Chuck Salter has decided to end his relationship with Ameritrade. He informs them of this decision. What do they do? Do they try to make things right? Do they try to learn from the experience? Negative.
Instead, they decide to levy a “termination fee,” against him, virtually ensuring that he’ll never want to do business with them again.
When a customer finally makes up his or her mind to leave, especially from a situation where there is some degree of history between the parties, is it ever a snap decision? Possibly, but more likely there’s been a series of incremental dissatisfactions that have lead up to the final decsion. Ameritrade should using this opportunity to examine the failure in the relationship, and learn from it, and try to keep the line of communication open. But no, instead they’re trying to extract that final transaction in a desperate attempt to maximize short-term profit.
(hat tip: businesspundit)
I don’t think it is ever a snap decision. It just might look like one.
By the time a customer decides you “suck” you have sucked for a long time. It’s an “immutable law of suckage.”
And that’s why business should be measuring how well it delivers on expectations, not if they can bribe (or trick) customers into saying they are “satisfied.”
Please Don’t Leave…I’m Commanding You
Custo/member loyalty. It seems so logical and obvious to a company’s success, you’d think that more would have embraced this basic concept by now. Sure, most (if not all) companies and associations claim they are customer-centric, but then they do craz…