In a world where businesses promise “customer-obsessed” service and lavish advertising budgets on brands that proclaim themselves the easiest to work with, a stubborn paradox persists: customer service often remains poor, and in many cases, that’s not an accident.

Rather than mere incompetence or bad hiring, there’s growing evidence that some companies strategically design customer service in ways that benefit their bottom line, even if it frustrates the very people they claim to value. This article explores how and why poor service can be a profitable business decision, the research backing this claim, and what it means for consumers and markets.

The $3.7 Trillion Irony: When Poor Service Isn’t Costly Enough

Let’s begin with a striking figure: according to research from the Qualtrics XM Institute, poor customer service experiences are estimated to put about $3.7 trillion of global business revenue at risk annually. Despite this massive cost, poor service persists, and in some sectors it even benefits the companies involved.

Even narrower studies show that poor customer experiences can cost individual U.S. businesses an estimated $856 billion per year as consumers reduce or stop buying following negative interactions. And yet companies continue to maintain service models that create friction. Why? Because in certain operational contexts, making it difficult for customers to complain or get redress can actually reduce payout costs and protect profits, even if long-term brand value suffers.

Hassle as a Filter: When Reducing Redress Saves Money

Research in Marketing Science, highlighted by a University of Southern California summary, reveals that some companies use hierarchical customer service structures to screen and filter complaining customers. In these structures, front-line agents have limited authority to resolve issues or offer refunds, forcing customers to navigate multiple layers or demanding procedures before reaching someone who can help. This friction makes many customers abandon their complaints altogether, effectively reducing the number of compensations the company has to pay.

Here’s the logic: if every complaint were resolved quickly and painlessly, more customers would receive compensation, returns, or refunds. But if complaining is made difficult, the effort required to pursue redress becomes a cost many customers choose not to pay. That saved time, and more importantly, money saved on payouts, directly benefits the company’s profit margins. In this sense, hassle becomes a filter that financially shields the firm.

This explanation isn’t just theoretical. The research identified real service models across finance, technology, and travel sectors where companies use such layered service strategies explicitly to contain redress costs.

Customer Behavior: The Silent Majority Who Don’t Complain

Another key reason poor service can be profitable is customer behavior itself. Data suggests that a large majority of unhappy customers don’t formally complain. One oft-cited rule of thumb from customer experience research is that for every customer who complains, many more silently walk away, switching brands without notifying the company. This “iceberg effect” means firms may not even see the full cost of their poor service, because most dissatisfied users never show up in official complaint statistics.

In fact, some analyses suggest only about 4 % of unhappy customers complain directly, while the rest either vent to friends or simply leave. If the visible complaint queue is small, a company might appear to be managing service well, even if churn and lost revenue are quietly eroding customer loyalty.

Given that acquiring new customers can cost 5x to 25x more than retaining existing ones, this hidden churn could be costly in theory, yet many companies still don’t prioritize service improvements that would reduce it. Why? Because short-term operational savings and reduced payouts often outweigh the perceived benefit of investing heavily in world-class service systems, particularly in concentrated markets with limited competition.

Why Companies Might Prioritize Profit Over Experience

There are several structural reasons why businesses allow, or even design, poor customer service to persist:

1. Limited Competition and High Switching Costs

In industries with few alternatives (airlines, cable providers, some financial services), customers often have to tolerate poor service because switching is difficult, costly, or emotionally exhausting. This reduces the risk of losing market share even if service quality is low, meaning companies face less penalty for frustrating customers. Early research into “value-extracting strategies” notes that firms often bind customers with complexity, bewildering contracts, and confusing terms precisely because it reduces consumers’ ability to escape or compare alternatives.

2. Operational Incentives That Don’t Reward Resolution

Service centers are often evaluated on metrics like average handle time, first-call resolution targets, and cost per contact. These internal incentives can inadvertently encourage agents to end calls quickly rather than resolve problems satisfactorily. When an organization’s internal goals reward speed and cost-efficiency over empathy and problem resolution, service quality naturally deteriorates, not because employees lack goodwill, but because the system rewards metrics that favor lower operational costs.

Several industry reports show common sources of friction, like having to call multiple times (47 %), repeating issues (39 %), and long wait times (27 %), all contribute significantly to customer attrition.

The Paradox of Profit and Brand Damage

Critics of intentionally poor service often argue that frustrating customers eventually harms brand reputation and long-term profitability. Research and business commentary agree: customers are willing to pay more for good service, and many will defect after a single poor experience. For example, one study found 72 % of customers will switch brands after just one negative service experience. Similarly, 65 % of consumers have switched brands because of poor service, and 96 % of unhappy customers spread negative word-of-mouth. 

But this tension, between short-term operational savings and long-term brand erosion, reflects a choice many companies make: they prioritize lowering current costs even at the expense of future loyalty. This doesn’t mean they are unaware of the risks; it means the financial incentives are so skewed toward short-term cost reduction that investing in exceptional service is sometimes judged an unaffordable luxury.

So What Does This Mean for Customers and Markets?

If poor service can be profitable, what hope do customers have?

One answer lies in external accountability. Regulation, public reviews, and market competition force transparency, making the cost of bad service visible and measurable. Companies that invest in service quality often see customer retention metrics improve significantly, with studies showing that reducing churn by as little as 5 % can increase profits by 25 % to 125 %. 

The other takeaway is less comforting: bad service is not always a mistake, sometimes it’s a strategy. And as consumers become more educated about these patterns, they can use their collective buying power to reward companies that value experience over friction.

At the end of the day, truly great customer service, the kind that anticipates needs, resolves issues efficiently, and treats customers as partners, still pays dividends. But unless the financial calculus within firms shifts to value long-term loyalty as much as short-term cost savings, poor service will remain a deliberate business decision for too many.

‍

Read - What Warren Buffett’s Exit Means for the Startup and Venture World