Skip to main content

The Saying "The Customer is Always Right" isn't Right

I remember being chastised and said, "The customer is always right!" It became hypocritical because the same person who told me that later chastised me for yelling at the service provider in public. I'd admit that I screamed at the phone or even in person because things didn't go my way. My favorite excuse would be, "You said the customer is always right, right?" Going by the logic that the customer is always right, I'm right in doing the wrong that I did to service providers. It also reminds me of some rude manager lady (who I believe got fired sometime later, not going to mention her name or the company) who's heard to be highly unreasonable. She would scream in public louder than the late Miriam Defensor-Santiago. 

I'd like to give an illustration of the fault of that phrase. The news of a raging customer who threw hot soup at the manager can create debate. Was she in the right when she threw the hot soup at the manager instead of talking things properly? Going by the line that the customer is always right, people should defend the raging woman. Just reading should make one think why the line, "The customer is always right." is definitely wrong:

A customer who was accused of throwing hot soup in a restaurant manager's face was arrested and charged with assault on Wednesday.

Amanda Martinez, 31, was booked into the Bell County Jail after a warrant was issued for her arrest.

Martinez has been charged with assault causing bodily injury and is now being held on a $5,000 bond.

A viral TikTok video captured the moment Martinez reportedly threw menudo soup in manager Jannelle Broland's face at the Sol de Jalisco restaurant in Temple, Texas, on November 7.  

Broland, 24, was doused in the soup after Martinez angrily confronted her, claiming it was so hot that the plastic lid had melted into it.  

Broland said the soup, which was still hot, 'felt like she had been pepper sprayed' and caused her eyes to burn and her nose to bleed

By the time police arrived at the scene, Martinez and a male companion who witnessed the altercation had already left. She has since been banned from the restaurant.  

We tend to think that we should never ban customers. However, think about what Amanda Martinez did. Her behavior may have caused life-threatening damage to the manager. Let's say that I got so mad that I assaulted a front desk clerk. My behavior would put any customer in that hotel in danger. However, refusing to ban me because I was a customer, would hurt the good customers. If that customer is notorious for buying things on credit and not paying back the company, isn't it high time not to add credit to credit? That was a mistake I made back in my younger days. 

As I was looking for more reasons why the customer isn't always right, I ran into these reasons why it's just plain stupid:

1. It Puts Undo Stress on Employees

No matter your clientele base, you are going to invariably come across at least a few unreasonable, belligerent ones. There are plenty of examples of employees providing subpar customer service. Know how to differentiate between this and an unreasonable customer. Try your best to resolve the conflict, but if it comes to either taking the side of a customer or that of your employee, it is best to choose that of your employee. Supporting your employees will always pay off for your business in the long run. Happy employees will go the extra mile to provide good service and make your customers happy.

Gordon Bethune is a brash Texan who is best known for revamping Continental Airlines. In his book, he discussed this topic.

He said, “You can’t treat your employees like serfs. You have to value them. If they think that you won’t support them when a customer is out of line, even the smallest problem can cause resentment.”

This viewpoint balances the employee and customer relationship. When you consistently value the customer over the employee, it causes resentment among employees. Your customers must understand that while they are valued and appreciated, the business and your employees come first. How your customer feels cannot always come before your team.

2. It Strains the Management-Employee Relationship

If a business owner consistently sides with the customer in times of conflict without giving the employee a chance to provide their input, it demoralizes the employee and can result in hard feelings. The employee often ends up resenting management and becomes bitter. This can affect their job performance, ultimately ending in poorer customer service to other customers.

It might be worth remembering the old popular Latin phrase: caveat emptor – buyer beware. Sometimes the customer may bear some responsibility. Continually taking the customer’s side over your employee’s can also convey to your employee that you do not trust their judgment or ability to address situations themselves. This is a recipe for disaster in any business model.

Amazon, though one of the largest retailers in the world according to Forbes, has suffered many complaints from its workforce. One might attribute that to Jeff Bezos’s long-standing emphasis on customer satisfaction over everything.

