Seth Godin discovers that stamps.com is trying to scam him out of money and asks:
How is that a sleepy, conservative organization like the postal service ends up licensing its brand to a company that can’t resist every honey pot scheme and opt out technique in the book?
I probably would have guessed something the lines of “their monopoly gives them little incentive to treat their customers well” or “they’re desperate for revenue in a changing industry” or “what do you expect from the same organization that expects me to donate food to my mailman letter carrier every year?”
Godin (whom I generally adore, by the way) suggests instead that
There’s something about the mechanics and arms-length nature of the web that just begs companies that know better to treat people in a way that they’d be humiliated to try face to face.
This might even be true, although one also could make the opposite argument that the arms-length nature of the web makes it easier to treat people well, which everyone knows is plenty challenging in person (at least for me).
About Joel
4 Comments
Joel, you’re not donating food to your letter carrier: you’re donating food that your letter carrier is having delivered to a food bank. If I take something to Goodwill for you, you didn’t donate it to me.
I’m with you on the other points, though. Somebody has a line item called “Stamps.com revenue” and all they care is that this # goes up.
Actually, I have several bags of stuff that needs to go to Goodwill. That would be awesome if you took it for me, thanks!
Yet, before Stamps dot com, Pitney Bowes used to treat my business like their prison girlfriend: rates increased like the waistband of a competitive eater, their machines had the reliablity of a Trabbi, and bills had to be paid before they were mailed….yeah.
Now PB may still have the monopoly on postage meters, but not on postage. So much better. It’s like having two brands of toilet paper to choose from in Siberia.
Lysander Spooner is smiling