On a news photo of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina, the caption notes,

Despite disruptions, some corporate distributors continued to service customers

To 'service'? I thought 'servicing' was what a stud stallion does to a brood mare; he 'services' her. For the photo caption I'd say "continued to serve."

What's the distinction between to serve and to service?

I don't know . . . it seems to me that corporations have been servicing their customers for years.

Tinman

ROFLMAO!!!
Alluding to Shu's headline, "They also serve who only stand and wank?"

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Asa Lovejoy>,

quote:

it seems to me that corporations have been servicing their customers for years.

I agree . . . but from behind, and not to the satisfaction of the customers, only the satisfaction of the company's bank accounts.

quote:

I don't know . . . it seems to me that corporations have been servicing their customers for years.

Not sure I agree. In our organization we "serve" our customers; we never "service" them. That would sound strange. I think of service as applied to a piece of equipment, such as "servicing" your computer. But I think of "serve" in terms of assisting people. Your waiters and waitresses "serve" you; they don't "service" you.

I think you misunderstood me, Kalleh. I was being sarcastic. I wasn't talking about assisting customers. I was talking about screwing customers. As John Steinbeck said in The Grapes of Wrath, "Whenever I hear the word "service," I wonder who's getting screwed."

Asa and Caterwauller understood.

Tinman

quote:

I was talking about screwing customers.

Criticising businesses is a popular sport amongst customers, and criticism is often surely deserved. However, as one who has worked in a commercial environment for many years I would like to say a few words in defence of corporations and other businesses.

Both the UK and the USA live in market-driven "demand" economies where firms exist to provide goods and services for customers at a profit. Although profit will not be any company's only objective, it is perfectly clear that, if a company does not make a profit it will, in the end, go out of business. So companies have a balancing act to undertake to balance the various needs of customers, staff, government, environment, etc., while still making a profit.

Fortunately, providing good customer service is one of the criteria that help to make a company respected and popular and it is noticeable how the most successful companies are also those that provide good service. But no company can provide service that will keep 100% of customers happy 100% of the time. For example, customers would all like a shop (store) to be open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. They would like the shop to have every item they want, whenever they want it. And they would really like it if the goods or services were free! But this level of satisfaction is impossible to achieve if the company is to make a profit.

Of course, the Communist system tried to do away with the market-based economy and thus with profit and I can tell you, from personal experience, that when profit is taken from the equation, customer service often disappears.

You can all experience this for yourselves if you go to Cuba (Americans must fly via Mexico, Canad or the UK as Uncle Sam won't let you go there from the USA). Cuba had been, for many years, a "command" economy where the State decided what to produce and supply (as is the Communist system), and shops existed to supply customers with the goods at prices determined by the state. However, since Cuba has lost the support it once had from the USSR, it now has to rely on tourism as a major source of income and the Cuban Government has allowed a measure of free enterprise alongside the state shops so as to satisfy the needs of tourists. The difference in service is quite staggering. In the state shope the assistants are paid to be there and they couldn't care less whether or not they sell you anything. And the service is delorable. And if you walk out - why should the assistant care? But go to one of the free market outlets (usually a market stall) and the difference is incredible. The usual kind of enthusiasm and help that you get in a market in any country in the world.

In the 1940s much of Britain's major industries were nationalised and service was generally poor. Most of them have now been privatised and competition introduced. Few of those who have experienced both systems will disagree that customer service has improved since privatisation.

In our hearts we would all like an equitable system of wealth distribution where nobody make a profit at the "expense" of another. But no system to achieve that has ever been made to work; profit, far from being a dirty word, is actually the driver for much that is good in society.

I didn't think anybody was still debating Capitalism vs. Communism. What cheeses people off is that they are here, in Reagan's America, dealing with one of many competitive companies in an unregulated industry, and the service still sucks.

Neveu, you've got it right! Totalitarianism, whether from a so-called "communist" system, or from a monopoly within a so-called "free market" system, still leads to the same result. No freedom of choice, and crappy service.

Maybe we're lucky in the UK but we now have very few monopolies which, I agree, can lead to poor customer service. Even our utilities are largely private and we have the choice of many different companies from whom we can buy energy and telephone services.

Which are the US ones that you refer to as providing "crappy service"?

I know of the likes of Anheuser Busch, of course - but they don't have a monopoly for the supply of what they laughingly call beer - although I am sure they'd like to. Any American, maybe with a bit of effort, can get proper beer quite readily.

quote:

telephone services.

Which are the US ones that you refer to as providing "crappy service"?

The local TV cable company is a monopoly. They bought out a smaller, reasonably priced company and tripled the rates. Same goes for the satellite TV provider. They offer no choice of programs, instead insisting that it's not economical to provide what CUSTOMERS want, but providing "product" to "the consumer." We ARE chattel!

quote:

I know of the likes of Anheuser Busch, of course - but they don't have a monopoly for the supply of what they laughingly call beer - although I am sure they'd like to. Any American, maybe with a bit of effort, can get proper beer quite readily.

That's very much the case here in Portland, where one of the most active microbrew industries in the country is thriving. Schludwiller (Schlitz, Budweiser, and Miller) sales aren't hurt too much, since the NASCAR crowd still swills it by the rail car load, but IF you want something decent, you can get it.

quote:

Asa and Caterwauller understood.

Sorry I was so dense, Tinman.

At any rate, I think the word in the original post should be "serve" and not "service."

Regarding capitalism:

"I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty, or civilisation, or both.

Thomas Macaulay

"Capitalism fails to realize that life is social. Marxism fails to realize that life is individual. Truth is found neither in the rugged individualism of capitalism nor in the impersonal collectivism of communism. The kingdom of god is found in a synthesis that combines the truths of these two oposites."

Martin Luther King Jr.

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government... except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" -- Churchhill

In the wikiquote section for Churchhill has a quote under the category of "attributed" which is "I am reminded of the professor who, in his declining hours, was asked by his devoted pupils for his final counsel. He replied, 'Verify your quotations.'", now if that isn't irony, well, it isn't irony, but it's that thing which is usually called irony.

quote:

The local TV cable company is a monopoly.

We have a fairly wide choice in the UK, and both satellite and cable provide a comprehensive service. Our terrestrial chnnels, too, are pretty good. Competition seems to work quite well here.

I have seen myself just how poor is the range of programmes in the USA - in spite of the huge number of channels there seems often little of quality, especially worldwide news.

Whether that's lack of competition or something else I'm not sure. Even when the BBC had a monopoly, and there were few channles, the range of programmes was good by US standards.

Of course, now that streaming video and audio is available on the Net, competition might force your local cable company to do something about it. Those who wish to do so can listen to most of the Beeb's radio output free from its site - I re-listened to the Last Night of the Proms again just yesterday.

We can get a few decent channels, including BBC, DW, the Discovery channels, and a Chinese news station, but one must buy the most expensive package, which includes five Jesus loves you for only $39.95 channels, three golf channels (DAMN, how thrilling!)and a plethora of schlock merchandising channels, plus inane teenage music video channels, etc. One is NOT a customer in the USA any more. It's as if all the hardware stores where one can buy ONE screw all disappeared and one were forced to go to a big box store and buy a plastic bubble wrapped package of ten of them, use the one you need, and discard the rest. It's ironic that real hardware stores are staging a comeback around here because people resent the stupidity of the plastic packaged merchandising mentality. I hope this trend spreads to the broadcasting industry!

Soapbox purchased at my local Ace Hardware

quote:

The local TV cable company is a monopoly.

The UK has pretty much a monopoly also. There are only two large cable providers, NTL and TeleWest. and they only serve their own areas. There is some talk of NTL buying TeleWest, making them pretty well the only cable provider in the country, with the exception of a few very local companies. Satellite TV is also pretty much a monopoly, with one provider, Sky, plus a few much smaller providers known pretty well only to electronics enthusiasts.

That said, the range of actual channels shown on cable and satellite is pretty good, as Richard notes, and I can usually find something worth watching, although it may take some searching.