The Verizon Dilemma: Who Says Caring about the Customer is Important?

If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, did it really fall?

If a company delivers poor customer service but no customers hold it accountable, did it really fail?

This might be the "age of the customer," but by no means has the era of customers tolerating disappointing service come to an end.

Customers might claim to demand an elite customer experience. They might even Tweet their customer service frustrations publicly. But because so many continue doing business with those brands, especially when factors like price, product quality and lack of alternatives drive continued loyalty, major brands are often able to skate by without truly demonstrating a renewed sense of customer-centricity.

By abruptly ending its "grandfathering" policy towards unlimited data, Verizon Wireless recently joined that list of delinquent brands. In addition to notably destroying the value of its offering—as customers lose their unlimited plans, they will be paying the same money for a lesser product—it also directly violates a promise Verizon had long been giving to customers.

I can confirm first-hand that amid rumors Verizon was switching to a tiered data structure a while back, in-store representatives were assuring existing unlimited data customers that they would be able to retain that service—at the same price point—as long as they kept renewing every two years. Removing the "grandfather" clause is an unequivocal breaking of that promise.

Worse, Verizon had the audacity to announce that customers who upgrade to the new iPhone 5 can retain their unlimited plans if they forego their upgrade discounts and pay the phone’s list price.

That sure is generous, Verizon! Charge me about $600 to access a service I was promised I would get for free!

Both a frustrated customer and a frustrated customer experience analyst, I angrily Tweeted Verizon about this blatant betrayal of its commitment to customers. Brands are supposed to focus on becoming more customer-driven, yet here is a major company instead telling customers it does not care about its relationship with them.

The initial response back had some promise—the Verizon social rep inquired about my current data use and explained that he did not want to me to be unhappy with my cellular service. But in his second reply, he again revealed Verizon’s disregard for my years of support by kindly noting that I can change my tiered data structure at any time. He claimed he "[doesn’t] want [me] to be upset," but he and his company were not actually willing to do anything to turn that frown upside down.

When AT&T and Verizon Wireless both converted their default unlimited plans into tiered ones, supporters noted that the move was necessary to prevent bandwidth overloads and assure everyone’s experience on the network was optimal.

Intuitive in principle, actual data reveals that unlimited users consume only slightly more data than tiered users on AT&T; on Verizon, they actually use less data.

Moreover, even if unlimited users truly were clogging the system, it is highly improbable that the major telecoms did not foresee that bandwidth challenge when they were promising companies "grandfathering" would never come to an end. And so there was absolutely no extenuating circumstance that made eliminating the "grandfather" clause necessary or justifiable.

The sad reality is that I fully expect many of those reading, who are surely professionals committed to customer-centricity, to dismiss my aforementioned rant as "whining." And I already know anecdotally that non-customer management types dispute Peter Drucker’s assertion that the purpose of business is to create and retain customers, instead noting that it’s unequivocally to make a profit. These individuals expect businesses do to greedy things in the almighty name of the dollar and thus carry no ill-will towards Verizon.

A sadder reality is that despite my rant, I will not be leaving Verizon. Currently sharing my Verizon service with family members, I pay far less for my line than I would if I opened an individual account on Sprint, T-Mobile or AT&T. Aware that Verizon has the best LTE coverage, I also have no desire to pass on that opportunity as I upgrade to an iPhone 5.

If even I, someone who is far angrier than the typical customer, will stick with Verizon, who can blame Verizon for acting against the customer’s best interest? If it can retain customer loyalty and positively impact both sides of its P&L, why should it not seize that opportunity?

No matter how many inspirational quotes customer service consultants share about a willingness to pay double for good service or about the irrefutable connection between support and loyalty, the reality is not quite so do-or-die. Yes, customer service is a great differentiator with enormous implications for whether a customer wants to switch, but it is not an unavoidable certainty that they actually will.

As such, an "if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it" mentality often emerges. Brands do not feel enough incentive to truly revolutionize their customer service strategies.

Part of this stems from the fact that price and product are elements of the customer experience. Though customer experience consultants, speakers and journalists typically refer to the "experiential" elements (service, ease-of-use, navigability, etc.) when using the term, factors like price indeed impact the experience a customer has with a brand. If these elements are strong, or at least appealing in comparison to the competition’s offerings, they can compensate for subpar customer service and still produce a decent "customer experience."

Part of this stems from the fact that switching is not always easy or attractive. For as much as I appreciate quality customer service and will absolutely flock to customer-centric organizations when I can (I have changed online nutritional retailers, morning coffee shops and convenience stores based entirely on service), I cannot or will not do so in all cases. I have remained with my the same bank for eight years amid the occasional frustration. And I will not be saying "goodbye" to Verizon despite their acknowledgement that I mean nothing beyond additional profit to them.

It is also important not to discount the consequences of consumer disillusionment. As noted, many treat a business’ profit-centricity as not only a fact but a justifiable motivation to ignore the customer’s needs. They thus believe some weaknesses in the customer experience must be taken in stride and thus do not always feel "harmed" the way a customer service advocate might expect. Similarly, they might doubt whether the competition truly offers a more customer-centric alternative.

Upon reading that paragraph, some brands are likely breathing a sigh of relief, noting they can get away with mediocre customer service. The smart brands, however, are seeing this as a meaningful opportunity.

With expectations for customer service so low, brands, especially in a social, word-of-mouth-driven environment, now have an unprecedented platform for demonstrating the value of their customer-centricity. If they can show enough concern for the customer to prove things are broken in competitive organizations, they can win customers over by declaring it rational to expect customer-centricity. They can bury the other brands as out-of-touch and ask customers to put those brands out-of-mind.

This call to action is neither a dismissal of the roles price and product play in the customer experience nor a promise that customer indifference towards service levels will vanish. But it is a reminder that a customer’s failure to switch after a bad brand experience is not a sign of invincibility.

It is instead a sign that the competition is not demonstrating enough customer-centricity to lure those customers away.

But what happens when it finally does?