Slashdot Mirror
AOL Tries New Tactic to Keep Customers
Jhon writes "AOL customer Vincent Ferrari tried to cancel his account, but a phone rep wouldn't let him do it. What he got when he tried to cancel his account was a lot of frustration. Now that's customer support!"
It got him fired when publicity came out. AOL has had a long history of this. I ran into this years and years ago when trying to cancel a free 100 hours account before broadband. The victim is probably Vincent who was just doing what his supervisor told him to do. But, atlas, that's what you get to be when the bottom falls out; the scapegoat at the bottom.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
Couldn't he just stop paying the bill? Wouldn't that cancel the account? Or is there something that I'm not aware of?
Hang up.
Call your credit card company.
Tell the credit card company to no longer accept charges from AOL because they refuse to cancel your account.
If you really want to play it safe then write a letter to your credit card company after the call that reiterates the request and the reason for it.
Either the retention specialist/customer service agent/phone troll was lying about the usage (huge surprise) or the account was hijacked. I have nothing against a company clarifying why you want to cancel -- they may make you a special offer or fix what is causing the issue -- but this is beyond ridiculous and bordering on criminal.
The problem is I am sure this has been standard operating procedure at AOL every single day for the last decade. Everyone that has experienced this level of customer "service" needs to complain to the FTC and hopefully they will investigate. If memory serves, wasn't AOL already investigated for this by the FTC in years past?
So you faxed over "SN, pw, last 4 digits of CC, name, address" to some unconfirmed number that you got from the Internet? Why not offer your mother's maiden name while you're at it.
A valid CSR retention attempt might go something like this:
Customer: I want to cancel my account
CSR: OK, can I ask why>
Customer: Because I never use it anymore
CSR: Oh, do you have DSL or Cable?
Customer: No, my phone charges are too high
CSR:: Ok, well before I cancel it, would you allow me to try to find you a better dial-up access number to try, which should reduce or eliminate your local phone charges?
...
Then from here, either the customer says "No, I've had it" and the CSR complies, or maybe the customer says "You can do that? Sure..."
Not every CSR conversation has to go like this:
Customer: I want to cancel
CSR: Done. Thanks. bye.
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
a) This usually saves lots of space and you can partition the way you like.
b) You know what you have, and only load what you want.
c) You can then image the minimal "clean" install for later recovery, cleanup, etc.
This method works wonders - my last el-cheapo HP Pavilion laptop went from 63 second boot time to under 30 seconds when it wasn't burdened with stuff I didn't want/need.
Just make sure you have any special drivers you'll need "on hand" before you do this.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
That's all well and good, as long as this can still happen:
Customer: I want to cancel my account
CSR: OK, can I ask why
Customer: No, I just want to cancel my account. I know what I'm doing, and I'm certain I don't want it.
CSR: No problem, it's done. Thanks. Bye.
I don't know about the english speaking part of the world, but in my country the phone is not part of the legally enforceable mean of contracting.
If they refuse to cancel by phone, write a letter and that's it. If in doubt, send it with registered mail. And yes, fellow Geeks, it doesn't even matter if you use a template in MS Word or KOMA-script with LaTeX!
I find the advice to---again---call the fraud dept. of the institution that handles payment for you potentially dangerous. If I had a contrct with AOL I'd sure know how to EOL that---the correct way.
But again, your legal system might differ... Mod me down then!
And that's what I think a lot of folks don't get here.
There are two victims, the customer that's put through this crap, and the poor kid on the other end who would have been fired if he hadn't put him through it.
And then actually DID get fired anyway, even though he was doing EXACTLY what he was required to do by his employer, because the case got publicised. But it's no abberation. This is EXACTLY what these kids are trained to do, and required to do to if they want to keep their jobs. The executives who bear responsibility for both of these hells are still drawing enormous checks, of course.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Every virus out there would perform the uninstall on your behalf if it were easy.
A good number of viruses do infact uninstall or otherwise disable the software.
So in this case, I can forgive a difficult uninstall.
Agreed, but there's a better way to ask the question than the way the AOL rep in this story did. The AOL rep in the conversation sounds almost like he's accusing the customer of something. Asking a question like "Is there anything we could have done differently to keep you with our service?" would draw out any complaints of problems with the service and is a request for feedback rather than an accusation. In my experience people respond better when they're asked for feedback than when they feel like they're being accused or harassed. In the case of the person whose ethernet didn't work, the conversation would continue:
Service rep: "Is there anything we could have done differently to keep you with our service?"
Customer: "Yeah, my service didn't work after I moved my computer to a different room."
Service rep: "That does sound like a problem. If we could fix that problem, would you still want to cancel your service or would you be all set?"
That transitions the call from customer service, "I want to cancel my account" call to technical support, "My service isn't working".
In Vincent's case, the call would continue:
Service rep: "Is there anything we could have done differently to keep you with our service?"
Vincent: "No, I just want to cancel my service."
