As part of a $3 million settlement, AOL has agreed to change their cancellation policy. See today's Wall Street Journal for the details.
This is like déjà-vu, all over again.
AOL, who pioneered aggressive cancellation “sales,” has been lambasted for this process for years. For those unaware (I envy you), this process is one where AOL trains their customer service reps to sell you on not cancelling. This customer-retention practice is unscrupulous and involves all kinds of tricks and techniques. This practice includes putting the callers on hold for over 10 minutes (hoping they will hang up without cancelling); restating the question of why do you want to cancel five different ways until you are so frustrated you shout obscenities and then they can justifiably hang up (before you can cancel, of course); and my favorite, the False Acknowledgement, "Okay, Mr. Kellick, we will discontinue your service," only to bill you again next month and the next and so on.
This was supposed to be stopped in 2000. AOL had a ton of bad press after failing to cancel the subscription of a federal judge in DC (nice one), but alas the practice continued and was copied by other companies (see Vonage posts).
We shall see, hopefully AOL gets the message this time, but I'll believe it when I see it.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Sprint's customer service faux pas
This week Sprint announced plans to cut subscribers who were a hindrance on their bottom line -- customers who call customer support "an excessive amount" and who use too much roam-time while subscribed to the unlimited plan.
Wow!
That's right, Sprint's bean counters may be looking at ways to trim the fat, but allowing this to make headlines yesterday is not a good move. Sprint, whose customer service has been traditionally the worst in the industry, just got another whopping black eye. To Sprint's credit, they are "allowing" these customers to leave without paying an early-termination fee.
That's nice (tongue-in-cheek)!
Really, I hope the marketing folks were kept in the dark on this decision, because there is no way they could really have allowed this to occur. Ever hear of a loss-leader? By keeping these customers and eating the costs associated, Sprint could have avoided this bad press and the potential loss of current or future "good" customers. Truly, as a customer-centric business professional, this one baffles me.
Wow!
That's right, Sprint's bean counters may be looking at ways to trim the fat, but allowing this to make headlines yesterday is not a good move. Sprint, whose customer service has been traditionally the worst in the industry, just got another whopping black eye. To Sprint's credit, they are "allowing" these customers to leave without paying an early-termination fee.
That's nice (tongue-in-cheek)!
Really, I hope the marketing folks were kept in the dark on this decision, because there is no way they could really have allowed this to occur. Ever hear of a loss-leader? By keeping these customers and eating the costs associated, Sprint could have avoided this bad press and the potential loss of current or future "good" customers. Truly, as a customer-centric business professional, this one baffles me.
Joost invites
Does anyone want Joost invites? I finally have some… If so, send me an email and I’ll put you on the list. You’ll get an email from Joost (make sure it doesn’t go in your spam filter).
Joost is an online video-channel program created by the guys who founded Skype and Kazaa. You can only download if you have an invite (reverse psychology viral marketing); they want to make it seem exclusive and make you have to work to get a copy (not a bad theory). Anyway, I just started beta-testing it myself; it seems pretty slick and it's getting a lot of buzz.
Joost is an online video-channel program created by the guys who founded Skype and Kazaa. You can only download if you have an invite (reverse psychology viral marketing); they want to make it seem exclusive and make you have to work to get a copy (not a bad theory). Anyway, I just started beta-testing it myself; it seems pretty slick and it's getting a lot of buzz.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Border Security
Secretary Chertoff was all over the press this morning. After addressing the events in the UK, he did take some time to speak on the border enforcement / immigration bill. While his point about the inadequacies of a "big fence" may be overlooked by casual observers, most of us in the security field know its a very valid point.
Chertoff brought up a casual example of tunnels. Tunnels have existed, and will exist, across the border for quite some time. Our goal as security professionals is to protect the area with a myriad of technologies. A "big fence" alone will not suffice. Ground radar, IP analytics, border personnel, and proper survey policies are all components that must be addressed, and DHS will need more money to handle all these needs. Remember, this is a federal department and even though they are allocated $X, we must always anticipate budgeting projects for $X + $Y.
Chertoff brought up a casual example of tunnels. Tunnels have existed, and will exist, across the border for quite some time. Our goal as security professionals is to protect the area with a myriad of technologies. A "big fence" alone will not suffice. Ground radar, IP analytics, border personnel, and proper survey policies are all components that must be addressed, and DHS will need more money to handle all these needs. Remember, this is a federal department and even though they are allocated $X, we must always anticipate budgeting projects for $X + $Y.
Money race is in full swing
Obama and Hillary: Tomorrow's discussions won't be about the debate last week, but rather how much money they are raising. The quarterly financials are in, and boy, we Americans have a lot of money to give to our political causes.
http://www.tray.com/ has the results.
By the way, when did we declare our winners and losers 15 months prior to the election based solely on if they can raise over $20 million. Well, I guess that is why Bloomberg is looking so good these days. By the way the pundits rate the "money race," it looks like a 2008 presidential general election of Clinton (D), Giuliani (R), and Bloomberg (I).
I wouldn't mind so much if I were voting for Mayor of NYC, but I happen to believe the rest of the country might want a say in who will lead them for the next 4 years.
http://www.tray.com/ has the results.
By the way, when did we declare our winners and losers 15 months prior to the election based solely on if they can raise over $20 million. Well, I guess that is why Bloomberg is looking so good these days. By the way the pundits rate the "money race," it looks like a 2008 presidential general election of Clinton (D), Giuliani (R), and Bloomberg (I).
I wouldn't mind so much if I were voting for Mayor of NYC, but I happen to believe the rest of the country might want a say in who will lead them for the next 4 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
