Slashdot Mirror
New York Sues Dell for Poor Customer Service
Phanatic1a writes "New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is suing Dell, alleging bait and switch financing tactics, false advertising, and 'numerous other deceptive business practices relating to their technical support services, promotional financing, rebate offers, and billing and collection activity.' According to Cuomo himself, 'At Dell, customer service means no service at all.'"
Dude, you're getting a lawsuit.
That's an interesting theory, but I think it has more to do with Cuomo following the Eliot Spitzer School of Getting Yourself Elected Governor of New York. It mostly involves bringing high profile cases against nationally recognized big corporations.
I live in NY, and I am glad for the work that Eliot Spitzer has done. Now that Cuomo is the AG he is trying to make a name for himself the same way Spitzer did. Spitzer took on powerful interests within the state. Cuomo is taking the easy way out and going after out of state entities like colleges who have less than ethical relationships with loan organizations. Cuomo is a corrupt politician just trying to get his name out there. I fear that in the end his little adventures are going to go badly, and it will not reflect well on the state of NY.
Like bragging about their customer support, but then when you do call them up, you get some foreign person with an accent you can't understand talking over a phone connection that makes him barely audible, that you can only speak to after being redirected for a few hours, and who will then tell you your hard drive needs replaced because there's something wrong with the fan in your power supply? That may not be illegal, but it would be nice if they changed that.
I kid you not, I just finished a gold support call to Dell for a server. They were prompt and courteous. They didn't know how to fix it offhand, but called me back quickly with the right information. The guy even spoke English, which was a very pleasant surprise.
I don't really know where the New York AG is coming up with the "no service at all" comment. While I'm not sure about their problems with promotional financing, rebate offers, and billing activity; when I am forced to interact with dell for customer support on work computers I have always had good experiences. Maybe it is because I can fix most software issues and the only time I really go to them is when something fails. They have replace what's broken quite readily. Even if his problem is with their other practices I think he's over stating the support problems. Don't get me wrong, I am definitely not a fan of dell but I don't like them because of the proprietary hardware and the preloaded bloatware.
Is a loan sharking operation which will charge you 29.99% APR. I quickly transferred my balances and will never use that service again.
Regular Meta Moderators are not more likely to get mod points.
Apathy
If we don't take care of the customers, maybe they will stop bugging us.
Had the misfortune to call Linksys recently too. An entire Saturday wasted going through the first-layer support morons, who were just reading the scripts from their screens. Some of them — reading so slowly, I could not help thinking, they are on drugs. Others — lying that the supervisor is "on a meeting"...
Finally, someone had brains enough to realize, the problem is above his level and transfered me to the second level support person, who quickly understood, what I was saying all along, and proceeded to tell me, how to cold-reset the wonder Linux-router, which promptly fixed the problem — 6 hours after the first phone call to Linksys...
Don't know, if any amount of legal prosecution can help against this sort of moronity.
The main legal beef of this prosecution, I guess, are the (alleged) financing/collection irregularities — a heavily legislated and regulated area. The populist "no service at all" rhethorics are just thrown in to help Mr. Guomo repeat Mr. Spitzer's feat later on...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Allow groups of consumers to sponsor a visa for an IT guy from Banglore to fly over, service 100 or so computers and then fly back home with earnings that are attractive by his local living standards. A round trip ticket is only like $800 or $8/person for a flight reserved well in advance. If big companies are allowed to outsource labor abroad, it's only fair that individuals are allowed to do the same thing to address their personal needs rather than paying a premium to Dell to cover US-based salary of its executives.
Who the hell are they to sue anyone for bad service. Get me through the DMV is less than an hour and maybe then you can talk!
Prices are high on gas because the cost of production is high? How do you back up that statement? Gas is high because of massive mismanagement, inadequate processing facilities, and large amounts of capacity being offline for either shoddy maintenance (Pipelines rusting out) or really sketchy reasons. (The big facility in Oklahoma explodes because of a lightning strike? These people never heard of lightning rods and proper grounding? If there's no oxygen supply in a big tank, then you can hit it with lightning all day long and nothing can ignite.)
