x0rzx0rz
2022-04-15 14:07:01
- #1
no, it shouldn't. It only shows that the intermediary has a highly privileged job. But that doesn't stop him from complaining a bit that the customers make him "work."
Yes, you can. If it were justified. But in the case of the intermediary, it is unjustified. It just seems as if it were true. The "free" work is factored into the commission on the contracts. So an intermediary does not actually work for free but rather the distribution is quite uneven. The commissions for a contract are really absurdly high. The service rendered is almost always worth less than how high the commission is. The difference is the "free" work. Well, what is then called work. But this also applies to banks. Only the bank does not write here how unfair life is that they also sometimes conduct a consultation without immediate payment.
Why is the job of an intermediary privileged? He goes into advance payment up to a certain point and hopes for a contract with a subsequent commission. Just like almost every other salesperson, whether online or in the store next door.
"What is then called work" ... why do you have to argue on such a level?
Here simply two different life attitudes meet, which can be expressed by the good old example:
The customer goes to the specialty store / car dealership, gets advice, a demonstration, is allowed to try for himself, until he has selected the article he considers best.
Customer 1 awards the contract to the specialty store
Customer 2 searches on the internet / the store next door for the cheapest price
That's life. But to deny the specialty store the right to complain about customer 2 shows a lot of arrogance.
If you are like customer 2, then that is how it is and you should communicate it that way. Because in the end, it is a free market and everyone has their own interests ... but reacting with mockery at the annoyance of others is simply inappropriate.