coms. As we have already proposed, the telecoms' consumer response model needs to align itself with the consumers shopping cycle if it going to be optimal. So far, evidence indicates that consumers, for the most part, are not and probably never will be able to approach the telecom relationship in the same way they manage the retail relationship. This means that a better model is required. While the retail model assists telcos in the area of new customer acquisition, it is actually terrible at helping the telcos manage wallet share and churn activity. This misalignment between the telecom's version of the retail model and customers' behavior is covered in Chapter 17. eXcellence in Telecommunications The Telco Churn Handbook The Retail/Monopoly Hybrid Ultimately, since the telecoms embrace the retail model to support the front end of the consumer relationship and do very little to change the back end (the customer satisfaction /customer service side of the equation), they end up with a model that combines both. Aggressive marketing brings the customers in, but the laissez-faire, "it's not our fault" customer service function does nothing to prevent customers from leaving. From a functional and operational perspective, this strange mix of consumer response models provides a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation for why churn is such a problem for telecoms and wireless providers. Basically, you have a consumer relationship engine that brings them in but can't keep them. A hole in the bucket! Figure 16-2: The Hole in the Bucket In the words of the vice president in charge of marketing for a major long distance carrier, "We were bringing the customers in at a frantic rate, but they were leaving even faster. It's as if we had a hole in the bucket bigger than our ability to replenish the supply." Chapter 16 THE TELECENTRIC CONSUMER RESPONSE MODEL The combined retail/monopoly response model that most telcos use does a fairly good job of explaining how and why telcos are functioning the way they are. Despite this, t