Verizon Makes Offering Service Blocks a Fireable Offense

Presto Vivace sends in a report from David Pogue at the New York Times, who learned from a Verizon customer service representative that the company has implemented a policy of punishing employees who suggest certain service blocks to customers looking to avoid unwanted or accidental fees. According to the representative, offering (for example) a web access block or premium SMS block without the customer asking for it can now lead to a reprimand or outright termination. The CSRs have also been directed to avoid issuing credits for such charges. "Essentially, we are to upsell customers on the $9.99 25mb/month or $29.99 unlimited packages for customers. Customers are not to be credited for charges unless they ask for the credit. And in cases such as data or premium SMS, where the occurrences may have gone months without the consumer noticing, only an initial credit can be issued."

Comments

Surprise?

[colinrichardday]

Is this really such a surprise?

Customer Service Is a Misnomer

[qbel]

It is very likely the customer service representatives who are offering those service blocks to better accommodate those customers are the better representatives who are actually trying to do a good job. And people wonder why customer service for some companies is so horrible, it is because of policies like this.

Re:Customer Service Is a Misnomer

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It is very likely the customer service representatives who are offering those service blocks to better accommodate those customers are the better representatives who are actually trying to do a good job. And people wonder why customer service for some companies is so horrible, it is because of policies like this.

Its the bean-counters' fault.
Revenue losses from service blocks and credits are really easy to measure.
Profits from customers made happy by good customer service are really hard to measure.
So, as is frequently the case when organizations become hyper-focused on metrics,
decisions get made that maximize metrics but don't make good business sense.

Re:Customer Service

[nitehawk214]

All snarking aside - this is a case of CSRs forgetting who they work for. They work for Verizon - NOT the customer. They have to keep "what is best for Verizon" in mind when dealing with customers.

All snarking aside - this is a case of Verizon forgetting who they work for. They work for the Customers - NOT the money. They have to keep "what is best for Customers" in mind when dealing with money.

Yeah, I know I am full of crap. I hate big soulless companies too. But if their policy is to screw their customers at every turn, they will lose me as a customer.

Re:Should be automatic

[webdog314]

I really don't understand this attitude. There aren't "plenty of other companies to choose from", there are _maybe_ FOUR of any quality and coverage, and they all do the same thing. Simply taking the 'regulation bad, freedom good' line is moronic. Complaining about telco atrocities is almost a standard pastime here on Slashdot, yet when someone suggests a possible solution via actually forcing the telcos to stop raping the consumer the response is 'no regulation'? WTF?! Like they are going to suddenly get all warm and fuzzy and do it on their own?

Re:Should be automatic

[TubeSteak]

No, the one thing we do NOT need is more federal regulation. There are plenty of other companies to choose from; pick a prepaid company and work with them.

As a country, we decided a long time ago that consumer protections are more important than allowing the free hand of the market to work its magic.

In other words: just because there are better options, doesn't mean we should allow abusive practices to continue.

Re:Rife

[Imrik]

No, the 10% get fired when their bosses find out that they're trying to help the customers.