Many people have experienced difficulties when trying to contact service providers such as phone networks, internet providers, or private companies on various platforms, for example, attempting to cancel a package or service. Instead of a straightforward process, customers face prolonged procedures including automated messages, unreachable call centers due to high call volumes, and when they do connect, they encounter persistent attempts to upsell other offers.
This frustrating prolongation is known as the Annoyance Economy. Today, it manifests in many forms, such as long hold times, spam and advertisements, the widespread use of chatbots for communication, and increasingly complex cancellation steps varying by organization. The main reason organizations employ this strategy is to wear down customers until they give up and continue using their service. However, this approach erodes customer trust and damages the organization's image in the long term.
Consider the case of Mr. Pong, who feels his monthly expenses are too high but is subscribed to a monthly movie platform. Instead of offering a simple cancellation button on the mobile app, the platform requires users to communicate directly with an admin via a computer website. Although the platform could simplify the process, it deliberately creates as many steps as possible to generate friction, hoping users will feel discouraged or forget their intent, maximizing profits.
This so-called Annoyance Economy generates real revenue from consumers, though it is quite irritating. The New York Times reported that American families have lost over $165 billion due to organizations using such tactics to retain customers. Despite complaints, these organizations have been largely unaccountable.
In response, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) introduced the Click-to-Cancel rule. However, companies objected, claiming the FTC failed to conduct a full economic and benefits analysis before issuing the regulation. Nevertheless, 30 U.S. states have enacted their own laws requiring companies to eliminate cumbersome cancellation processes.
The Era of Chatbots and Kafkaesque Experiences
Thailand also faces this problem to some extent, spanning internet or telephone services, government agencies, and major transport companies that increasingly use AI interactions instead of human staff. This leaves users struggling alone. These issues have sparked discussions on community websites like Pantip, which has become a gathering place for those sharing similar frustrations.
Typically, organizations use chatbots for initial issue handling before supposedly forwarding cases to human staff. However, some pretend to escalate to humans but actually route back to chatbots. As a result, some complaints get resolved while others do not. Users who cannot reach real people often become frustrated—not necessarily because their requests are denied, but because they don't know who they are dealing with or who is responsible.
"It's annoying, very annoying. It wastes time and harms my mental health. By the time I get to speak to a person, I'm already angry and frustrated, sometimes snapping. Worst is spending hours without even talking to a human," shared a Pantip user in a thread titled “Are you annoyed when you chat to ask about problems but end up talking to AI or automated responses?”
Organizations using AI for problem handling are generally large entities, including government agencies and companies with vast customer bases like telecom providers. Globally, Meta is often cited for issues related to unexplained bans or blocks with no way to contact anyone. Meta addresses this by reserving direct user support for paying Meta Verified subscribers only.
Although this issue may not directly relate to the Annoyance Economy, it similarly involves the use of control over user data, relying on the organization's irreplaceable value. Simply put, organizations feel no need to compromise with minority customers or users.
All these factors resemble a Kafkaesque situation: we are controlled by ever-changing rules. Each time we meet officials, they claim to follow organizational regulations, yet no one can explain what those rules are, where they are written, or who created them. Despite this, as users, we have rights to inquire, contact, or complain, but the system is either nonexistent or broken (like AI). Crucially, these complex organizational procedures lead to user exhaustion.
The existence of the Annoyance Economy signals that organizations can steer us when money is involved. It is difficult to predict how organizations will control users in the future. Small organizations may pose fewer problems than large ones that might eventually hold total control. For now, the only option is for individuals to stand strong for their rights, even though organizational systems may wear them down.
References: