Again, it's not about this instance, which is one data point on the side of "publicity -> resolution". And there are many more data points on the side of "publicity -> resolution". Instead, the evidence required is data points on the side of "no publicity -> no resolution". The fact that Amazon didn't solve the issue until the publicity exists doesn't count as a "no publicity -> no resolution" data point.
Somehow, this is less clear to others than it is to me. I'll break it out into some cases. If the data points are mostly
- a mix of "publicity -> resolution" and "no publicity -> resolution", then publicity is irrelevant.
- a mix of "publicity -> resolution" and "no publicity -> no resolution", then truly the moral of the story is to have publicity if you want a resolution.
- a bunch of "publicity -> resolution", then we cannot make any conclusions!
We hear about the issues with publicity because, well... they have publicity. We make up the other half because it fits our preconceived bias.
I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is, as a practical matter, there's no reason to believe her case would have been reopened without publicity. The Amazon rep said quite clearly from Amazon's perspective the matter was closed.
> Instead, the evidence required is data points on the side of "no publicity -> no resolution".
Which by definition we don't hear about. In fact, that's why - if Amazon are rational - they'd give special treatment to issues that get publicity, so it seems like they handle customer issues better. There is essentially no downside for them in doing this; it's not like they'll be hurt by the publicity backlash from incidents that went unresolved because they got no publicity.
Somehow, this is less clear to others than it is to me. I'll break it out into some cases. If the data points are mostly
- a mix of "publicity -> resolution" and "no publicity -> resolution", then publicity is irrelevant.
- a mix of "publicity -> resolution" and "no publicity -> no resolution", then truly the moral of the story is to have publicity if you want a resolution.
- a bunch of "publicity -> resolution", then we cannot make any conclusions!
We hear about the issues with publicity because, well... they have publicity. We make up the other half because it fits our preconceived bias.