In Roman Times, the governments soon realized that one way to keep the population calm and peaceful was to ensure that they had access to adequate entertainment. It's been a basic governmental strategry ever since. (Heck, it could have been before, the Romans just raised it to an art form)
Certain people in Congress have been studying history. The government has a vested interest in keeping the citizens distracted. They are in partnership with the Entertainment industry both to pacify the populace and to liberate some of the disposable income that might otherwise be locked up in savings.
Because of that, I find the scenario in the article to be very far fetched. Unless people really have a lot more disposable income to spend (inflation), the goverment will work to keep entertainment at least affordable.
A short while before this, Arthur Dent had set out from his cabin in search of a cup of tea. It was not a quest he embarked up on with a great deal of optimism, because he knew that the only source of hot drinks on the entire ship was a benighted piece of equipment produced by the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation. It was called a Nutri-Matic Drinks Synthesizer, and he had encountered it before.
It claimed to produce the widest possible ranges of drinks personally matched to the tastes and metabolism of whoever cared to use it. When put to the test, however, it invariably produced a plastic cup filled with a liquid which was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea. - The Restaurant at the End of the Universe by Douglas Adams.
*sigh*
I don't want corporations to 'tailor' information to what they think I need to know/have/see based on some randomly, statistically munged informaton they think they 'know' about me.
If the ambulance driver needs to know about my medical history, I'd rather he ask me or my companions, or check my med-id bracelet. If my air bag deploys, I would hope some bystander or person has the presence of mind to call 911 on my behalf rather than wait for my car manufacturer to alert the authorities. If I am driving through a strange city.. chances are I'm not really planning to stop and see a movie. And, if I am then maybe, just maybe, I'm perfectly capable of finding a theater on my own.
All of his arguments sound like lame justifications to track marketing information for the benefit of the corporation, not mine. Which may be fine with me, but I dislike people who try and pick my pockets all the while telling me how much I should appreciate them.
Now, I'm not one who usually gives into conspiracy theories but this just makes me mad. We're getting to the point in our society where we are trying so not to upset people with contrary viewpoints that it's not all right to express your opinions unless they toe the party line. If we sanitize society.... does that mean we'll all be living in a sanitorium?
And, who do we think we're fooling anyway? Oh sure, you can point to the very few cases where someone was going to do something terrible (say, shoot up a school) and announced thier intentions and no one paid attention... but compare and contrast that to the 100's of thousands of times that nothing happened at all. That's why it's such a shock. And how exactly does making voicing that sort of idea a crime solve the problem? Do you think that if language and communication is sanitized people will continue to announce that they are planning to commit violence? I doubt it. The reason they do it now is becaue it's reasonably 'safe'; no one takes them seriously.
But I digress. The whole purpose of free speech is that (within some very broad boundaries) you shouldn't have to fear prosecution for expressing your opinion. Those bondaries are getting awfully narrow.
Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. the latter are surly curmudgeons, supsicious and lacking in altruism, but they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. - R. Heinlein
When they look for books that are representative of society in the late 20th century his books should be required reading.
I was sitting here, reeling from the shock, trying to think of my favorite part of his books and I realized that they were all my favorite parts!
So much of what he wrote had a way of making you feel 'Oh, well, that's all right then." when you were faced with odd or confusing situations in life. I can't resist the urge to share some of my favorite parts of his books.
Why, just the other day, I was thinking one of his quotes about the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation products (guess what corporation's products I was thinking about? Anyone? Bueller?)
it is very easy to be blinded to the essential uselessness of them by the sense of achievement you get from getting them to work at all.
In other words - and this is the rock-solid principle on which the whole of the Coroporation's Galaxywide success is founded - their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.
Or what he had to say about computers:
Well, what we called computers back in 1977 was really more like an electric abacus...
Oh now, don't underestimate the abacus. said Reg. In skilled hands it's a very sophisticated calculation device. Furthermore, it requires no power, can be made with any materials you have at hand, and never goes bing in an important piece of work.
So, an electric one would be particularly pointless.
And then there is the concept of the SEP (somebody else's problem) field... the idea that "everything the human race had ever believed was true and that it continued to be true long after they stopped believing it... or the Electric Monk.
This is indeed a sad, sad day.