This is all bullshit caused by the deregulation of the industry. Look how well deregulation of the energy market worked for California, rolling blackouts, raging high prices, etc. Required public services needed for the basic functionality of our society should NEVER be deregulated, cause all it does is let unethical traders get rich of scamming the whole system.
I know, all you "free market" clones will fry me for stating the obvious, but the free market doesn't exist without government regulation in the first place. Free market is just an euphemism for "quick buck", not a long term, stable solution.
If you buy a machine from dell, and it comes pre-loaded with software. When that software acts up, dell should be responsible. If dell doesn't want to take responsibility, then don't install 3rd party software.
When I purchased my car (a honda actually), I had the dealership install an after market remote starter. When I had trouble, guess who I brought it to. Guess who fixed it ? The dealership.
Now, had I bought it from Best Buy I would have brought it back to Best Buy.
It's really about bait & switch tactics in their finance arm, attracting people with 0% offers then denying even those with good credit, making them pay 20% or more finance fees. "The lawsuit accuses Dell of luring consumers to purchase its products with advertisements that offered attractive "no interest" and/or "no payment" financing promotions. In practice, however, the vast majority of consumers, even those with very good credit scores, were denied these deals. In a classic "bait and switch" scheme, DFS instead offered consumers financing at high interest rates, which often exceed 20%. Dell and DFS frequently failed to clearly inform these consumers that they had not qualified for the promotional terms, leaving many to unwittingly finance their purchase at high interest rates." THAT is what it is really about. The rest is just to throw on a little more on top, to scare Dell, and more importantly to make the public support it.
-Daniel
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/consumer/consumer_issu
Developers: We can use your help.
Recently I had a problem with my printer and it took 27 calls over 3 days and about 16 hours of waiting on the phone and talking to Indian after Indian whom couldn't answer my problem. My problem isn't with Indians as I have many of them as friends and Indians are very smart people. My problem is with Dell outsourcing to India and giving them no power to correct even the smallest of issues. Basically if it's not on their troubleshooting sheet they have in front of them chalked up with canned questions/answers, then you are SOL.
When are companies going to understand that they may get a first time buyer with their cut-rate prices. But if that buyer ever has a problem with the hardware and receives cut-rate support, they are not going to buy from the same company again.
Just one reason I buy HP.
h
Valkyrie is about to die! Wizard needs food -- badly!
Dangit, I agree with you: I'm sick of people who are unclear on the concept of just what a "free market" is.
... why use it to mean anything else?
"Free market" implies that there is no single party or group that has control over a market, not just governments. A single company (e.g. Microsoft in the OS space), or a cartel (e.g., the RIAA member companies) that can dictate the vast bulk of a market's behavior thus means the market is no longer free or capable of the self-correcting behavior that are the benefits of a free market.
Gas prices are high because a single cartel, OPEC, dictates the price per barrel. This is not a free market.
California's "deregulation" was more appropriately a "re-regulation," and was only called "deregulation" for marketing purposes. It failed to help end consumers, of course, because they really don't have a choice where their power comes from; there's no way to go to the corner store and buy a few kilowatt-months to take home and keep in the fridge til ya need them. In other words, it's a market that is necessarily never free, because you always have one company controlling delivery.
It keeps being used only in the sense of "no government interference," which is just wrong. Maybe that's an accepted meaning, but since a market dominated by any entity or cartel cannot be free and does not have the benefits of a really free market, then
Look how well deregulation of the energy market worked for California
The California energy market was NEVER deregulated. They just changed the regulations. And when they changed the regulations, companies like Enron figured out how to exploit the new rules in order to get profit for doing nothing.
Basically, when California's energy market was 'deregulated', new rules were put in place that set the cost of power based on congestion - the more demand there was for the power lines over which the power was transmitted, the more money you paid for that power.
So the energy companies just moved power around essentially in circles, creating more artificial demand, and inflating the cost of power.
If the California energy market had been ACTUALLY deregulated, California's utilities wouldn't have been forced by regulation to pay too much for power, and there would have been more than enough power at reasonable prices to go around because the statutory incentive for the power distribution companies to artificially inflate demand wouldn't have existed.
