Why do we dislike market leaders?

16 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
Paypal sucks. Aweber sucks. ClickBank sucks. Go Daddy sucks. Microsoft sucks. Wal-Mart sucks. Google sucks. Insert well-known gurus name here sucks, New York Yankees suck (can't argue with that one - ).

Is it because they get so big that out of such a huge customer pool you're going to get disgruntled ones?

Or they get so big that their customer service suffers?

No real answers I know. Just wondering why all the big companies seemed to be disliked so much. Personally, I believe we like to knock down those that are more successful than we are. Human nature I guess.

Even companies that were once small and scrappy that turn into market leaders it appears they too begin to get loud haters like Apple and Google.

So getting hated and targeted in your market is a good thing. Means you've become succesful and now have a bulls-eye target on your back.
  • Profile picture of the author Mohit Anand
    The main reason is because of the monopoly of the companies in their niche. We use their products or services whether we like it or not because of monopoly. Some say they don't deliver what they promise. Many feel their products are overpriced but assuming most of us rarely buy original product that doesn't seem a logical issue. Many claim their products are a mix of what others have done. However, what is the wrong in improving upon something that the others have done? I don't think any software we see today is completely pure. It is the nature of Engineering, the only difference is that some people know how to make money doing it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2136494].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author The 13th Warrior
    Originally Posted by Alan Petersen View Post


    Personally, I believe we like to knock down those that are more successful than we are. Human nature I guess.

    Even companies that were once small and scrappy that turn into market leaders it appears they too begin to get loud haters like Apple and Google.

    So getting hated and targeted in your market is a good thing. Means you've become succesful and now have a bulls-eye target on your back.


    Is this seriously your opinion?

    That is, if you can legally get away with it, do it?

    Is that the core spirit of capitalism?

    Sure, no matter how good a service or company is, there is always some that are disgruntled.

    But jealousy?

    Hmmm, lets see for starters..,

    BP

    Goldman/Sachs

    Mortgage Companies

    Those that shorted the Euro in Greece

    People running from AT& T's phone service so fast, that they have upped their early cancellation fee/penalty

    Other corporate monopolies, I guess monopolies are healthy for liberty and capitalism,

    I'm sure there are others..., yeah, it must be jealousy..,
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2136517].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    I agree - it is NOT jealousy.

    #1 the monopoly thing (we got it whether we like it or not) and have no choice but to pay inflated prices, settle for sub-par service, etc.

    #2 the arrogant thing when they get 'too big to fail' (ha-ha no such thing) - the whole attitude changes when they make it to the top.

    #3 spamminess - i can hate a perfectly good, non-monopolistic, non-arrogant entity because i get sick to death of seeing their stupid ads (Geico Gecko is exempt) - nobody likes to have something shoved down their throat.

    #4 invaded and occupied against our will - when you got one on every corner you get sick of them.

    Particularly when they have put all the little guys out of business - example - Home Depot - there isn't one hardware store in this town besides them - they either bought out or bankrupted every other one. (small town)

    p.s. On #1 - Google - what do you think of them now:

    a. banned 10's of thousands of affiliate marketers from Adwords for no reason
    b. have a new, very expensive SEO service (like about $20k a month) - now tell me how 'children of a lesser God' will be able to compete with their customers.

    This is clearly a conflict of interest where they will be sure to give those people with money priority rankings, etc.

    Can't wait for the anti-trust hearings.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2136993].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author The 13th Warrior
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post



      Can't wait for the anti-trust hearings.


      Don't hold your breath or waste a perfectly good prayer.

      Whatever comes of it will not have ANY substance or effect on companies/banks, only the appearance.

      Hearings AGAINST those that fatten their personal portfolio with consistent legal allotments, commissions, grants, annuities, subsidies, allowances, endowments, donations, gifts, dividends, proceeds, procurements, provisions, alimony, interests, contributions, honorariums, stipends, appropriations, and gratuities......,??????

      ......please.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2137237].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        I think there is a definitely a component of jealousy - but it's also somewhat impersonal.

        It's easy to bash microsoft, paypal, ebay, clickbank, google - because they won't call you on it or respond to you. You never have to face off or stand up to them and can say whatever you want to say. And when it's all said and done - you can choose to use those companies or not (and they won't even notice).

        Others will always jump in to support you when you bash a big company - everybody feels better after they've had their say and nobody gets a bloody nose.

        kay
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.


