Hacker News Reader

Comment by bruce511 | Hacker News Reader

Businesses aren't in business to prioritize the customer point of view [1].

They are not in business to prioritize the employees point of view.

They are in business to maximise revenue, and profit.

If you work for a business, your job is to work on their priorities. By all means object or quit if you don't agree with them. (And yes, assume you'll be fired for refusing to do their tasks.)

If you're a customer, and you font like their behavior stop being their customer. You have agency. Use it.

[1] good customer service, good customer experience, are all good for revenue. Happy customers are the ultimate success. But maximizing the revenue from those happy customers is very much the business goal.

View on HN

The old "use your agency" response never gets old does it, no matter how much consumer alternatives are whittled away, and no matter how much the abusive corporate behaviour gets ratcheted up and normalized. Do you actually make a profit yourself from forcing ads on paying customers who can't choose to avoid your services, or just aspire to one day?

Thats a cop out.

There are lots of alternatives to McDonald's.

There are lots of alternatives to most things. Some cost more money though. That's kinda the point.

What if I can't drive all the way to an ad-free restaurant or for that matter an ad-free gas pump? What if I buy a plane ticket to get out of this bad situation and the airline is using the emergency PA to harass their captive audience of paying customers to join their miles club? What can't be avoided must endured, but there is no reason for people like you to insist that this is fine or normal, or that it's something one can opt out of. You're actively building the dystopia when you do that

>What if I can't drive all the way to an ad-free restaurant

Eating at a restaurant is a luxury. If you don't like the experience, don't go (or don't go back). You're free to make your own food with stuff you buy at the supermarket, and you'll most likely get something healthier and much lower-priced. The entire point of a restaurant is to pay more money, frequently a LOT more, for a combination of convenience, service, ambiance, and food that might not be so easy for you to make at home (e.g. pizza) due to skill or equipment limitations.

So at least the supermarket should be ad-free, right?

Most of the supermarket is essentially ad-space. Companies often negotiate quite hard for good eye-line shelf positions for their products.

That special offer Tesco has on Pepsi products? Tesco is probably making exactly the same markup on each sale and the saving is actually coming from a supply price deal they have arranged with Pepsi in exchange for their products getting extra shelf space and end-isle displays.

High-shelf space (too high for customers to safely reach, so otherwise empty or used to store boxes of product to open when it is time to replace sold stock on lower shelves) often has advertising hoardings for products on other isles these days, again this is effectively paid ad space for the suppliers. If no external supplier is currently paying for it, the space is used to advertise own-brand ranges.

You seem to believe that you're entitled to certain things that are provided by other businesses -- but on your terms.

I don't know why you think that.

You seem to believe that someone wanting a thing to exist means they believe they are entitled to it.

I don't know why you think that.

If an "alternative" to McDonald's does exactly the same abusive thing it isn't a real alternative to McDonald's at all.

If an "alternative" to McDonald's forces you to drive excessive distances to reach it, or it costs much more, or it sells Thai food instead of burgers, then it isn't a real alternative to McDonald's.

A suitable alternative to McDonald's would be one similar enough to McDonald's for your purposes that you can use it to replace McDonald's. I'm sure some people have that, but I'm also sure many people don't.

There are lots of things that don't actually have suitable alternatives. There are entire product categories that are completely filled with consumer hostile garbage, with zero competitors offering a suitable alternative, because sometimes it will always be more profitable for companies to refuse to give consumers what they want.

A suitable alternative to McDonald's is learning to cook.

Or pay a bit more to go to a nicer joint.

Quality does cost more. As long as you keep signaling to MD that you'll tolerate more and more crap for lower prices, they happily oblige.

Another trope that never gets old, it seems.

Many people have stopped going to McDonald's by the way. But not enough for McD to hurt.

Then what? What does our agency change in the world in this situation?

You are using cop-outs as well.

Cooking for yourself is a trope? You realise that's what most of the world does every day.

If making your own meals is literally out of your reach then I feel really sad for you. That must truly suck to be so dependent on companies just to eat...

Do you grow 100% of your own food? It may be helpful for your understanding (and this conversation) to get off the high horse and realise that you're also dependent on companies "just to eat".

I never said I wasn't dependent on companies. I very much am. For everything. But I have choices and, when I gave the opportunity, I make those choices meaningfully.

For example, I don't much care for the McDonald's experience, so I go elsewhere. Indeed on occasion I find going 'nowhere' to be preferable if there's no alternative. I haven't been to MD in 30 years.