So, in short, it was REGULATIONS that caused the rolling blackouts, NOT a lack of them.
paintball
Best Buy is actually a good place to buy computers, as long as they're low quality. Why? Their extended warranty has a "three strikes and you're out clause" whereby after the computer has been serviced three times, if it breaks again they give store credit for a replacement. So, the procedure is as follows:
My family went through this cycle about five times over about the past decade, starting with a refurbished Packard Bell 486 desktop and ending with a 20" iMac Core Duo (and no, we did not break anything on purpose, or be overly rough with our machines). Also, I don't count Apple as "crappy," although it should be noted that Best Buy replaces Macs on the first service instead of the fourth, because it doesn't have the facilities to repair them.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Well, if a large portion of NY citizens are being routinely shafted by Dell, it certainly is simpler for the AG to sue than for the court system to handle hundreds of individual cases. Also, Attorney Generals arepublic servants. It is okay for them to do something nice for their citizens. This is exactly the kind of case that regular people can benefit from. Just because it doesn't involve the mafia or large sums of money doesn't mean that this case is not worth the time.
I'm not sure how many of the /. crowd are familiar with the concept of service level, so I figured I'd pass this along:
For any company that is worth a flip, they measure a statistic called service level. When you call a customer service number for a company, all of the calls are tracked on their telephony switches. I'm sure everyone is familiar with having to wait on hold to talk to someone. The actual metric of service level is "the target of answering X percent of calls in X seconds or less". So to measure this, if Company A has a service level goal of 80% answered in 45 seconds, and by chance they answered all of their calls for the day in 45 seconds or less, they have achieved 100% for the day. (This would technically be cost inefficient because they had too many people answering the phones, but I'll save that for another day). In this example, the company wants to end up at an 80% achievement for the day. They hit 100%, so they overserviced. Good for the customer, bad for the company's budget.
Depending on the industry, service level targets range anywhere from 80%/45 seconds for credit cards, home/cell phones, etc. Industries like sales, product activations, etc. have a much higher percentage, such as 90%/20 seconds... If the user is trying to buy something, a long wait time makes the customer impatient and they'll hang up resulting in a lost sale opportunity. For industries like computer tech support, the service levels are much, much different. A call for a computer user is going to be much longer than someone who calls their credit card company to complain about an over-the-limit fee. For tech support type calls, the service level will usually be something in the neighborhood of 70%/240 seconds.
You may be wondering how this relates to the Dell story? Last bit of information I received (approx. a month ago), Dell's computer tech support service level was 60%/20 MINUTES. Yes, that is minutes, not seconds. This means that if they answer 60% of their tech calls in 20 minutes or less, they feel they are providing a proper service to their customer.
I'm not surprised in the slightest to see this lawsuit. I'm actually surprised to see that is has taken this long.
Gas prices are high because a single cartel, OPEC, dictates the price per barrel. This is not a free market.
Price of a barrel of oil is only one component of the price of a gallon of gas. In the US, the price of gas is much more closely related to the supply of refined gasoline vs. the demand for refined gasoline. Presently, there is about a $1 swing between the price of a gallon of gas in the winter and in the summer. Every year. Does the price of a barrel of oil swing by $20 from the winter to the summer?
No, it doesn't.
Does OPEC reduce oil production by 25% in the summer?
No, they don't.
So what accounts for the swing in gas prices?
Supply and demand. We only have a finite amount of refining capacity. In the summer, demand goes up, but supply does not - there is no more refining capacity available.
The real culprit in the high gas prices are the oil companies and environmentalists. Oil companies don't want to invest their profits in more refining capacity, and environmentalists make it difficult to build new refineries at all.
