think we can probably universally agree that if you try something and it sucks, you should say so. Loudly, even. It's the anti-fanboyism that drives me nuts online. Complaining that Acme didn't include a main-stem stopper valve in their latest Widget is pointless if you can just buy one that *does* from Wizco. This is where, to me, we should just vote with our wallets instead of berating a company for not designing a product to your exact specifications and to your complete liking.
Maybe it comes down to implementation vs. design: if it was implemented poorly, you have a valid complaint. If the design isn't to your liking... maybe it wasn't designed for you?
I also think that in addition to information, that potentially non-lawful activities, like file sharing, should be factored in as market forces.
For example, when I am discussing the ethics of file sharing, I like to point out that file sharing is the market's reaction to a poor distribution system for online music.
If your online music store sucks so much that you're driving your customers to risk getting malware or getting sued rather than paying you for your content, you know you're in trouble.
I have to say, I am a bit unhappy reading some of the comments in this thread and on information week.
Why do so many people object to complaining about things on the internet?
Who the loving hell said that if you complain about something online, that I have to be polite and constructive?
Are they afraid that I would be tainting the otherwise pristine pool of information that is the internet?
If I feel like a company misled me and stole my money, I will most certainly "bitch" about it.
Anyone that would go out of their way to make a comment on my blog, bitching about my bitching, is a retard and a hypocrite.
I find that people who engage in this type of meta-complaining fall into two categories:
1. Fanboys who know they have no reasonable rebuttal to complaints, so they concoct irrational attacks about you "whining"
or
2. Trolls trying to provoke a response from someone they know is emotional.
Really, unless you're posting your complaints in a place where they are not meant to be posted, or otherwise spamming, people should disagree about a specific fact or facts, agree with you, or move on.
The only real "bitching" that goes on is people complaining about other people's complaining, since it is not illuminating a problem for others, nor is it a form of meaningful expression or communication.
Howzabout complaining, taking your biz elsewhere, and giving any and all a head's up about the crap product?
Just don't sit there and mindlessly stuff down that dogfood from Taco Bell.
I only complain if I think the business is worthy and capable of learning. All others see no more of my money and can rely on my making damned sure that all and sundry for all eternity know what a shitty outfit and product they are.
Remember that companies: you have to earn correction. Otherwise you just have millions of anonymous enemies.
@ Dequeued: Another aspect regarding file-sharing, as it relates to this topic, is that the quality of goods (movies, songs, programs) put out these days are of such dubious quality that some would rather try first before buying. Ever try returning a CD you've purchased because eight of the ten songs were crap? No returns on opened media.... Some albums you can prescreen but that tends to be mainstream which isn't my usual cup o' tea.
A service-oriented business I used to work for taught me "A satisfied customer tells three people about the good experience, but an unhappy customer tells everyone about the bad experience". I make it a point to retain my objectivity when recommending/derecommending a product or company, as an honest assessment is the only one that people will truly pay attention to. I also have no problem saying "no thanks, I'm done with you".
What Cory has said is so obvious.
What's sad is the number of people who need this sort of concept explained.
What's baffling is number of companies who don't listen to that vocal minority of complainers and try to improve their products. If the critical types are happy, there's a good chance the non-critical types are going to be that much more happy and willing to buy the product.
This goes for any product at any price point.
Spoon: the difference is in the nature of the complaint. Complaining that a blog about subject X contains too much subject X is just dumb (doing so in the message boards for posts about subject X is even dumber, since it's a great big screw you to the people who actually like subject X)
OTOH, complaining about products that have been deliberately -- and admittedly -- reduced in quality to curry favor with the record industry is perfectly valid.
So, hot on the heels of this post (and/or the original article), Terri Cullen has written a bit in her "Fiscally Fit" column in the WSJ about "Complaining the Right Way" (see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120413183493397095.html; warning: behind paywall) which covers more common-sensical notions like being polite, knowing what you want (to remedy the situation), starting at the bottom, and being sure it's worth the time / effort.