Chicago Tribune Visits 'Comcast University' > Our job?

Our job?

Ha ha... the onus for getting quality customer service is ON US? Whatever.

I do agree that the tactic works though, when my service was bad, I called multiple times till someone savvy enough answered. I had one experience where I called and was forced into the automated "troubleshooting" hogwash. I got halfway through, hung up, and called back, until I got someone live. Annoying, but it does work.

Why are you guys beating up on the reporter? He is the one that said to call back and get another, not Comcast.. he's just reporting what he found is all..

And, as for the automated troubleshooting.. this is no more than the resistance to power-cycling your modem of the early 2000's.. (which, by the way would resolve at least 70% of the problems out there that no one wanted to listen to) The automated trouble-shooting.. There's a reason why those steps are part of the call process as they resolve most people's problems. They take the most obvious and called-in-on problems and make it a step on the menu tree before getting to a rep.. only the stupid and the ignorant need to hear that from a live person.

So, that 'hogwash" as you call it resolves most people's problems.. I guess getting a HIT from the live agent is any better than the one you get from the computer? .. they all come from the same place... the computer. Also, "make sure your TV is on the right input or channel" sounds better from a live person than the recording? (which is also one of THE largest reasons for someone calling... maybe not many here, but many do)

Many companies are doing this - it's saving them money..

reply to fiberguy

reply to fiberguy

Hey, I just noticed your sig. I was wondering if you think that requesting services for the taxes you pay is the same as the gov't giving it all to you?

reply to SLD
No..... the way I read the comments from users here is that this is based on Comcast and that they shouldn't have to.. which is right. - think context..

The reporter, being a third party, is simply stating what his findings are.. so I remain.

reply to NOVA_Guy
Ummm.. der.. yea.. it IS comcast's problem to find good people as is with any company.. HOWEVER - if you listen and stop being self-serving for 2 seconds (I know it's hard on this site, but try).. he's saying basically is 'what I found is that if you get a bad rep, there are good ones too.. hang up and call back...'

So far, as of yet, I've not seen a reasonable or intelligent response to my post.. at all. You guys are still missing the point and you're still beating up the wrong person. If you are angry, it should be at Comcast.. not the reporter who obviously shares the same frustrations.. Would you have liked his story if he left out the "call back and get another" comment? ... I can answer that based on the tone.. "yes"..

The reporter isn't ignorant as are some of the people in this thread today.. he's simply "reporting" his findings.. HE is not responsible for Comcast.. Comcast is...

Seriously.. jump off the high horse for a second and realize he did what so many people would love to do.. get inside and see for himself... he's just telling you what he found.

reply to NOVA_Guy

said by NOVA_Guy:

said by fiberguy:

Why are you guys beating up on the reporter?

Because of the reporter's ignorant attitude and remarks. Isn't it Comcast's job to find competent CSRs who are capable of solving customer issues?

I guess that intelligence is too much to ask for from your cable company these days...

The reporter should have chosen words carefully; the reason I (and others in this thread) was/were a little surprised was the attitude he used to convey the message. Yes, I didn't give up, so I called and called. Comcast has deemed it financially acceptable to train X number employees with X amount of time spent training. They accept that customers won't be serviced an X percentage of the time, thus the justification of only having so many reps, or automated systems etc... The heart of the matter is if they are consistently at the bottom of service, wouldn't it be more prudent to beef it up to provide more quality, to further their business? Money is the bottom line, and if they feel the levels are acceptable, fine. I am entitled to the opinion that better service yields better business, as supported by my experiences as well as others in the industry. The concept of getting by with as little service as possible to save a buck is the problem, which is one of ethics.