OPEC, on the other hand, doesn't like high gas prices any more than you do - the higher the gas price, the more attractive alternate energy sources become. And if there's one thing OPEC definitely doesn't want, it's people investing in ways to use less gas.
paintball
I find it funny that when an article is about customer service, a lot of people post like "I am superior and the tech on the phone is a moron for not listening to me" Then when we have a post about customers we get a lot of people saying "I am superior, the customer on the end is an idiot and shouldn't have bought a computer" So which is it? Granted I've been on both sides of the spectrum. I've had poor CSR's before who didnt resolve my issue, and I've also worked tech support when people would call me asking "Why doesnt my modem work? So I'd start diagnosing connectivity problems. No the TV wont turn on my modem is broke" You'd be amazed how many people call a computer a modem. Anyway, some CSR's suck some clients suck. Nothing really new here.
Extended warranties are a ripoff -- on everything *except* laptops. On laptops, the cost of one repair is generally more than the cost of the warranty, and they're almost guaranteed to break within 3 years.
Well... 99% of US businesses would be violating laws in my home country, Norway. On all areas, marketing, pricing, service, warranties etc. Why? Simply because the laws require honesty and has clear regulations as to what is allowed, what the companies obligations to their customers are etc. I haven't seen many TV commercials during my 10+ years here in the US that would have been allowed back home.
In USA, the customer is without rights in most cases and the corporations can do what the heck they want. Not to mention they can tell you lies without consequences. Example: The stupid commercial fro free credit reports. $30 or more per month is the cost for those "free" reports. Free, my ass.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
I worked in Dell support many years ago. Based on the summary it sounded like support had really gone down hill since then. There were really two types of issues described in the fine article: financing and support.
The financing complaints all sound totally legitimate.
The support stuff all sounds like the same old stuff people griped about when I worked there. People griped about this stuff because they didn't read their support contract. Both parties have their end to hold up. In my personal experience, Dell balks at supporting customers who refuse to hold up their end. Yes, this means removing the cover from the PC to troubleshoot. Yes, this means determining what's wrong with the machine over the phone before sending out an on-site tech. Yes, this means you're getting refurbished service parts. These things are all part of how Dell makes money and keeps prices competitive. No one has to take the deal. But once you accept it you can't expect to change the rules to suit your preferences.
-Peter
So, I had a broken A key on a laptop. The damned thing fell off completely. I call up Dell support expecting them to immediatly send out a new keyboard pad. After 45 minutes on hold, the rep decides to take me through Dells little software troubleshooter program they load. I interrupt him "whoa, wait. I am holding the key in my hand! It is completely detached from the keyboard!" His response, "oh...ok...so click on Hardware..." And he continues on with the software troubleshooting!! At the end he asks me if it fixed the issue. I told him "no, I'm still holding the key in my hand." Finally he says "ok, we'll send you out a new keypad"
Look, you may not like the 29.9% rate --- but it is 100% legal and 100% voluntary. The rates that credit cards (of all kinds) charge you are very very high and you certainly have the right NOT to use them. If you didn't read the fine print, that is 100% your problem. Not Dell's.
My question to you is this: why in the fuck are you buying a depreciating consumer item when you do not have the money to afford it?
I really, truly, do not understand some people's financial decisions. Leasing cars, paying ridiculously high APR's....and then wondering why, after all these years of hard work, they are poor.
This is not true. OPEC exists to keep oil prices high
Wrong. OPEC's goal is to keep PROFITS high. Getting the highest profits does NOT result from arbitrarily high prices. But, when producers collaborate, the price at which profit is maximized is higher than where it would be if producers competed. THAT's the goal of a cartel - eliminate downward price pressure caused by competition.
But, even the cartel has long and short term pressures on the oil price. In the short term, if the price goes too high, they move past the optimum point, the decreased volume of sales is not offset by the increased margin, and their profits actually go down. And even if they are at the optimal short-term price point for maximizing profits, in the LONG term, if the short-term price is so high that other people start investing in technology that ultimately reduces the demand for oil, then again, OPEC loses out on profits because in 5 or 10 years, everyone's car runs Ethanol or Vegetable Oil and demand for oil plummets. One of the big reasons we don't have more alternative energy now is that comparatively, gas has been cheap, so there wasn't any incentive to develop something else.
OPEC wants high profits - but to get high profits over the long term, they want to keep oil prices reasonable in the short term to discourage investment in alternative energy sources.
paintball