Ignore

Office anthropology™ Go Premium If You Ignore It Long Enough, It Will Go Away (von Sachsen-Rampton, 1941) The JC puts on his pith-helmet, grabs his butterfly net and a rucksack full of marmalade sandwiches, and heads into the concrete jungleIndex: Click ᐅ to expand: Work anthropology Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you. Sign up for our newsletter.

Ignore
/ɪɡˈnɔː/ (v.)
We learned at our mothers’ aprons:

If you ignore something for long enough it will go away.

Dear old Grandma Contrarian demonstrated the sense in this adage countless times on the rambunctious young JC. To be sure, he could be — still can — quite the exasperating toe-rag, but pay his antics no mind and eventually he will go and bother someone else.

Performative consultation

The modern customer services industry has perfected the art of studied ignorance by means of what we call “performative consultation”. Firms will tell you how much they value your feedback; they will badger you to provide it, usually from an unmonitored account to which you cannot reply, but then steer you to some fatuous net promoter score survey or customer questionnaire that seeks multi-choice answers to loaded questions designed to validate the company’s already-chosen strategy.

Your complaint may be, “the coffee machine you sold me has singularly failed to work as promised, leaked and then exploded, putting my mother-in-law in hospital and your warranty department is not answering the phone” but your questionnaire will ask you “how did we do today? Was your call centre operator polite? Was the information you received clear and easy-to-follow?”

So much is well understood: this is the grim reality of consumer life in the networked economy.

Ignorance-as-a-service

But there is another kind of ignorance, which counts as a business strategy for those whose enterprises depend on scaling the value of mutualised upfront payments.

If your business is one where customers pay everything you can expect them to pay on day one, and if the deal is such that customers cannot not necessarily expect you do do anything in return, there is logic to ignoring those who do ask, even fairly, for you to perform your end of the bargain.

Now, under what kind of contract do customers routinely pay and then expect — even hope for — no product or service in return? Well, there is one broad category: insurance contracts. Product warranties, travel insurance, fire and general.

We all buy insurance against remote contingencies hoping we do not need it. The insurer’s business is to mutualise those remote contingencies across a large group of people. We are happy to overpay, marginally, for our share of the mutualised risk: this is how an insurer makes money. If it provides a million people with fire insurance at £300 per annum and, actuarially, expects five hundred of them to suffer an average fire damage of £200,000 then the insurer can pay out for each fire in full and still return a healthy profit: for an outlay of just £100m it earns £300m. That is already a good return.

From the insurer’s perspective the return is perfectly asymmetric: In any year, 999,500 customers expect nothing in return for their outlay. But 500 expect enormous payouts. averaging £200,000. And a person who has a claim in one year is highly unlikely to have another claim the next year.

It is possible to treat 99.95% of your customers fabulously by doing nothing. They will be happy as long as signing up is easy and you have a jaunty marketing campaign with meerkats or comedy opera-singers.

The other 0.05% are far more expensive to keep happy, but here is the thing: you don’t really, have to keep them happy. So what if you are late in replying to their claims? So what if you make their claim process confusing, or slow, or prone to error? Indeed, the more difficult you make the claims process, the better for business it will be.

Of those 500 claimants, 450 will have open-and-shut cases. Fifty will be somewhat arguable but, ultimately — if it ever went to court — the insurer knows it would have to pay. Nonetheless a rational but unempathetic insurer should, at first, decline those claims.

Now, an insurer is bound by an obligation of utmost good faith there are means of deterring an insurer from acting unconscionably — regulations, consumer watchdogs, ombudspeople and ultimately legal sanction — but, basically, so what: the insurer can drop its resistance and quickly settle the moment these agencies get involved. In practice a portion of these valid claimants will be put off by the claim and will never go to one of those agencies. If you don’t press your claim, the insurer does not have to pay out.