Advice worth following ...

You are very right. In today?s economy, businesses can?t afford to lose a customer. Every action needs to be performed with the customer in mind. As this piece (http://www.upyourservice.com/learning-library/customer-service-contact/who-were-they-designing-it-for) suggests, smart businesses design from the ground up to please customers.

Thanks for stopping by, Jule-Ann ...

You're exactly right, Julie. And thanks for the link. What a great idea! The flip side of that coin are the boxes I receive from merchants with nothing accompyaning the merchandise to help me remember them next time. All it takes is a wonderful letter like that to make me want to shop there again.

You're right on the money!

Glenn, you point out a failing that way too many bigger companies seem to have these days. A few years ago, BlackBerry was THE smart phone. Now that there?s plenty of competition out there, it sounds like some resting on the laurels is going on. Rather than working to meet and exceed customer expectations, the company seems to be living off its former reputation. As this article suggests (http://www.upyourservice.com/learning-library/customer-service-innovation/how-to-stand-out-from-the-crowd) it often takes true customer service leadership to stand out from the crowd when competition is hot. It sure doesn?t sound like BlackBerry succeeded in your case.

Thanks for responding, Hutch ...

As someone responsible for CRM implementation in my organization, I'm not overly concerned with the depth of a relationship. Only that there's something of value for both sides. We just don't have the resources to go into that kind of depth.

I agree with you about value. Yes, there is value in transactions, otherwise McDonald's wouldn't have any repeat business.

I think my philosophy can best be described as, "Different strokes for different folks," a popular 70's saying. Different segments want varying levels of relationships. It can be dangerous for a manager to assume that no one wants relationships any more. I don't believe that's true.

By the way, try an Alberti 154 Malbec. $10.99 retail. Good stuff.

I enjoyed the conversation.

Glenn ...

I'm actually drinking some 2-buck chuck right now...

...but Malbec sounds better.

Thanks for the response Glenn. A couple across-the-table responses.

I like the stat about exceptional customer service resulting in longer customer relationships. It's true, people have relationships with the companies from which they buy.

The question is not really that they maintain a relationship - i.e. continue to buy from the company - but how deep is that relationship? The four components that determine relationship depth (per Mark Granovetter) are:

1. Time spend together
2. Emotional intensity
3. Intimacy (mutual confiding)
4. Reciprocity

I just don't think most seller-buyer relationships rise very high on those factors. Our interactions are transactional.

The other point you raise is in terms of value. I do distinguish value from complexity in this way. I get a lot of value from a number of purchases: brokerage account, bank, car. But having a "relationship" with those companies? I only have but so much bandwidth in my day. I don't think I could handle ongoing discussions about the value I get. It's just that over time, these companies have figured out what the market wants, and they deliver.

So I'm loyal. It is a relationship of a sort, but one characterized on a transactional basis. Which is right where I need it.

I'm not saying deeper relationships aren't possible. But they're the exception, not the norm. Which you actually note in your post here.

Well, back to my (almost) fine wine...