Here's Godin's scenario: "Hi, you've reached us when we're too busy. Quick, write down this code: 123x23. Now, give us your phone number. When we call back (within an hour, we promise), give us the code and we'll pay you $20 on the spot for the hassle in getting this order processed."

"The problem is that people who build call centers try to lower costs instead of increase revenues. They view what they do as a commodity, not a strategic tool to dramatically increase customer joy," Godin writes.

Yes, yes, we're all familiar with the whole "cost center" to "strategic asset" paradigm shift. But why give the customer $20? Need I point out that such a plan would encourage people to flood the circuits in an effort to fail to reach an agent? Isn't it enough that the customer doesn't have to wait on hold? I proposed a similar idea a month or so ago, wherein the call center calls you back as agents become available.

Another blogger, who calls himself Shayan, has a simple remedy: "Now, if we could somehow manage to have these different units [marketeers and call centers] communicate with each other effectively and have them rewarded for successfully taking the perspective customer to the finish line, wouldn’t the business benefit as a whole. In Seth’s example, the call center incurring extra costs of $20 dollar rebate (I wouldn’t pay them 20 bucks as set suggests though instead I would give them a 20 dollar discount on their purchase) would be able to do so if they had incentives beyond cutting costs (say revenue generated by their operators)."

I found Godin's post through a new blog called The Consumerist, which posts rants about good deals and bad customer service, among other things. Check out their CSR section.