Service rep: "Okay, then let me get the account details so I can cancel it."
I have to say that, as a general rule, I really do agree with you. However, I have unfortunately, had experience with "customer service" people that made even me want to strangle them (and that takes a lot).
I call with an issue (generally something like "I'm moving and need to cancel my service") and try in a nice, civil manner to get a solution. I know what it's like on the other end of the phone. I worked my way through college as a network analyst and admin and had to field a lot of calls from people who thought that their issue was the only one in the world.
However, what starts out as a civil call on my part ends up as him taking an opportunity to "upsell" me on some service that I'm canceling because I won't be living there anymore or, in the case of my old dialup account many years ago, because I moved to dsl (Earthlink tried to bill me for a couple of months afterward if memory serves). This sort of thing really ticks me off. I realize that not all customer service people do it, and most of my calls actually go really well, but to say that bad callers are the sole reason customer support sucks is just a wee bit of oversimplification.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
You've said it right there, he's paid to harass. This is not a case of "just a peon". Perhaps not entirely "goon" either, since harassment probably doesn't reach the threshold of "terrorize" that the term "goon" implies. Still, a CSR trying to out-argue, out-badger or just out-annoy a cancelling customer is not completely blameless if the customer becomes annoyed and shows it.
You then give a different example (the luxury hotel) where politeness and class are appropriate. Presumably the staff at your hotel didn't try to pressure guests not to leave, then refuse to check them out and badger them until they gave up trying to stop paying for a room and just left with the meter running. Naturally, a bullying guest would not be welcome back, but this is an entirely different context. It's late, and I forget the debating term for this practice is -- some kind of fallacy.
Before your context-switch, the subject was dealing with CSRs who deliberately try to avoid processing your cancellation request. I'm sorry that you've had to deal with jerks from the other side. But it is not reasonable to assume that a customer who is repeatedly thwarted in their request will not become annoyed and show his anger in some way.
Your argument about banning a customer for life would actually be the ideal situation with AOL -- so in that case, if AOL followed your reasoning, the empty threat would pay off far better than the customer imagined.
I am not a crackpot.
I hear you on this one. I've worked customer service and collections on the phone to pay my bills as a college student. When I was on the phone with a customer, I would be as polite as humanly possible and do my job as best I could. After all, these are generally people with a problem, since they hadn't paid their bill for one reason or another).
The people who were calm and polite in return got their problem(s) resolved immediately. People who started yelling before I even finished introducing myself end up arguing for 30 minutes. I'd finally get them to calm down and work with me, the problem would get resolved, and then they'd end up apologizing to me for yelling at me. It's a lot easier to be polite in the first place, and make someone actually want to help you.
They don't want to let you go if they think they can meet your needs. Be sure your needs are not met by their walled garden.
What they want is completely immaterial. If I were unfortunate enough to have an AOL account to cancel, I would call them once to cancel it, and if they didn't do so immediately without any form of runaround, I would cancel by sending a registered letter to their general counsel, advising them that if they didn't terminate my account as of the date of the phone call and immediately inform me that they had done so, I would go down to my local courthouse, file suit, and ask the court to certify a class.
The key is to make it far more expensive to jerk you around than to just do the right thing.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Regardless of what you think of the policy, the guy on the other end is just a peon, not a "goon." He's doing this so he can pay rent, not because he enjoys harassing you -- got it? He has no control over the script.
No, I don't got it. He has 100% control over whether what is printed in the script comes out of his mouth.
Are you saying that for enough money anything is OK? Are you insane? (I guess the technical term is "sociopathic") Does what Enron did suddenly become OK because they made a lot of money at it?
Money has zero to do with morality. When you choose to enforce a policy, you are making a choice. The fact that you get a paycheck for it has zero to do with the moral decision. You may be willing to sell your morals for a given price, but that doesn't absolve you of the guilt.
If you steal bread to feed your family because the system is corrupt, that doesn't make the stealing OK. It makes it justifiable.
Your mother probably tried (but apparently failed) to teach you this as the doctrine of "Two wrongs don't make a right."
Now let's toss in that, unless this is a call center in a third world country, the hypothetical person reading an immoral script was not doing it because it was the only possible way to avoid starvation. He was doing it because he decided he would rather do that than sweep floors or clean toilets or any of a thousand other shitty, but morally straight, jobs that are available in this country. So he doesn't have impending doom to justify, let alone sanctify, his choice.
That doesn't mean a person can't, or even shouldn't, choose to sell their morals in this incredibly immoral society (by which I'm referring to the robber barons, not people who enjoy recreational sex - but that's my moral set), but it does mean that they are 100% judgeable for their actions. It's called "personal responsibility" and it is the exact same thing which we all find so lacking in congress. It's no better in an individual than in a public official.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I find it disturbing that you need to explain why you are cancelling your online account, and in fact come up with excuses for it. I find it especially disturbing when combined with the other posts in this thread, explaining how they had to cancel their credit card since they couldn't get AOL to cancel the account, and how they spent an hour trying to get the account cancelled.