3. Some Customers Will Hurt Your Business

It is somewhat logical to assume that in business, the more customers you have, the better. However, holding on to some customers can be bad for your business. Customers who are consistently abusive and rude to your employees – despite the amount of money they contribute to your business – will only end up causing problems and more stress for your employees.

Sometimes, customer complaints might be completely fabricated due to a personal vendetta against the company overall, or one of your workers.

At a certain point, you need to decide if it is better to lose one customer than the loyalty and support of your workforce. It is merely a matter of respecting your employees and treating them with dignity.

Founder of bookbyslot.com, Anubhav Agarwal, believes: “To stay in business for a long time, entrepreneurs need to avoid unreasonably disgruntled customers. Getting rid of bad customers might cost a little profit, but it’s healthier in the long-term goals of the business.” 

4. It Results in Poorer Customer Service

Employees are much happier and satisfied at work if you put them first. When your workforce is happy, they are much more likely to put your customers first. They will be more energetic, motivated, and more willing to interact with customers. This creates a pleasant environment for both the employee and the customer.  

5. Some Customers Are Wrong

The customer often thinks they know better than employees or share an opinion or advice on how the business should operate or how a product should work. Some can be quite insistent and belligerent. The owner of a company, management, and properly-trained staff know the most about the product or service they provide. It is, after all, their job to know.

Many times, when a product or service does not work as they expect, a customer can become entirely unrealistic or demand ridiculous solutions. The goal should be to stress to these customers professionally that the makers of the product or service are the final authority on its operations and services.

The bottom line: business has changed significantly over the past few decades and many are putting more of an emphasis on employee happiness. It has proven to be an effective method to increase sales and improve customer loyalty. Happy employees = happy customers. While it may be hard to adopt this new mindset, it can be incredibly beneficial to your business both in the short and long term.

Besides, the company has the right to refuse anything not on the menu or not offered. I'd like to give some examples that there's the right to politely refuse the customer if they ask for anything not on the menu or not offered at all. If it isn't on the menu then don't ask for it. If the company doesn't offer it, don't demand it. Customers have the right to look for someone else. If Baker A refuses to do the job then why not go to Baker B? Unfortunately, the customer is always right policy has allowed for some utterly ridiculous lawsuits. Some people even play the victim even if the service provider exercised his or her freedom to refuse something not on the menu. Going to the Supreme Court over a cake? Why didn't the customer just go somewhere else? If I'm looking for pork curry, wouldn't it be best if I go to an Indian restaurant that serves pork because Middle Eastern restaurants don't serve it?

There's even a difference between discrimination and refusal of something not on the menu. Discrimination is if I don't allow Africans, Mexicans, etc. into my store because they're not of my people. It's like if I establish a store and only allow ethnic Chinese to dine in and I throw discrimination against non-ethnic Chinese. It's like if I refuse people of African descent, white descent, or Latin American descent to enter assuming they're all hoodlums and crooks, when they aren't. However, it's not discrimination if I refuse to serve anything not on the menu or that goes against company principles. It's like if I refuse to let my attractive employees do a striptease for the customers, it's because it's against company principles. Sadly, some customers will cry discrimination even if the service was politely declined. They may even want to throw in a show because they're spoiled brats, even if the employees did their best to serve the customers with utmost respect

It can also go the same with the real estate business. Renting out spaces can be very tricky in the long run. It might also mean sacrificing momentary income because the lessor who pays good money, may have been involved with human trafficking or by negligence, inadvertently allowed human trafficking to happen in his or her space. Even if a tenant pays well, if they're violating rules on laws and morals, that person has already breached the contract. It may also mean becoming an enabler of immoral activity if the lessor refuses to fire the lessee. The lessor is the customer. The lessor has no freedom to break the rules or the law. 

There are always rules above the customer and the service provider. With all the rules, no rule should ever put customers exempt from following them. 