A. THIS CHAPTER APPLIES TO COMPUTER INFORMATION TRANSACTIONS.
3. IN ALL OTHER CASES, THIS CHAPTER APPLIES TO THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION IF THE COMPUTER INFORMATION AND INFORMATIONAL RIGHTS, OR ACCESS TO THEM, ARE THE PRIMARY SUBJECT MATTER BUT OTHERWISE APPLIES ONLY TO THE PART OF THE TRANSACTION INVOLVING COMPUTER INFORMATION, INFORMATIONAL RIGHTS IN IT AND CREATION OR MODIFICATION OF IT.
I would say it limits itself primarily to computer information, computer software, and/or computer equipment.
However, I ran across that particular paragraph as I was reading the text of the bill put forth before the Arizona legislature and the mental image was.. entertaining. The article on Newsforge indicated that Maryland had added (or left out perhaps) a clause dealing with open source software. I was interested to see whether that information was included (or not) in the AZ version.
Well. After reading it I did find a clause that seems to exempt 'programs that include source code' from the duration clause of the warrenty. But, does that go far enough? Hrm. I don't know. Going to have to study it some more.
Any thoughts from anyone else who took a look at AZhb2041? And, by the way, I can't see that much about the bill that I would object to. It seems to reinforce the contractural agreement between the end user and the provider. As long as there is a provision for 'as is' software that is used by mutual consent, I don't get what the fuss is about.
when I clicked on the link for the 7 states with UCITA legisliation and realized that my state, Arizona, was listed there. Guess I'll have to start writing some congress people.
As I was perusing the text of the law, I came across this under the 'Definitions' section:
33. "GOODS" MEANS ALL THINGS THAT ARE MOVABLE AT THE TIME RELEVANT TO THE COMPUTER INFORMATION
TRANSACTION. GOODS INCLUDE THE UNBORN YOUNG OF ANIMALS, GROWING CROPS AND OTHER IDENTIFIED THINGS
TO BE SEVERED FROM REALTY THAT ARE COVERED BY SECTION 47-2107. GOODS DO NOT INCLUDE COMPUTER
INFORMATION, MONEY, THE SUBJECT MATTER OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS, DOCUMENTS, LETTERS OF
CREDIT, LETTER-OF-CREDIT RIGHTS, INSTRUMENTS, INVESTMENT PROPERTY, ACCOUNTS, CHATTEL PAPER, DEPOSIT
ACCOUNTS OR GENERAL INTANGIBLES.
Unborn animals? Gee, I'm so glad we got that straightened out. Why you can just imagine the horror of coming in and finding your family member downloading say an unborn sheep!
Sadly, I think our legislature counts as one of the things which can be considered 'severed from reality'.
Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something. - R. Heinlein
In the preamble of the GPL, it sets forth the following explanation:
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.
That's a direct quote from the license itself. As has been said in previous posts, nothing about the license prevents you from making a living from your hard work. Just allow others who have talents in that direction to use what you've made to build on your contribution - like you've built on the contributions of others. This is not socialism or communism. You're not asked to work only for the common good. If you can make a buck from your contribution.. more power to you! You're not asked to pay those who's work you've borrowed, just as others who borrow your work won't be asked to pay you.
If you're concerned that someone will take what you've done and improve it... beat them to it! Why, if you're a pioneer in a field, I would imagine that would give you quite a head start.
But, don't take my word for it (or anyone else's either). Draw your own conclusions. The full text of the license can be found here:
I think that high quality tech support is very possible. I've seen it.
1.) Good pay - Yep. You're right on the money. Makes me think of a quote from R. Heinlien "Money is the sincerest form of flattery. Women love to be flattered, so do men." You should pay people what it's worth and good people are expensive. But having a highly trained, happy staff which you retain is much less expensive than having a turn over rate of 2-5% every month! Believe it or not, that is the standard turnover rate in call center (at least as of about a year ago).
2.) Well, it's true that some 'real hard' technical problems can take a long time to solve. But sometimes what may seem like an incredibly difficult problem for a user is a known issue that has been documented. One benefit of tech support is that it can be a huge clearing house of knowledge and repository of solutions. So, unless your problem is completely unheard of or the business does not keep documentation, you can expect to benefit from that repository.
3.) Well, yes. Customers don't always ask questions that in ways that make it immediately obvious how to solve the problem or even what the problem is. But, if your workers have even basic communication and troubleshooting skills, they can usually figure out how to ask the right quesitons. But maybe not in 10 minutes.
4.) Lots of people are willing to pay for technical support. And lots of people are willing to pay for 'reliable' name brands. What people resent is paying for tech support when it does not solve their problems or if it is a problem in the software (something out of their control).