I'm not trying to be on a high horse. I follow a path that works for me, and I don't complain about it. You choose the path that works best for you.

Are you being obtuse on purpose or are you really desperate to "win" this debate?

EXTREMELY OBVIOUSLY I meant this part of your comment:

> As long as you keep signaling to MD that you'll tolerate more and more crap for lower prices, they happily oblige.

That is the trope many use, yourself included. A lot of people signal their displeasure with various status quo. Still nothing changes. I wonder how does the one-dimensional quote above addresses the messy and complex real world out there.

Sorry, it wasn't obvious to me. I misread your point.

I'm not really trying to "win" anything. I'm telling you that you have agency. Whether that means anything to you, or if you do anything with it, I guess that's up to you.

Personally I'm not looking for my agency to change anyone else or how any company behaves. I don't do it for them, I do it for me.

I choose to support companies that align with my requirements. If a company makes me feel like crap I go elsewhere. I'm not out to change the world, just choose how I live in it.

Now I look like an a-hole! :D

It's OK, of course, and yes I take a number of stances out there by supporting one and not supporting another, company.

My point however was that nowadays that's mostly a feel-good measure. Not the unquestionable actual agency many make it out to be.

I think I understand you: everyone at the bottom end of society should just have more money or more personal time, or both. I wonder how we could make that happen.

Different people are in different places. And obviously some people have been fortunate enough to have choices, and some do not.

I would assume that most people in this thread are not working 3 jobs to survive etc. My context is not their context.

I'd also guess they are far less invested in concepts like whether or not the server offers fries with that. In my long ago, limited experience, I couldn't have cared less about how many adverts there were, there were more pressing things to worry about.

Back to your point - I choose personal time over more money. My spending is modest, my income is likely much lower than most here. Frankly I have more than enough. Living is a lot cheaper when the goal isn't money.

As others make clear here you have agency in theory, but in practice your ability to use that agency is very much dependent on how well the world enables the exercise of that agency. Something to think about, interdependence and all that.

> They are in business to maximise revenue, and profit.

Correction, "they" are not a hivemind with one goal, they are a collection of individuals with individual goals to maximize their own profit. If some marketing employee can get a bonus or promotion by showing ephemeral monetary gains at the expense of the long-term integrity of the product, they'll jump all over that.

Badmouthing bullshit practices of a company is also a part of the agency here.

E.g. Yes, I hate that McDonalds (like tons of other companies) is incessantly bugging me and quite blatantly trying to upsell me. As a result, I rarely go to such places anymore. So they lose my business. But I will also complain out loud. This is part of the deal with bullshitting your customer base. This is part of my agency. Losing me as a customer, as well as getting badmouthed left and right is the cost of extracting that 3 additional cents from me. Now the company also has a choice.

It does not have to be this way. This should not be claimed as some kind of law of gravity-like nature of the universe. Businesses have operated in an enormous variety of manners over the years and continue to do so. Businesses have agency.

Just look at EA vs Nintendo for one. And I'm not even a Nintendo fan.

That’s nonsense. Some businesses exist purely to fund the ability to do exactly that thing as well as possible. Making money is a means to an end.

It’s just that they always seem to lose to those that optimize for money.

I think some small businesses start because the owner wants to do something well. Sometimes this aligns with some group of customers and it's sustainable.

Most small businesses fail of course. Usually because while they do a task well, they're bad at the business part.

Once you get large (McDonald's in the parent thread) the focus is necessarily on the business part. At that scale it's not "doing the thing as well as possible " - it is "making money as well as possible".

Clearly lots of people use McDonald's. So they provide customers with satisfaction. But that doesn't mean they aren't out to maximize revenue.

One of the things that’s surprising about traveling to Europe and Japan is that this revenue maximizing business strategy isn’t as prevalent. You don’t see the same upsells everywhere and tipping culture is also mostly non-existent. Many US businesses managed to behave in a manner that was vastly less extractive to their customers for most of the last century as well. It really is possible to care about the quality of your business in some cultures, it’s just harder to do so here today.

Exactly. Enshitification wouldn't be a concept if there wasn't a previous better point to reference.

It's exactly harder but when customers prioritize price above everything it's hard to succeed if you offer better, but charge more.

The hard truth is that American consumers care only about price, and so businesses optimize for that (or go under). Which means they lean into other sources of revenue, or ways to reduce costs.

Elsewhere people care about value more than price, and are willing to spend more to get more. Restaurants post the real price (including service) because that's what it costs.

