I'm in this line of practice to combat blatant bad behaviors on the part of businesses -- particularly those with long-standing histories and solid brands -- they should know better. But longevity does not guarantee continuuity of brand experience. Companies do not appear to recognize the risk of ignoring customer experiences.

Case in point: GE and the sub-brand, GE Interest Plus. Based on my entire relationship with this company (which hasn't been that long, but has been extremely painful), I wrote the following message to them last week (via their online feedback loop -- which will likely never reach anyone who can/will initiative change in the company).

This is clearly a company in trouble, if we're to measure success based on solid attention to touchpoints. Let me illustrate (this will also be blogged). [I covered my 'disclosure'.]

I signed up for Quick Transactions. I have in front of me the brochure: "How to Manage your Investment On-Line or Over the Phone". Indeed the 'first attention' position of information after opening the tri-fold brocure communicates the following: "GE Interest Plus offers you the ability to manage your investment in a number of ways: + Through our Account Access website (www.geinteresplus.com). + Through our automated telephone line at 1-800-433-4480 + By speaking with a representative from 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. E.T."

Last Wednesday (before the tax deadline) I called to speak with a representative (one of the three channels offered in the brochure). I asked for clarification on transactions, as my last online transaction took 4 days to post to my bank account. He assured me that it should be transacted in 24 hours, so I requested that a large transaction be executed.

To my amazement, 5 days later there was no money in my bank account. Indeed, when I checked my Interest Plus account nothing had been transacted at all.

My life was too busy this week (marathon planning meetings at work) to do anything until this following Friday, but my husband had called earlier in the week and had been told that I couldn't have possibly attempted a transaction with the rep because they can't DO transactions by phone (hmmm, didn't the brochure state otherwise, and didn't the rep I spoke with give me the distinct impression that he'd indeed completed such a transaction for me? I did insist that the tapes be pulled and reviewed).

When I called I got a very patient representative who continued to restate to me the basics (none of which are called out in the brochure). Indeed, when later asking to speak with a supervisor I was told that wire transactions (not mentioned anywhere in the brochure) are called out in the prospectus. Where are the research findings you have which suggest that a prospectus is a means by which to effectively communicate with your customers?

It was noted to me that there is a $15 fee for 24 hour wire transfers. When I suggested that I would like to have a wire transfer initiated with the fee waived to make up for the mis-information on many fronts, I was told that they would readily waive the fee but that my account was not set up for wire transfers and that paperwork would need to be mailed to me for signature.

Welcome to the 21st century.

But the story doesn't end here. I went online to execute the transaction I was assured had occured 8 business days ago. I tried to log in. I couldn't. After several tries, I suddenly realized something that had only been partially evident to me before: the web site and the phone system maintain two totally different passwords (and yet neither channel communicates this).

None of this is remotely indicative of the practices which individuals experience via other online relationships. Clearly even your print and phone interactions are highly flawed in their ability to communicate and/or engage in reasonable transactions. Your comparative competition is not other investment institutes, it is the whole financial services industry.

I recommended to the supervisor that he look for another job.

It's quite sad, because they have a great product. They stopped short of the design cycle, by focusing just on the product -- not the experience that goes with the product.

While there are certainly more 'scum-laden' behaviors worthy of industry attention/correction, latent bad behaviors such as these should have full disclosure. Mainly, because in the case of companies that should know better, these behaviors are often in management blind spots. These companies are so large and so impersonal that the 'voice' of the customer and the 'voice' of the employee are drowned out by the noise of a monolithic, thought-to-be well-designed machine.

Every once in a while someone needs to pull the whistle on the line to get management to come running and check things out.