nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| if it's a good deal....
if verizon is willing to give the customer a better deal, what the heck.
in the current, non-competitive market, it sounds like threatening to leave or leaving is the only way to make them notice. how many threads exist talking about getting better offers from comcast or another cable company when they call up to cancel?
it's sad that the customer has to be all but signed up with another provider (in cases where there is one), before the company they left even gives a sh1t. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| True - I like open market approach, however if what they are doing is not legit, then they'll have to stop. This is not much different than slamming/cramming.
quote:
The cable companies also stated that Verizon broke the rules because its knowledge of a customer's intention to switch came from the cable company's number portability request, not from information directly derived from the consumer.
Cable CO says port the line, Verizon's 'retention marketing' has to go and find out who it is, put the status in 'pending' and attempt to win them back while its in transit. I think they're not allowed to do this while the order is pending, especially if it didn't come from the customer.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN
| reply to nasadude
I say give up completely on retention and improve customer service. Beef up quality control with calls and make phone reps responsible for what they say. Then when a customer does threaten to cancel just tell 'em goodbye, cya, we dont play the threaten us game! When they try the other company still spending the money on retention instead of actually having people tell you the truth they'll get fed up with the crap and come back.
--
kustomerservice.net |
|
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| reply to en102
No the problem is that LNP requests do not require Verizon to call their customer. Verizon is using the request as an excuse to have a rep from the retention department make a sales pitch to them to keep/delay them from switching services.
The only problem I have is most likely the deal verizon cuts with the customer most likely also has a min 2 year committment attached to it. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| I guess I worded my response a bit wrong with the 'Verizon's retention dept. "has" to go out and win back. It's an excuse for their marketing department to have a chance to attempt to win you back. Their marketing/retentions should only be involved before the port was initiated, and after it is complete.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to en102
Nope, it is up to a $60,000 fine from the FCC per occurrence. Hate to see VZ's FCC bill. They could buy Martin and there is no way around the fines. Kind of a law in the 1996 Telecom Act that never has been changed. Not sure if it applies to anyone but the RBOCs since they are considered monopolies by Congress. It is anti-competitive by the way.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Good - I hope they get a large bill.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
meister_sd
Premium
join:2006-01-29
La Mesa, CA
| reply to Chuckles
said by Chuckles  :I say give up completely on retention and improve customer service. Beef up quality control with calls and make phone reps responsible for what they say. Then when a customer does threaten to cancel just tell 'em goodbye, cya, we dont play the threaten us game! When they try the other company still spending the money on retention instead of actually having people tell you the truth they'll get fed up with the crap and come back. I'm sorry, is this a Sprint thread?  |
|
