Comparing different approaches
Tom Post has a piece in Forbes that uses two separate customer service interactions to outline what does and doesn't work with L. L. Bean and the New Yorker, two companies in completely different sectors. In both cases, Post was confronted with an issue that required assistance from multiple channels. A description involving difficulties with an online New Yorker account is painful to read, but a call with L.L. Bean's phone answering service seems to have proved more fruitful, as Post set up a time and place to return a jacket with a bad lining to a nearby store.
"A saleswoman took back the jacket, marked it as 'defective,' brought up my account in about the length of time it took me to draw breath and told me to expect a replacement in five business days," Post writes. "She lied: It only took two."
The customer is taking notes
If you manage a company, chances are your consumer base will not be coming at you completely uninformed as to the customer service experience. Most likely they will have interacted with either a plain old fashioned telephone service or some other kind of setup previously. Constantly basing decisions off of the policies of competitors may not be the most effective strategy, though: it will more likely be in the company's best interest to keep the possible breadth of their customers' expectations in mind.
In other words, it shouldn't be a matter of domination so much as securing the best possible responses from interested customers. That can be its own reward and result in passionate opinions from pleased converts like Post, who will remember your phone answering service fondly.