It likely bodes ill for the future of print media that often the biggest laugh is not found of the comic pages but among what passes for ‘news’ or ‘reporting’ these days.

Take for example this recent  ‘news report’ from the business pages of The Province:

Rogers Communications Inc. had a weaker quarterly profit and flat revenue due to competition in its wireless and cable divisions, but the Toronto company said Tuesday it has started to see the benefits of cost cutting, including 650 jobs this year. Rogers said its second-quarter net income declined 2.4 per cent to $400 million, or 75 cents per share, off from $410 million a year ago, or 74 cents per share.

One hopes that even at a time when getting government subsidies, government bailouts, favourable labour laws, market protection, restrictions on competition etc is what passes for good management at Canadian businesses, even Rogers competitors would not waste resources to lure Rogers customers away from Rogers when Rogers is doing such a magnificent job of driving Rogers customers to other providers.

Given the fact that managing at Canadian wireless and cable companies is based on maintaining government policies that allow them to charge customers usury rate levels exceeding those paid by customers elsewhere in the world, it is an extremely remote possibility that Rogers fellow beneficiaries of largesse from the federal Conservative government are capable of actual competition and raiding Rogers for customers.

Aside: Yes, it would be very beneficial to Canadians if the federal Conservative Party were to realize/remember that they have a duty of care to all Canadians, not just the bank account of the Conservative Party and Canadian Businesses filling those coffers. But then if Prime Minister Harper were to deny Banks in Canada the right/ability to bleed Canadians to cover excessive salaries and the hundreds of millions of dollars lost through bad management, Harper would not be able to run around the world lecturing world leaders on how wonderful a leader he is and the solidness of Canadian Banks because he is such a magnificent leader.

In this case, the lack of ability of Rogers fellow corporations in the wireless and cable business is a benefit to shareholders as it prevents them wasting resources on uneccessary expenditures.

Competent management would tell you that when dealing with Rogers in terms of customers one need to follow the axiom from The Art of War – “When your enemy is in the process of destroying himself, stay out of his way.”

Although in the case of Rogers it would be more appropriate to apply Woodrow Wilson’s  “Never … murder a man who is committing suicide” .

No competitor could be anywhere near as successful at getting Rogers Customers to switch to another provider as Rogers itself. Rogers might well want to consider that the time to act to retain customers is before Rogers drives them to change to another, any other, provider. Requiring customers to speak to ‘Retention’ after Rogers treatment of customers drives them into changing providers is adding salt to the wound – not to mention pointless.

Rogers customer problem is not that it ticks some customers off and they change providers. That happens to some degree with all providers.

Rogers problem is threefold.

First that their behaviour drives customers to the point of anger that “I don’t care if it costs $1500.00, its worth twice that not to have to deal with those @@%&###”

Secondly that while other providers may have customers switch to another provider, those customers will (and have) returned to the provider they dropped. Rogers provokes customers to the point that “I will never, NEVER, deal with Rogers again” with the customers sticking to their vow to never deal with Rogers again.

Thirdly, when people make enquires of others as to what provider to use the growing pool of Never, Ever Rogers ex-customers  is telling them just that: “Never, Ever Rogers” and providing them with horror stories of the way Rogers treats those it allows to give Rogers their hard earned cash, nickel and dimeing them to death and them *BLEEPing* all over them.

The question Rogers must answer is whether they have the ability to change their policies of customer alienation before they reach the tipping point where they cannot stop their customer base from continuing to erode. Which would see Rogers continually shrinking as customers go ABR (Anywhere But Rogers) until the ABR customers service Rogers into the corporate dustbin.