I think this is a clear example of what happens when the government isn't powerfull enough to force companies to behave. Those companies fill the power vacuum and stat behaving like medieval lords, treating people like as serfs. You americans really need to get rid of your delusion that only the government needs to be regulated; any entity that has power is capable of abusing it, and needs to be kept from doing so - which doesn't neccessarily mean laws, of course; peer pressure works fine for limiting socially distruptive excesses of human behavior most of the time. Corporations, however, are specifically designed to be shameless, heartless and powerfull, and should be held to the same standards as the government, since they are every bit as capable of oppressing and harming people as the government is.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean you aren't infected. Many viruses are invisible to the end user as they collect your personal info, use your box as a proxy for higher profit targets or just act as a zombie in a DDoS botnet. I laugh everytime someone says "I don't use AV and I've never had a virus." It's like a blind man saying "I've never seen it so it doesn't exist."
chown -R us
Vincent's own terminology put him in the trap. Telling the rep "cancel my account" implies that the rep can argue. The right approach is this: "I have now informed you that I'm cancelling. That's all I have to do according to my contract. I am no longer bound by the contract no matter what you say and no matter whether you put the cancellation in your systems or not. I'm not in a mood for argument, so I'm going to hang up. Have a nice day and remember, if you charge me next month you'll be committing credit card fraud. [click]"
I hadn't run an anti-virus for years. Finally a couple of years ago I broke down and got it just for the off chance I miss something. The first time it scanned, it didn't find a thing. No Firewall. Nothing.
It's easy. Don't open executables in e-mails. Don't view attachments from people you don't know. Don't go to shady sites.
www.joshferguson.org
Corporations have money and can buy guns to make you do things. The only thing that's keeping them from doing that is the government. But even without guns, the corporation has enough financial resources to bankcrupt you (with made-up charges which are too expensive to defend against, for example); and finally, since government is so weak, it is pending to the will of the corporations, which means that they do have guns, even if it's their servant that does the actual wielding.
I have no idea how AOL is doing financially. I do know that this thread is full of complaints about how the AOL behaves, so obviously their financial status - whatever it is - and the market combined isn't making them behave.
And why would the market make them behave ? The market is simply a decentralized distribution channel - a matter of logistics, not social control. The whole concept of an "invisible hand" has been proven wrong so many times that it's absurd how many people still seem to cling to it like a poor substitute for a religion.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Any story mentioning Microsoft that gets posted on Slashdot :).
Seriously, when this sites front page has several stories about companies abusing their power every single day, isn't it a bit pointless to ask for links to examples of such abuses ?
Remember, the "Invisible Hand" means the hypothesis that, in a free market, people will generally behave in a way that benefits the society since that way is also the way that benefits them the most. This is what all of those claims of "the market will fix it" are based on. It simply is not true - time and again the most immoral, sociopathic and disruptive behavior will yield most personal gain. Don't forget that one purpose - perhaps the most important one - of a corporation is to shield its owners from liability; surely there would be no reason for such a shield if moral behavior would be the most effective way of making money on a free market ?
You need government to stop people from killing each other and looting the corpses, first and foremost. Then you need the government to provide the level of cooperation required to build the infrastructure to support a large enough population that an economy beyond simple tribal gift system can evolve. Thirdly, you need the government to keep any other governments from killing you and looting the corpse. Fourthly, you need the government to stop guilds, local influential people and such from regulating all commerce. And finally you need the government to make money, since without it the logistics of trading become a nightmare - and no, you can't simply say "I accept only gold", since you'll be spending too much time verifying that the customer isn't paying with painted rocks; you need a central agency that can (forcibly) stop people from counterfeiting whatever it is you're using as tokens of exchange.
The whole concept of "free market" is artificial. In no way is it "natural" to humankind; a mixture of gift economy and communism is (in the sense that that's what you get in a society without a central government of any kind). "Free market" is an artificial construct meant to handle logistics of distribution and production of non-critical goods so the government can concentrate to securing the production and distribution of critical ones; every point of it that isn't regulated and therefore supported (forced to stay in proper alignment) by laws is a failure point; there is no "natural free market" that would be protected by laws, it is entirely constructed by them. Somehow, it has become a substitute for religion for this age. Consequently, we have people chanting "the market will take care of it" and closing their eyes from the possibility that it won't; ironically, some of these same people will then turn around and laugh at religious people for believing in an invisible force.
Not saying that you are such a person; I'm just remembering how every story about commerce gets a chorus of "Market force! Invisible Hand! Don't doubt the wisdom of them, ye of little faith!" and every story about religion gets a chorus of "Anyone who believes in any invisible force is a deluded fundamentalist!" and can't help but notice that there seems to be a double standard here.
Well, this became a rant, and my only excuse is that it's late :(. Sorry.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.