It seems that everyone is talking about the customer these days. The marketing strategies of many companies abound in terms like “customer obsession”, “customer intimacy” and “customer-centricity”. From sales and support teams to most organisations’ boardrooms, the mantra that the customer is always right is the rock base of buyer-support services.
The maxim that the customer is always right was never meant to be taken literally. The point is not that customers should always get their way no matter how outrageous their demands are.
It is about going the extra mile to understand the underlying points of friction between goods or service providers and their customers.
While there appears to have been significant progress in promoting customers’ interests both at the EU and local level, some businesses still view their customer service units as cost centres. These businesses rely on the legal maxim of caveat emptor – let the buyer beware – to dismiss justified complaints by their dissatisfied customers.
A court last week delivered judgment on a case instituted by a widow with an 11-year-old son. She was dissatisfied with the service given to her by a car importer, when the car she bought from the company developed a series of faults that were not fixed to her satisfaction.
In handing down judgment, the judge observed that the dissatisfied customer had no motive to undermine the importer or come up with any excuse not to pay for the car or to pay less for it. The court rescinded the contract and ordered a full refund of the purchase price.
The judge’s motivation was well-argued. It exposes the short-sightedness of businesses that prefer to go to court rather than limit the damage to their reputation by reaching an out-of-court settlement. When the circumstances of a complaint indicate a reasonable justification for meeting a customer’s request, forcing a customer to take legal action is counterproductive.
The customer is always right for several reasons. For most businesses, acquiring new customers is challenging and expensive. Retail companies know that customer retention, while not free, is significantly less expensive than customer acquisition.
Most customers are honest, hardworking persons who are just looking to get good value for their money. They are not out to cheat suppliers. It, therefore, does not make economic sense for some business owners to create an adversarial relationship with their customers. This is simple economics.
Satisfied customers are a business’s best ambassadors. Happiness is contagious and, by providing a good service, companies ensure that their customer base grows organically.
Of course, the opposite is also true. Unhappy customers are expensive. Bad reviews and damaging court judgments push potential customers away.
In theory, free competition should ensure that the “customer is always king”. Unfortunately, market forces sometimes fail in a small market like that of Malta. So far, buying big-ticket consumer goods like new cars from other EU countries is not practical for local consumers.
Still, this should not encourage local agents to use a high-handed attitude with customers who have a genuine complaint about the quality of the service they get. It is up to consumers to judge whether increased competition for custom among local businesses has led to better customer care. But there is definitely a moral for businesses to take away from this court judgment.
The most effective marketing aims to build trust between sellers and buyers. The departure point in building trust is the belief that most customers are honest and not motivated to cheat by making spurious claims against businesses.