AT&T is annoyed with some of its smart phone customers. They’re saying that three percent of smart phone users are consuming 40 percent of total available bandwidth on their cellular network.  AT&T is saying that they’re looking at incentives to get these high-bandwidth users to "reduce or modify their usage."

Of course, “incentive” is almost certainly going to mean “higher fees.”

Every company and service has its power users, and this is especially true in the tech sector.  This is not something that should have caught AT&T by surprise.  They partnered with Apple on the iPhone, which can (technically) only be used on AT&Ts network, offer so-called “unlimited” data plans (which are finally revealed to have a 5Gb cap, nevermind that “unlimited” in fact means “uncapped” ), and then get upset that people actually use their data plan.

Should Time Warner Cable charge people who leave their TVs on 24/7 more money?  Should your gym charge you more because you use the gym twice per day when most of their customers go three times per week?

This is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison, but bear with me a moment.  Time Warner and your gym (and countless other companies) decided on a fair market price for their products and they charge that price.  AT&T should have done the exact same thing, but they didn’t, and that’s where the problem lies.  AT&T, rather than stepping up and improving their service, is choosing instead to change the rules and punish their most devoted customers.

At the other end of the spectrum, let’s talk about propane.  I recently moved into a rural home that has a propane tank, which is used to run the furnace and tankless water heater.  The company that fills our tank charges a sliding “tank usage fee” for customers who use less than a certain amount of propane in a calendar year. This fee is substantial, equal to roughly a fifth to a quarter of a full tank.  We strive to be very energy-efficient, so we’ll almost certainly be hit by this fee.

We’ll get charged more because we don’t use enough of their service, which makes no sense whatsoever. Following the logic behind this fee, doesn’t it follow that non-customers, who don’t use any of their product, should be charged even more?  I have to wonder what they’d charge us if we stopped using their service altogether.

Imagine if Citgo or BP did the same when it came to fuel for your car.

If you’re going to offer a product, offer a product and charge a fair price for it.  Punishing your customers for using too much, or too little, of your product just tarnishes your reputation, breeds resentment, and encourages them to take their business elsewhere.

There’s a saying that’s been floating around the business world forever: "You never get a second chance to make a first impression." This is a very true statement as far as it goes, but I don’t like it because it has two,, scary hidden meanings. One, that you can’t recover from making a bad first impression. Two, that making a positive first impression is more important than anything else.

Both of these hidden meanings are absolutely wrong. You can recover from making a bad first impression – all you need is a chance, humility, and a good dose of honesty. It’s really not that hard. And even if you make an outstanding first impression, you knock it out of the park when you land a new client, your job has just begun. You must continue making positive impressions in order to cement your reputation. If you make enough subsequent bad impressions your reputation is going to be negative one, making your out of the park first impression completely wasted.

Once you’ve made your first impression, good or bad, forget about it. Your focus should always be your next impression and making it a positive one. Next impressions build your reputation.

Citibank, for reasons unknown publicly, closed number of gas station credit cards on Wednesday of last week.  They mailed notices out on Monday, two days beforehand. Citibank customers trying to use those cards obviously had them declined, at least one of them italic she had already filled her gas tank. This person obviously had to pay for her gas using some other method.

It is inexcusable that Citibank mailed notices out only two days beforehand. With only two days notice, it is inconceivable that all of these notices would have arrived in time. They surely must have known that this was going to inconvenience a great many people, yet they did it anyway.

Let’s give Citibank the benefit of the doubt and say they had a legitimate reason for closing these accounts. We’ve heard too many stories in the news about credit card companies closing accounts on consumers that were in good standing to think this wouldn’t tarnish Citi’s reputation.  Giving their customers two weeks notice before termination of the accounts, rather than two days, would’ve gone a long way toward preventing this.

You know what else is inconceivable? That Citibank did not think all of this through beforehand. They knew this was going to negatively impact their customers. They knew this would negatively impact their reputation. Yet they went ahead with it anyway. I have to wonder if this is the best way of serving Citibank’s shareholders. In light of this, however, it does not surprise me that Citibank is in trouble. Would you open an account with Citibank right now? I know I wouldn’t.

Here’s a link to the story on MSNBC.com: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33388210/ns/business-consumer_news/