This is a classic argument and appears in many many forms:
* "Psychologists don't want to fix your problems because then you'll stop needing therapy every week."
* "Dating sites don't actually want you to find a long-term partner because then you'll stop using the site."
* "The mechanic's not trying to actually fix your car, just get it running for a few weeks so it breaks down again and you come back."
Etc. etc.
Any time there is information asymmetry and leaving a customer not fully satisfied might lead to future sales, this old canard comes up.
I'm sure in some cases it's true. But, like, people aren't entirely stupid. Consumers generally won't keep repeatedly going back to the same business if the service is kinda sucky. And businesses generally figure out that reputation matters and the most economically viable long-term strategy is just to give people what they want.
> But, like, people aren't entirely stupid. Consumers generally won't keep repeatedly going back to the same business if the service is kinda sucky. And businesses generally figure out that reputation matters and the most economically viable long-term strategy is just to give people what they want.
This isn't a law of nature. It's the result of particular conditions. Businesses in high-trust and low-trust cultures behave differently, and the descent of the US from a high-trust to a low-trust culture is going to have consequences.
This is where the theory falls apart. When “long-term strategy” and “short-term quarterly earnings” get into the boardroom together at a public company, it ain’t “long-term strategy” that’s walking out.
It can be though. "Short Term" tends to win when CEO pay is contingent upon hitting certain share price at certain times. Founders tend to not have this issue, and I'm sure other CEOs can have pay packages crafted this way if we desired.
There’s nothing stopping it except that investors solely want short term gains and are rewarding CEOs and management for delivering that and punishing them when they don’t.
It's not necessarily that Google or whoever is doing it on purpose. It might just be that Google gets lazy because rhe money is still coming in. Or the psychiatrist, chiropractor, etc actually believes they are helping you and feel they can continue to be useful (or don't want to turn you lose too early in case of a bad consequence). There's all sorts of unintentional stuff that can still result in a bad outcome that seems predatory.
Your examples 1 & 3: I have personally witnessed those negative outcomes.
Regarding 3, A/C repair shops (drain system first, then discuss pricing) and transmission shops (disassemble first, then discuss pricing) are kind of notorious for it.
And yet there are mechanics and therapists who have earned my unquestioning trust.
* "Psychologists don't want to fix your problems because then you'll stop needing therapy every week."
* "Dating sites don't actually want you to find a long-term partner because then you'll stop using the site."
* "The mechanic's not trying to actually fix your car, just get it running for a few weeks so it breaks down again and you come back."
Etc. etc.
Any time there is information asymmetry and leaving a customer not fully satisfied might lead to future sales, this old canard comes up.
I'm sure in some cases it's true. But, like, people aren't entirely stupid. Consumers generally won't keep repeatedly going back to the same business if the service is kinda sucky. And businesses generally figure out that reputation matters and the most economically viable long-term strategy is just to give people what they want.