I think it’s great that companies try to make their clients feel good, through price, quality, good deal or an occasional gift. I also think it acceptable to not do it for love of neighbor, but for convenience. They are normal rules of economics, past and present. Contact information is here: Verizon. But when this is put the name of “loyalty” of customers committed a brutal lack of respect. One thing to try to keep customers coming back and quite another to extol the “fidelity”, as if they were a moral virtue, as if she were carrying a sort of duty, as if a client was guilty of treason if he would buy other side. From time to hear about “loyalty programs”, many people must feel some apprehension or shame at the mere idea of buying something in another place. That is precisely what has to happen, because it is one step away from the psychological manipulation.

Supplier and customer do what suits them, with full right to choose. Nobody contracted a lifelong commitment because one day chose to buy something. Nobody violated any obligation if you prefer another provider, that basically is someone striving to do things either to buy them. All economic activity must be approached with respect for people. No effort to attract or retain customers is bad in itself. The only thing that upsets me is the name we gave, that sounds like a moral imperative disguised taxation, which encourages companies to imagine that customers belong to them and that “we must do something with them.” I invite employers or customers find other word than friendly.