        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2137256].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author madzseo
          sometimes it's probably because they outsource their customer service to people who don't really care about the customers :rolleyes:

          they still have really good products (well some)...sometimes it's just the customer support that really pi$$es us off
          Signature

          Shameless plug *blush*

          Check out my new site on Rosacea Treatment

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2139423].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jonathan 2.0
    Some people just wouldn't be happy unless they had something to complain about. (Heh.)

    Generally speaking, and from what I understand, "Successful People" are more positive than the average person.
    Signature
    "Each problem has hidden in it an opportunity so powerful that it literally dwarfs the problem. The greatest success stories were created by people who recognized a problem and turned it into an opportunity."―Joseph Sugarman
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2139509].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    I just think that the perspective is distorted for the larger companies. Because when someone is happy w/ a product or company you don't hear anything. The only time you hear from people is when there's a complaint to be made. You hear all of these complaints and assume that the company or product must suck. But what you don't realize is that the dozens and dozens of people you hear complaining, may be an extremely small fraction of the over-all customer base.

    It's like on eBay. If you look at a power-seller's feedback score and see that they've had 20 negative feedbacks in the last month, you may assume that they're a crappy seller. However that could be just 20 out of the 20,000 transactions they've done that month. (By the way I think that this is why eBay is moving to a star rating system)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2139510].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author StacyHolmes
    That was a very interesting post. Perhaps the larger they are, the higher the expectation and no perceived error is overlooked.
    Signature

    Stacy from SiteSell Answers
    http://answers.sitesell.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2139550].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    I think there is wrath against large corporations because they are 100% about money and give a crap about us. They will poison us for an extra dime, put people out of work by the groves, cheat their own employees, and do anything else they please for their profits no matter who they hurt. People are sick of being slaves. They are tired of paying and not being able to get out when they don't like the service, tired of having rights violated for the benefit of the few.

    As far as online "gurus" - when you say Microsoft, you are talking about a corporation which is doing everything possible to make it impossible for those online to NOT use microsoft.

    When you are talking about single people (yes I do realize they have a staff by the time they get well known), such as Dr. Mani or Jo Mo -- It would appear to be mostly jealousy. They have made it big and give products that can help make others big, too, if used correctly -- yet others don't make it. While that is their own fault most of the time, they have to project the failure to something else so they can get their comfy zzz's at night knowing their failure is someone else's selfishness instead of their laziness or lack of understanding.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2139560].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jonathan 2.0
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      While that is their own fault most of the time, they have to project the failure to something else so they can get their comfy zzz's at night knowing their failure is someone else's selfishness instead of their laziness or lack of understanding.
      And isn't it fascinating that many people here take the opposite approach. Although it can be difficult, taking responsibility is infinitely more rewarding.
      Signature
      "Each problem has hidden in it an opportunity so powerful that it literally dwarfs the problem. The greatest success stories were created by people who recognized a problem and turned it into an opportunity."―Joseph Sugarman
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2139621].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by ZigZag View Post

        And isn't it fascinating that many people here take the opposite approach. Although it can be difficult, taking responsibility is infinitely more rewarding.
        Yeah - just as fascinating as the fact that people who take the opposite approach are too busy making their own cash to worry about who else is making money or how much.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2139636].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alan Petersen
          I agree there is a lot of anger against big corporations right now but this resentment towards success goes way back.

          People have been hating market leaders during the good years, the bubble years, recessions, etc.

          So, yes I do believe jealousy is part of it.

          Sorry, didn't mean to add to the negativity in our world with this thread. It was more in jest than anything since I kept seeing posts whining about other companies/parties/gurus vs. taking control and responsibility for our own actions.


          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          As far as online "gurus" - when you say Microsoft, you are talking about a corporation which is doing everything possible to make it impossible for those online to NOT use microsoft.

          When you are talking about single people (yes I do realize they have a staff by the time they get well known), such as Dr. Mani or Jo Mo -- It would appear to be mostly jealousy. They have made it big and give products that can help make others big, too, if used correctly -- yet others don't make it. While that is their own fault most of the time, they have to project the failure to something else so they can get their comfy zzz's at night knowing their failure is someone else's selfishness instead of their laziness or lack of understanding.
          That what I was thinking but didn't articulate well. :-)
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2143457].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    Part of it is a pure numbers game. Paypal has over 100 million users. If just 1% are dissatisfied, that's over 1,000,000 angry people. This also works in reverse, popular programs will get more "recommendations", even if they aren't the best choice, simple because more people use them.

