While I understand you're thought on this, the analogy fails because you're comparing a service (cell phone service) with a product (food). The restaurant has to pay for napkins, sugar packets, etc.; Sprint is already paying the CSR. The other problem is not that Sprint is partly to blame, it is entirely (or, perhaps, almost entirely) to blame; there is no reason customers should have to put up with bad service, let alone have their accounts closed for complaining about bad service. I work on a help desk and know the customer is NOT always right, but that's not really the issue here. Sprint is not doing their job, and expect most customer to do nothing because they cannot - unlike poor service at the restaurant, where a customer can go somewhere else, Sprint customers are locked in for anywhere from 1 to 2 years. Also, you repeatedly mention these customers not being profitable without any explanation. If I'm being incorrectly billed, or not getting the service I'm paying for (eg, dropped calls, missed messages), why is it my fault I have to call customer service? It would be one thing if the company in question were living up to their end and a few customers were simply calling in over & over again because they enjoyed listening to their hold music. One last thought - if most of your customers are happy and love your product/service, and you only have a few people making a big stink over nothing, than your analogy might make sense; the problem with Sprint is that a large number of customers who have had to deal with their customer service haven't been happy with it (me being one of them).
Personally, I think this is a scare tactic on Sprint's part. If they can get most of their customers to shut up about the problems they're having, they don't have to be bothered with improving customer service. Why call in about dropped calls, or being over billed, if Sprint might claim you're just whining too much and give you 2 weeks to find new service? Since what constitutes calling in too much is a big secret, and they don't have to give you any warning about exceeding your 'customer service minutes', anyone might fall into this category. Mike Lax From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig Froehle Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 11:43 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Treo] Sprint canning users who complain too much On 7/6/07, Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:treo2%40jasons.us> > wrote: > > With all due respect I think you missed a bit with the analogy. If the > customer came in every morning, noon and night and ordered a full meal and > always paid in full you'd be unwise to run him out the door, That's true *if* the customer is using my resources to a degree that I'm able to make a profit on his food purchase and other sources of revenue (e.g., referrals, etc.). Turning away customers you simply cannot make happy no matter what you do is just smart business. And the customers themselves may be better off in the long-run by seeking out a service provider that _can_ make them happy. especially if > your restaurant were losing money and had a reputation for lousy food and > poor service. Maybe it's just time to turn off the lights, then, no? Not every company deserves to remain in business. Even if the customer is very demanding of the staff. The > restaurants next door, VerPieZone and AT&Tacos, have better food and > friendlier waitstaffs - can you afford to send a profitable customer over > there? THAT IS THE POINT. Sprint is sending **non-profitable** customers elsewhere. Customers who _cost_ Sprint more to serve than what Sprint makes up in revenue are not good customers to retain. Sprint isn't terminating these customers for not paying their bills but > for using up more resources than they would like. That's my point. Nowhere did I suggest in my analogy that the person didn't pay for the coffee, just that he didn't generate enough revenue to cover the expenses he created. That's exactly what Sprint is complaining about. Should my ISP cancel my > contract with them just because I'm using the full 20mbit they allow me, > even though they oversubscribe the network and don't expect anyone to use > that much for more than a few minutes at a time? Maybe...if they are taking a daily average loss on your account, why should they keep you? Your ISP isn't a charity, is it? If I were violating > their terms of service (spamming, distributing viruses, etc) that's one > thing, but the Sprint contract doesn't give any warning about calling > support too much. And that's the worst part: this was done without > warning. The issue isn't whether it's fair (it's not...cellular contracts are heavily weighted in favor of the provider), it's whether it makes any sense for Sprint to do this. And it does...that's my point. Back to the restaurant, would you ask the customer to be a bit > easier on the staff and not take all of the napkins or would you just turn > him away at the door without warning? You can bet he's going to tell his > friends if you do the latter and they'll avoid your place too, deceasing > business that much further. That's why I teach my students how to analyze customers to determine which really should be dropped. Corrective action prior to this may have already been tried and failed...we don't know for sure. Chances are that if these customers that are complaining/calling constantly, they are already spreading a lot of negative word-of-mouth about Sprint, so dropping them now makes even more sense. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
