Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
I challenge this notion of loyalty, Roughie.
VM charge for their services and try to maintain the income for the same basic reason as "loyal customers" want the cheapest price; money retention.
If you could get a faster service for the same price from someone else, why wouldn't you do it?
I suppose there might be customers who can get a cheaper service for a lower price but can't be arsed. They're not loyal - they just can't be arsed.
Hope you don't mind that analysis!
|
Don't mind at all. We differ on this as you probably surmised from earlier exchanges on the subject.
Call me old-fashioned, but when someone has been with a company since the year zero, that means something regardless of the service offered. This hasn't been inertia on my part, but a feeling, backed up by experience, that VM, despite its faults, is the best ISP in my area. This is partly emotive and is focused on the brand too. I remain tempted by BT's 80/20 non-contended service, particularly the upspeed, but hopes of something better have kept me hanging on to VM.
VM has changed in it's attitude since the early days. Up until 5 years ago I received a number of unrequested TV upgrades, including all the sports channels, purely because I had subscribed to the full multi-platform thingy for over a year. That is rewarding my loyalty/sustained investment. Recently attitudes have changed. Long-standing customers get left to last when it comes to upgrades, or at least that is what it feels like.
Really, there is no commercial advantage to offering upgrades like 152Mb, 200Mb, 300Mb to existing customers last, is there? New customers can still be enticed with discounted months. Roll outs can be managed on a regional basis, surely, if overloading admin and engineers is an issue!