5.) Yes, well. The old adage about any code more complicated than 'Hello World' being suspect for bugs. But, tech support can be a huge boon in your Product Development/QA department as they are on the front lines. In fact, I'm not sure how you would ever really improve a product without some input from your customers. What questions the customers have about the product just might be the most valuable information you can gather.
So, I don't think that good tech support is futile at all. I think it's a matter of a corporation having the will to find a way. That's how startups and new companies get market share. Problem is, once they have it they seem to loose the will to find the way to sustain it.
And, when I left I was no longer doing technical support. I was managing the new hire training department. I'm not sure which was more depressing, either.
We would get the these new employees (most of which were glad to be there, believe it or not) Put them through a fairly comprehensive, fast-paced curriculum (ok, I might be biased about the curriculum;) which focused on Customer Service, Communication Skills and Troubleshooting. My theory was, we needed people who could communicate with customers and think and adapt to new situations rather than people who could memorize 'steps' and recite menus by rote. The real trick in good tech support is being able to translate what the customer is asking into what is feasible/possible/wrong with the product, right?
So after 6 weeks of training them that they should take their time, concentrate on customer service, and provide thoughtful solutions. They would go out on the floor and be told that they had to have 10 minute average call times, no time in between calls to research, no call backs.. the litany goes on. So, I left. *shrug* I was doing a disservice to all the new employees of the company by training them in the way our company Mission statement said our corporatation wished to treat customers.
Anyhow, I suspect that this situation is repeated more often than not. And, again, I can trace the downfall back to the decision to seperate technical support from the cost of doing business. The problem stems from trying to make technical support like a production line. There is very little profit margin in it and the more money a business makes from Technical Support the more the quality of the product tends to decrease. Think about it.
One other thing. It's well known what makes good tech support. The same things that make for good customer service agents everywhere. People who are paid to do a job that is recognized as valuable and a contribution to the organization. People who are empowered to perform all of the activities their job requires and trusted to perform them to the best of their ability. People who are given the appropriate tools to to their job - including (and in this case especially) on-going training and updating of their skills. It's not feasible/possible/practical to suggest that anyone can know everything about anything. The best training in the world becomes obsolete much too quickly and, people can only learn so much before they need to practice their new skills. Tech support workers in my former company have been hamstrung to the point where it is almost impossible to provide good support.
And that is a shame. In fact, it's a damn shame. For the company, for the workers, and for the customers.
Your car metaphor is just as flawed as the 'couch' metaphor in the original article. Customers expect to be able to get the 'most' out of their product. Just about every office or buisiness application I've ever seen on the shelves has 'Easy to Use' or some such claim on the box. Perhaps what it should say is that it's easy to use if you have even a rudimentary aquaintance with the o/s. Some customers don't.
The computer software industry is different from the furniture industry, the car industry, or the garmet making industry. There's the good, the bad, and the ugly. Customer support for your product is something the industry and your customer base demands. On the other hand, you don't have to worry about sizing your product, fabric choices, or deaths caused by roll over accidents.
I used to work at a major company (which shall remain nameless) in their tech support call center. When I was initially hired, they were still a very young company with rapidly growning market share. The attitutde towards tech support at the time was "We want the customers who invested in our product to be simply delighted with their experience. Of COURSE we'll support and stand behind what we've designed." Besides, tech suport calls provide valuable information to our Q/A department for future releases. That attitude lasted for a couple of years but then.... market share started growing.. and growing.. and growing. And keepint pace with all of that was tech support costs.
So, the management stepped back and took a good, hard look at the bottom line. Ok, here we have major market share - but there's this huge sink hole in our profits called tech support.. what to do? Well, the logic went something like this: We can either 1.) raise the price of our product to cover tech support costs or 2.) Charge for tech support.
Well, if after examining the options, it was decided that since only a fraction of the customers use tech support - let's just charge those that use it for the service. Rather than impact the entire customer base with a higher product cost. Not to mention, keeping our price down will keep us more competitive in the market place, right? But, let's still recognize that tech support is a valuable part of our Q/A process and a data gathering tool for our future product development so let's still expect to loose money, just not as fast.
So, you transition to seperating your customers into those who are willing to wait for free support (cause we're still not willing to turn people away.. at least for now) to those that are 'in a hurry' and want 'priority' service.
Well, then after a while you realize that you have to charge all of your customers. Hrm. No big deal. We still have support available after all.