    Another part I think Wilt Chamberlain said best when he called his autobiography "Nobody Roots for Goliath". It seems to be natural to want to root for the underdog.
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2143995].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HorseStall
    I think because whether it is true or not large companies tend to appear very disconnected from their customers. You become a number to them (or atleast that is the perception).
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2144154].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Paypal sucks

    PAYPAL was a johnny come lately, and certainly NOT the leader or only one. It was merely MAYBE the first third party ONLY payment processor that was easy to link through via just HTML.

    But people hate it because of claims of incompetence, etc...

    Aweber sucks

    I'm not even sure if THEY were the first. Apparently some don't like them because they try to protect everyone, and people don't seem to understand WHY!

    ClickBank sucks

    Ok, Clickbank HAS done some IDIOTIC things with changing linking methods, cookies, and allocation methods. STUPID! Otherwise? WHY is anyone upset?

    Go Daddy sucks

    Go daddy TECHNICALLY STILL doesn't do what they are known for. They certainly weren't first. AGAIN, incompetence, and stupidity, or yeah, ARROGANCE!!

    Microsoft sucks

    How about the fact that microsoft has set back computing almost WHAT, 30 years at this point? LITERALLY! My latest computers seem NO more faster really, than older ones. I just got a new computer with a clock that is about 1/3rd the speed of my last one, HALF the memory, and the processor is 1/4-1/2 as efficient. Got that!?!?!? 1/3*1/2, so it should be running at 1/6th the speed, right? Well, it runs FASTER! Gee, do you think it is because it is running XP instead of vista!?!?!?

    OH YEAH, LOTS of crashes! APPLE started when M/S did, and people seem to LOVE apple! Apple started before IBM, as far as micros are concerned!

    Wal-Mart sucks

    Well, they cut costs, and rape cities, so I guess THAT is understandable. The megalo mart in king of the hill is probably representative of walmart.

    Google sucks

    Well, the search on non search engine products, and the cavalier distribution of relatively private data is bad.


    Insert well-known gurus name here sucks,

    Most DO! HECK, the fact that they call themselves GURUS tells you something!

    BTW outside of walmart and microsoft, you would never get a legitimate antitrust ruling against those actually named above.

    paypal, clickbank, godaddy, and google could conceivably get in trouble for other things.

    Many "gurus" already HAVE gotten in trouble! I'm not aware of anything aweber ever did that was bad, etc....

    BTW if GOOGLE DOES have an SEO company, it is technically ILLEGAL! M/S was told that they can NOT make the O/S and software for it. Supposedly, M/S has to have ONE division create the O/S, release the specs to everyone, and THEN have ANOTHER division use THOSE specs and ONLY those specs to develop software. That is based on an old borland suit that happened about the time of the antitrust legislation. Borlands argument was that THEY had special hooks and knowledge to hit the market sooner with better software with more features.

    Here is one reference to a partial impact from the governments decision:

    http://www.mttlr.org/volfourteen/page&childers.pdf

    An important provision in each of the final judgments in the government’s
    Microsoft antitrust case requires Microsoft to “make
    available” to software developers the communications protocols that
    Windows client operating systems use to interoperate “natively” (that is,
    without adding software) with Microsoft server operating systems in
    corporate networks or over the Internet.1 The short-term goal of the provision
    is to allow developers, as licensees of the protocols, to write
    applications for non-Microsoft server operating systems that interoperate
    with Windows client computers in the same ways that applications written
    for Microsoft’s server operating systems interoperate with Windows
    clients.2 The long-term goal is to preserve, in the network context, the
    platform threat to the Windows monopoly that was the focus of the government’s
    theory of monopolization.3
    ...
    If the Windows business were separated
    from the applications business, these concerns would recede
    because each of the separated firms would “seek to maximize its own
    profits and will have incentives to ensure that its products interoperate
    with operating systems and applications produced by others.”153
    In addition to the divestiture order, the government proposed conduct
    restrictions based on the drafts exchanged in the failed settlement
    negotiations. The key one for our purposes would have required Microsoft
    to disclose “all APIs, Technical Information and Communications
    Interfaces that Microsoft employs to enable” Microsoft software, including
    server operating systems, to interoperate with a Windows client PC
    operating system.154 The provision would have required Microsoft to give
    computer manufacturers and software and hardware vendors access to
    Windows source code in order to achieve interoperability.155 This provision,
    the government claimed, would have allowed ISVs “to compete on
    a level playing field” by giving them access to “information that Microsoft’s
    own developers use” so they “will have a reasonable opportunity
    to make their software run as well with Windows as Microsoft’s software
    does.”156 The government (naively, it turns out) added that
    “Microsoft already routinely documents and distributes technical information,
    so the provision will not place a significant burden upon it.
    ...
    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2144236].message }}

Trending Topics