> So I can see why companies are quick to lock out customers who try these games.
Most of the companies who customers try these "games" against are places like Google and Meta that literally do not provide a way for the average customer to reach a human. None.
Those have got it coming for them, the megacorps' stance on this is despicable and far worse than the customers directly reaching execs who could instantly change this but don't because it would cut into their $72 billion per year net profit.
This is a case where laws simply did not catch up to the digital era. In the brick and mortar era it was by definition possible to reach humans.
I get that your company was smaller and probably did allow for a way to reach a human but that's not generalizable.
Long ago when Google tried to launch its very first phone somewhere in Europe I can distinctly remember that it was initially not allowed to because of some regulation that mandated a company selling telephones to have a customer service.
Can't remember if they eventually found a loophole or if the regulations were changed.
For most situations, Walmart and CVS have fine customer service compared to most. You just need to show up in person. Fortunately, their business model might make that a little annoying, but not even difficult for most.
The challenge isn't getting customer service. It's getting someone who isn't reading from a decision tree that conveniently doesn't include any paths where the corporation has fucked up.
My only connection to Amazon support has been for AWS.
Perhaps though this should be an example of good customer service where talking to a human is easy, and not lumped in with the likes of Google where its impossible.
Perhaps your experience with the online shop is different, but frankly they're in my "good" column, not my "bad" column.
This is not like for like: AWS assigns reps because the dollar amounts are significant compared to your monthly cell phone bill or a purchase at Amazon. It's not surprising that buying a car gets you better customer service than renting one.
Two companies that are so gigantic they combine to a great percentage of number of "company interactions" the average Westerner has on a daily basis.
Anyway, I don't think it contradicts my point? Your company exist, mom and pops exist and there's a whole spectrum between them, so it's not generalizable.
Most of the companies who customers try these "games" against are places like Google and Meta that literally do not provide a way for the average customer to reach a human. None.
Those have got it coming for them, the megacorps' stance on this is despicable and far worse than the customers directly reaching execs who could instantly change this but don't because it would cut into their $72 billion per year net profit.
This is a case where laws simply did not catch up to the digital era. In the brick and mortar era it was by definition possible to reach humans.
I get that your company was smaller and probably did allow for a way to reach a human but that's not generalizable.