Caveat Venditor
Let the seller beware.

Scott Paton
spaton@qualitydigest.com

I received more than 100 letters on last month's column, "Grading Customer Service." Apparently many of you agree with my belief that customer service is bad and getting worse. We included a representative sample of those letters in our "Letters" section on page 7.

Quite a few of those who wrote in expressed frustration--not with customer service, but with the customers themselves. A common theme was that customers no longer show any loyalty and will switch suppliers to save a penny.

Hmm. I seem to remember something from my economics classes. What was it? Oh, yes. It's called capitalism. Oh yes, I'm remembering something else now. It's called supply and demand.

Our entire economy is--and always has been--based on the theory that people will buy goods and services from the person or organization they believe will provide them with the best price, the best service and the best quality. If you supply your customers with the best combination of price, service and quality, they will demand your products. The key to this argument is that it is the customer who determines which supplier has the best price, the best service and the best quality. Remember the quality fundamental: Quality is conformance to requirements? Who determines those requirements? The customer.

Granted, tough economic times and the point-and-click world of online shopping and auctions have made customers choosier (i.e., less loyal), but that's the nature of capitalism. There's an old saying: caveat emptor (let the buyer beware). Perhaps it's time we replaced it with caveat venditor (let the seller beware).

A fair number of letter writers complained that their customers were squeezing every last penny out of them with no regard for their business success. Most of these people worked for suppliers to the Big Three automakers. It's a long-standing complaint. I remember how angry automotive suppliers were when the Big Three released QS-9000. "It's not fair," they cried.

No, it isn't fair. But I don't remember fairness mentioned very often during those economics classes I took. I think the only time fairness was discussed was during the lectures on Marxism. We've seen how well state-mandated fairness in the market works.

Several of you who sent in letters pointed out that our society has somehow lost site of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. But there is an alternative definition of the Golden Rule: Those who have the gold make the rules. The Big Three have the gold and can dictate terms to suppliers. It's not fair, but if you want to supply the Big Three, you follow the rules.

The same holds true for me. When I go through the drive-through, I have the gold and I make the rules. The pierced, blue-haired Taco Bell worker may never have learned the traditional interpretation of the Golden Rule, but you can bet he'll learn the alternative definition. It's the nature of economics.

I'd like to know what you think. E-mail me at spaton@quallitydigest.com.