Ryanair exists to fill the need for those who want low price above all else. KLM exists for those who want a better experience and are prepared to pay more.

Do you think it is possible for a society to switch from emphasizing price to emphasizing value? If so, how do you think such a change would take place?

It's really hard for cultures to change. Outside of a major event (WW2 scale event) its likely to take multiple generations.

It can happen locally. Farmers markets are a thing. Supporting local owner-run, not chain, restaurants is a thing.

But in big cities, or nationally? Probably not in pur lifetime.

But it doesn't really matter what others do. It starts with what you do, for yourself. Look around, find small-scale suppliers. Support local producers where you can, and so on. The quality is usually better.

The problem is that the number of suppliers seems to be constantly going down. Chains are taking over public spaces, successful smaller companies get bought out, and the successful independent ones eventually get a new CEO who is incentivized to maximize profits (see e.g., Chipotle hiring Taco Bell's CEO.)

Obviously this is highly location dependent, and I don't doubt there are places where this is true.

Also, there may not be sufficient people in your area to support independent businesses that believe in providing more value at a higher price.

But it's worth looking and asking around. They may exist, but you won't see them on TV. Ask in local Facebook groups, look out for weekend markets and do on. Asking in those places can give you clues.

But I agree that the vast majority of Americans care only about price, so there will be lots of places where quality simply doesn't exist outside of what you cook yourself.

McDonalds has fallen so far in the past few decades. I used to eat there or at least grab a soda several times a week. I never go there anymore. The kiosks suck; I refuse to use them, but they don't staff the counter half the time so there's no other way to order. The drive-thru expects you've already ordered on the app. Fuck that. It's all way too complicated. I want a Big Mac meal with a coke. That used to take me 3 seconds to order and I had it on a tray in about another minute. Now I have to dick around on the kiosk for a couple of minutes, pay, and then wait 5-10 minutes for the food. It's absurd.

This is a bizarre take to me. If food is on my tray in 60 seconds, I'm concerned what corners they are cutting to serve food this fast. It sounds terribly stressful for the employees. How can 5-10 minutes be considered slow?

I think in any case, this is an entirely different qualm than the other issues, like taking orders only via kiosk, or constantly up-selling you during the order.

Personally, I hate the McDonald's app. All the vouchers seem quite plainly optimized to encourage you to come back. I hate this kind of psychological micro-optimization of human behaviours. I would take a ten minute order every time if they stopped trying to manipulate me.

This is a classic McDonalds counter: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/D3A1A6/dpa-customers-of-the-us-fas...

behind the counter-guy, in that wide silver opening, is a black plastic slope with with burgers queuing up. The cooks are constantly cooking, even when nobody has ordered anything, and that means they can get the efficiency boost of making 5 Big Macs at the same time - laying out 5 boxes, 5 buns, 5 patties cooking, etc. - and with no customer waiting on them, there need be no immediate rush[1]. The cashier only picks one up and puts it on your tray, much less than 60 seconds and no stress[1]. Contrast with Subway where the cashier has to assemble one custom sandwich at a time while the customer and queue of waiting people all watch (stressor); they can not get custom sandwiches into muscle memory, or the efficiency of doing several at once (slow), and the cashier delaying for a moment doesn't relieve pressure by letting the buffer fill, it just adds more pressure.

If McDonalds is now taking 5-10 minutes for a typical order, what has gone wrong with their fast-food-factory-production-line design?

[1] Maybe it isn't actually low stress or no-rush in McDonalds, but that design of food service could be.

They changed their model a while ago to trying to optimise the assembly time of each item, and produce them as they are ordered. The hot parts are pre-cooked and put into warmers, but not assembled (put into buns with toppings etc.) until you order.

Allows for easier customisation and less food wastage (and you don't have to keep track of when something was made), at the cost of time for 'easy' orders.

> Most small businesses fail of course. Usually because while they do a task well, they're bad at the business part.

Some small businesses fail because larger ones see their initial success and compete by making a slightly worse product a bit cheaper. Sometimes a significantly worse product. Once the superior but smaller competition is either out of business or has been forced to reduce their quality to try compete on price, the bigger business can either reduce the quality & price further (the big business will usually win in this sort of race-to-the-bottom because they can afford to take losses on individual products for a time, where a smaller business cannot) or bump their price up to improve margins.

It sometimes isn't that the small business is bad at the business part, but that they refuse to play dirty even if playing dirty is the only way to compete. It is easier to rationalise some tactics in a bigger company, because there is no one who has to look the customer in the eye who is also making product quality affecting decisions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com