Upside Down: Who Killed the Customer?
From energy monopolies to politics, the new normal makes us all pay the price.
Everybody has had the experience of trying to contact a power, gas, or telecom supplier, answering the “machine,” searching for the right option in the endless menu, repeating the NIC card or identification number, and hoping that, finally, a human will respond. Sometimes the painful process continues: departments are not connected, the solution is not immediate, or the “answer” is simply to write an email and hope that someone reads it. What stands out is that most of us have been tamed into accepting this process with almost biblical patience. The situation becomes even more perverse when failing to find a solution results in service interruption, extra costs (borne by the customer), or a complete restart of the whole ordeal.
This slow torture began some 20 years ago and has now become commonplace. The cynicism reaches its peak when companies insist that customers’ rights are respected and protected by law—laws that one could, in theory, appeal to (really?), yet without clear timeframes or deadlines. In practice, such legal recourse only discourages people from embarking on what quickly turns into a sado-masochistic process.
Fortunately, not all companies have chosen this path. Some genuinely practice customer satisfaction. When receiving a damaged or inadequate product, for instance, the return process is straightforward, with an immediate refund or replacement. I will not mention names, but they come easily to mind. Probably e-commerce is one of the few areas where the customer is truly king, because real competition still exists.
The problem is especially glaring in the energy and gas sectors, where companies continue to operate as oligopolies. They show little regard even for their limited number of employees, left behind in outdated branch offices to absorb customers’ anger and frustration. By contrast, telephone and insurance companies have evolved toward more open competition, and their management has understood that keeping customers satisfied is essential for survival.
Another perverse element is the lack of proper procedures. From my professional background in systems, I have always been surprised by the high percentage of defective—or simply non-existent—processes that generate dissatisfaction, frustration, customer loss, and inefficient use of resources. In my most recent experience, a gas supplier separated the commercial side from the supply service, outsourcing the latter to another company with very few staff and subcontractors, and with no coordination between them. The difficulty of finding the right interlocutor and fixing the problem was overwhelming.
The banking sector pioneered many of these practices. Thousands of branches have been closed and replaced by apps—convenient in some respects, but always lacking a fast, direct, and effective response. To add insult to injury, after such “service” you may be asked to complete a brief questionnaire. But how can you say you are satisfied if you don’t even know whether the problem has been resolved? And will the professional involved be punished if they receive poor ratings? (Sometimes they even warn you about this in advance.)
Greed knows no limits. Senior management thinks only of bonuses and promotions, while customers are treated as a nuisance—just a bothersome obstacle at the bottom of the food chain, useful only insofar as they help executives reach their personal goals.
The worst part is that we have come to accept this as normal. The same dynamic extends to politics: voters are treated as a nuisance who, nevertheless, hold the power to appoint usually mediocre individuals to positions they would never attain in a “normal world.” Welcome to the new normal: everything upside down.
What can we do about it? The first step is to stop accepting this absurd situation as “normal.” Customers and citizens alike must demand accountability, transparency, and real service, whether from corporations or politicians. AI may change the rules of the game, but unless there is pressure from society, the “new normal” risks being even worse than what we endure today.