Then... what if we could break even on tech support? What if we could turn tech support into a revenue generating operation for the company. All thought of tech support as a valuable resource and information gathering tool gets tossed out the window. Now, we bring out all of the call center managing techniques and seminars and send managment to them. Tether the techs to their desks and fire them for being out of compliance (being one minute late more than three times in a month) Curtail training to cut down on staff - disregard any requests for career paths.... And then look surprised that the workers and the customers are miserable.
Most call centers use an algorithm that can predict call arrival patterns and answer times to the half hour based on previous data. It only takes 5 people out of schedule compliance to dramtically increase your queue times. So, most call centers staff and manage to those numbers.
From one who has been there, let me tell you that tech support is a tough job. Anyone who still believes there is no such thing as a stupid question has never worked Tech Support! You are given a 4-6 week crash course in the product (many of them have had little prior experience) then thrown to the customers who have managed to get themselves in situations you can't even concieve of getting into. All this and you have no time to stay current with product upgrades and updates because you are held to draconian time schedules and compliance from call center monitoring software. You probably do not have time to research or keep up with the product you are supporting. Most customers understand that you might not have ALL the answers to everything but are you even given time to find them if you get stuck?
All this said, it's not that I am offering good excuses for support to be awful. Frankly, I think the crucial decision was made way back when it was decided not to keep the support bundled with the software. From there it's been a slippery downward spiral. Tech support should have been kept as part of the Product Development/Enhancement/Improvement cycle. Customers and Tech Support were all much happier when it was there. And, I think that customers would be willing to pay more up front for the product if it was well designed and fully and adequately supported. There is a huge difference between the two mindsets in a company, in my opinion.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Slashdot Mirror
In Roman Times, the governments soon realized that one way to keep the population calm and peaceful was to ensure that they had access to adequate entertainment. It's been a basic governmental strategry ever since. (Heck, it could have been before, the Romans just raised it to an art form)
Certain people in Congress have been studying history. The government has a vested interest in keeping the citizens distracted. They are in partnership with the Entertainment industry both to pacify the populace and to liberate some of the disposable income that might otherwise be locked up in savings.
Because of that, I find the scenario in the article to be very far fetched. Unless people really have a lot more disposable income to spend (inflation), the goverment will work to keep entertainment at least affordable.
Seriously. Yes. Can't live your life afraid of your own shadow and by and large it's safe.
However, I don't think you're going anywhere today - looks like all the airports are closed.
Mys
*sigh*
I don't want corporations to 'tailor' information to what they think I need to know/have/see based on some randomly, statistically munged informaton they think they 'know' about me.
If the ambulance driver needs to know about my medical history, I'd rather he ask me or my companions, or check my med-id bracelet. If my air bag deploys, I would hope some bystander or person has the presence of mind to call 911 on my behalf rather than wait for my car manufacturer to alert the authorities. If I am driving through a strange city.. chances are I'm not really planning to stop and see a movie. And, if I am then maybe, just maybe, I'm perfectly capable of finding a theater on my own.
All of his arguments sound like lame justifications to track marketing information for the benefit of the corporation, not mine. Which may be fine with me, but I dislike people who try and pick my pockets all the while telling me how much I should appreciate them.
Just my
.. I remember many many years ago when I was creating a spreadsheet in Lotus 123. I spent about 1/2 a day looking for the command to search for data.
I looked under: Search, find, look, seek..... finally found it under Query. Of course.. why didn't I think of that sooner?
Obscure and hard to use interfaces are silly.
And, who do we think we're fooling anyway? Oh sure, you can point to the very few cases where someone was going to do something terrible (say, shoot up a school) and announced thier intentions and no one paid attention... but compare and contrast that to the 100's of thousands of times that nothing happened at all. That's why it's such a shock. And how exactly does making voicing that sort of idea a crime solve the problem? Do you think that if language and communication is sanitized people will continue to announce that they are planning to commit violence? I doubt it. The reason they do it now is becaue it's reasonably 'safe'; no one takes them seriously.
But I digress. The whole purpose of free speech is that (within some very broad boundaries) you shouldn't have to fear prosecution for expressing your opinion. Those bondaries are getting awfully narrow.
I was sitting here, reeling from the shock, trying to think of my favorite part of his books and I realized that they were all my favorite parts!
So much of what he wrote had a way of making you feel 'Oh, well, that's all right then." when you were faced with odd or confusing situations in life. I can't resist the urge to share some of my favorite parts of his books.
Why, just the other day, I was thinking one of his quotes about the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation products (guess what corporation's products I was thinking about? Anyone? Bueller?)
