So one of our product managers contacted them, spent ages discussing their requirements and subsequently we agreed to make some changes. Responding in this way was exceptional and it cost us much more than we could ever make in sales from the particular guy.
But this customer isn't at all grateful. In fact, recently they have become even more critical, and have continued to cost us more in support than almost anyone else. Would it have been better if we had said "no" in the first place?
Without sounding too critical, the customer in question doesn't appear to be particularly successful, and I'm sure it's not a coincidence. If someone can't understand the business needs of their suppliers, they probably don't know how their own customers tick either.
Some clients are very demanding, and whatever you do they are never satisfied. I'm not talking about customers upset with poor service, who need helping. Nor am I talking about customers that need a lot of handholding. Nor about customers who buy the wrong product, who should have their money returned. I'm talking about customers who fundamentally don't understand the trade-off involved in human and business interactions.
Although the circumstances I've described are rare, they aren't unique. My guess is that this applies to maybe one in two hundred customers. The cost in time and demoralising impact on staff makes it more difficult to give good service to everyone else. As a result, I am coming to the conclusion that for this small minority, we would do better to suggest that they do business with our competitors.
It's critical not to provide our customer service team with any excuse for bad service, so there are some dangers in adopting such measures. However, applied incredibly carefully to a very small minority, surely it's time to review the relationship with these sorts of customers?
By Chris Barling, CEO, Sellerdeck. Originally published in www.marketingdonut.co.uk.