Popular posts from this blog

Venezuela as a Cautionary Tale on #SahodItaasPresyoIbaba, Nationalistic Pride, Welfare State Economics

The Sunday Guardian Years ago, I wrote about Venezuela's pride and protectionism , under a more "formal" style of writing compared to my latest posts. I decided to use an even "less formal" and "less academic" tone since I'm not writing a term paper. Instead, it's like how a professor and a student discuss the thesis using first person over third person, using contractions, etc., while the thesis doesn't use such tones. Back on track, I thought about the arrest of Venezuelan President Maduro can spark debate. Was it a violation of sovereignty? I'm no expert on international law. However, Venezuelans can be seen celebrating Maduro's arrest. Right now, I'm using Gemini AI and Google search to help me find some sources for this blog. It's because I don't want my blog to become another gossip central, but a place to discuss facts with my own personal opinions (making sure they don't  derail the facts).  I used Venezuela ...

Venezuela's Pride and Protectionism

The Telegraph Venezuela is an oil-rich country yet it's a very poor country. Somebody could go ahead and give every unthinkable reason such as "foreign investments caused it" (a blatant lie) and "It's because America had economic sanctions in Venezuela". Yet, the answer can be found in several causes such as corruption. Yet, China and Vietnam, which can be seen to still have a good amount of corruption, are far more successful. The answer also lies in one policy--economic protectionism . The very idea that a country that first world countries used "protectionism" to succeed is a lie as proven by Venezuela's ongoing crisis. A common-sense examination of one root cause of Venezuela's continuing crisis Forbes magazine mentions this in "What Do Investors Need To Understand About Venezuela's Economic Crisis?" by Nathaniel Parish Flannery on December 21, 2016: Venezuela is far and away the worst-managed economy in the Americas . Ad...

Davide vs. Mahathir: Which Lolo Should Filipinos Take Economic Advice From?

The real issue isn't that something is old or new. Instead, if something old or new still works, or doesn't work! Many modern laws are built on some ancient principles, while adjusting to the current times!  The Constitution of Japan is actually older than the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. However, it's more effective for the reasons that (1) their constitution is silent when it comes to regulating economic activities (ex., protectionist measures), and (2) it's a parliamentary system. Honestly, it's a pretty straightforward constitution compared to ours! As Mahatir Mohamad turned 100 today, I would like to raise up Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. once again. The problem isn't Davide's age but his unwillingness to embrace change when needed (read here ). This time, it's time to bring up a contrast between wise old people and unwise old people. A young person can be right where the old person is wrong. A young person can be wiser because he or she lea...

Filipino Manufacturing's Golden Age ENDED Because of the Filipino First Policy

Here's a picture from the Dose of Disbelief Page on Facebook. Here's something that it wrote: Filipinos once trusted locally made products more than imports. Before World War II, the label "Made in the Philippines" carried prestige, not stigma, reflecting a strong sense of national confidence in domestic production. Local products such as shoes, cigars, textiles, furniture, and food were often preferred over imports. This preference was rooted in the belief that local goods were better adapted to local conditions, tastes, and were often of comparable, if not superior, quality. This period showcases a strong historical era of consumer nationalism and thriving local industries. We need to look into the context of Filipino history  If we look at the Philippine history timeline , we must account for 1935-1940, during which the Philippines was under the Commonwealth government. Independence was declared from Spain on June 12, 1898. However, there was a transition period w...

Confusing Foreign Direct Investment for Foreign Imperialism for the Bajillionth Time

I guess those fools of the Philippine Anti-Fascist League (and many of its deluded supporters) either refuse to get it or are blatantly lying. Almost every rally held by what many believe are CPP-NPA legal fronts also confuses foreign investors for foreign invasion or even foreign imperialism . Once again, do I need to say that 100% FDI ownership is all about the shares and not land ownership ? What makes it even more hypocritical is that they are actually recording these things on imported media . They're sharing their anti-FDI rants using imported devices, imported platforms, and imported social media (read here ). When I do ask them on Facebook, they say how can they take them seriously and that they're "simply forced to participate in capitalism". Did anybody (especially those they call "evil capitalists") force them to buy the expensive Apple equipment when they could've settled for Xiaomi or Huawei?  A simple research on the dictionary will tell us...