Or what he had to say about computers: And then there is the concept of the SEP (somebody else's problem) field... the idea that "everything the human race had ever believed was true and that it continued to be true long after they stopped believing it... or the Electric Monk. This is indeed a sad, sad day.Well. After reading it I did find a clause that seems to exempt 'programs that include source code' from the duration clause of the warrenty. But, does that go far enough? Hrm. I don't know. Going to have to study it some more.
Any thoughts from anyone else who took a look at AZhb2041? And, by the way, I can't see that much about the bill that I would object to. It seems to reinforce the contractural agreement between the end user and the provider. As long as there is a provision for 'as is' software that is used by mutual consent, I don't get what the fuss is about.
As I was perusing the text of the law, I came across this under the 'Definitions' section:
Unborn animals? Gee, I'm so glad we got that straightened out. Why you can just imagine the horror of coming in and finding your family member downloading say an unborn sheep!
Sadly, I think our legislature counts as one of the things which can be considered 'severed from reality'.
Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something. - R. Heinlein
If you're concerned that someone will take what you've done and improve it... beat them to it! Why, if you're a pioneer in a field, I would imagine that would give you quite a head start.
But, don't take my word for it (or anyone else's either). Draw your own conclusions. The full text of the license can be found here:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
Not Stallman. *sigh* I suppose I should let my eyes open before I try to read.
Check out Stallman's reply at:
- 05 -02-019-20-NW-CY-MS
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001
Nicely done.
..when you interrupt your surfing to check yourself for warning signs.
Modearation is for Monks!- R. Heinlein.
I think that high quality tech support is very possible. I've seen it.
1.) Good pay - Yep. You're right on the money. Makes me think of a quote from R. Heinlien "Money is the sincerest form of flattery. Women love to be flattered, so do men." You should pay people what it's worth and good people are expensive. But having a highly trained, happy staff which you retain is much less expensive than having a turn over rate of 2-5% every month! Believe it or not, that is the standard turnover rate in call center (at least as of about a year ago).
2.) Well, it's true that some 'real hard' technical problems can take a long time to solve. But sometimes what may seem like an incredibly difficult problem for a user is a known issue that has been documented. One benefit of tech support is that it can be a huge clearing house of knowledge and repository of solutions. So, unless your problem is completely unheard of or the business does not keep documentation, you can expect to benefit from that repository.
3.) Well, yes. Customers don't always ask questions that in ways that make it immediately obvious how to solve the problem or even what the problem is. But, if your workers have even basic communication and troubleshooting skills, they can usually figure out how to ask the right quesitons. But maybe not in 10 minutes.
4.) Lots of people are willing to pay for technical support. And lots of people are willing to pay for 'reliable' name brands. What people resent is paying for tech support when it does not solve their problems or if it is a problem in the software (something out of their control).
5.) Yes, well. The old adage about any code more complicated than 'Hello World' being suspect for bugs. But, tech support can be a huge boon in your Product Development/QA department as they are on the front lines. In fact, I'm not sure how you would ever really improve a product without some input from your customers. What questions the customers have about the product just might be the most valuable information you can gather.
So, I don't think that good tech support is futile at all. I think it's a matter of a corporation having the will to find a way. That's how startups and new companies get market share. Problem is, once they have it they seem to loose the will to find the way to sustain it.
And, when I left I was no longer doing technical support. I was managing the new hire training department. I'm not sure which was more depressing, either.
;) which focused on Customer Service, Communication Skills and Troubleshooting. My theory was, we needed people who could communicate with customers and think and adapt to new situations rather than people who could memorize 'steps' and recite menus by rote. The real trick in good tech support is being able to translate what the customer is asking into what is feasible/possible/wrong with the product, right?
We would get the these new employees (most of which were glad to be there, believe it or not) Put them through a fairly comprehensive, fast-paced curriculum (ok, I might be biased about the curriculum
So after 6 weeks of training them that they should take their time, concentrate on customer service, and provide thoughtful solutions. They would go out on the floor and be told that they had to have 10 minute average call times, no time in between calls to research, no call backs.. the litany goes on. So, I left. *shrug* I was doing a disservice to all the new employees of the company by training them in the way our company Mission statement said our corporatation wished to treat customers.
Anyhow, I suspect that this situation is repeated more often than not. And, again, I can trace the downfall back to the decision to seperate technical support from the cost of doing business. The problem stems from trying to make technical support like a production line. There is very little profit margin in it and the more money a business makes from Technical Support the more the quality of the product tends to decrease. Think about it.
One other thing. It's well known what makes good tech support. The same things that make for good customer service agents everywhere. People who are paid to do a job that is recognized as valuable and a contribution to the organization. People who are empowered to perform all of the activities their job requires and trusted to perform them to the best of their ability. People who are given the appropriate tools to to their job - including (and in this case especially) on-going training and updating of their skills. It's not feasible/possible/practical to suggest that anyone can know everything about anything. The best training in the world becomes obsolete much too quickly and, people can only learn so much before they need to practice their new skills. Tech support workers in my former company have been hamstrung to the point where it is almost impossible to provide good support.
And that is a shame. In fact, it's a damn shame. For the company, for the workers, and for the customers.
Your car metaphor is just as flawed as the 'couch' metaphor in the original article. Customers expect to be able to get the 'most' out of their product. Just about every office or buisiness application I've ever seen on the shelves has 'Easy to Use' or some such claim on the box. Perhaps what it should say is that it's easy to use if you have even a rudimentary aquaintance with the o/s. Some customers don't.
The computer software industry is different from the furniture industry, the car industry, or the garmet making industry. There's the good, the bad, and the ugly. Customer support for your product is something the industry and your customer base demands. On the other hand, you don't have to worry about sizing your product, fabric choices, or deaths caused by roll over accidents.
I used to work at a major company (which shall remain nameless) in their tech support call center. When I was initially hired, they were still a very young company with rapidly growning market share. The attitutde towards tech support at the time was "We want the customers who invested in our product to be simply delighted with their experience. Of COURSE we'll support and stand behind what we've designed." Besides, tech suport calls provide valuable information to our Q/A department for future releases. That attitude lasted for a couple of years but then.... market share started growing.. and growing.. and growing. And keepint pace with all of that was tech support costs. So, the management stepped back and took a good, hard look at the bottom line. Ok, here we have major market share - but there's this huge sink hole in our profits called tech support.. what to do? Well, the logic went something like this: We can either 1.) raise the price of our product to cover tech support costs or 2.) Charge for tech support. Well, if after examining the options, it was decided that since only a fraction of the customers use tech support - let's just charge those that use it for the service. Rather than impact the entire customer base with a higher product cost. Not to mention, keeping our price down will keep us more competitive in the market place, right? But, let's still recognize that tech support is a valuable part of our Q/A process and a data gathering tool for our future product development so let's still expect to loose money, just not as fast. So, you transition to seperating your customers into those who are willing to wait for free support (cause we're still not willing to turn people away .. at least for now) to those that are 'in a hurry' and want 'priority' service.
Well, then after a while you realize that you have to charge all of your customers. Hrm. No big deal. We still have support available after all.
Then... what if we could break even on tech support? What if we could turn tech support into a revenue generating operation for the company. All thought of tech support as a valuable resource and information gathering tool gets tossed out the window. Now, we bring out all of the call center managing techniques and seminars and send managment to them. Tether the techs to their desks and fire them for being out of compliance (being one minute late more than three times in a month) Curtail training to cut down on staff - disregard any requests for career paths.... And then look surprised that the workers and the customers are miserable.
Most call centers use an algorithm that can predict call arrival patterns and answer times to the half hour based on previous data. It only takes 5 people out of schedule compliance to dramtically increase your queue times. So, most call centers staff and manage to those numbers.
From one who has been there, let me tell you that tech support is a tough job. Anyone who still believes there is no such thing as a stupid question has never worked Tech Support! You are given a 4-6 week crash course in the product (many of them have had little prior experience) then thrown to the customers who have managed to get themselves in situations you can't even concieve of getting into. All this and you have no time to stay current with product upgrades and updates because you are held to draconian time schedules and compliance from call center monitoring software. You probably do not have time to research or keep up with the product you are supporting. Most customers understand that you might not have ALL the answers to everything but are you even given time to find them if you get stuck?
All this said, it's not that I am offering good excuses for support to be awful. Frankly, I think the crucial decision was made way back when it was decided not to keep the support bundled with the software. From there it's been a slippery downward spiral. Tech support should have been kept as part of the Product Development/Enhancement/Improvement cycle. Customers and Tech Support were all much happier when it was there. And, I think that customers would be willing to pay more up front for the product if it was well designed and fully and adequately supported. There is a huge difference between the two mindsets in a company, in my opinion.
Just my 2 cents worth.