Strange Customer Service Scenario. Am I an A-hole?

codrus wrote: It's about money. Businesses depend on their internet connections to make money, so they insist on decent support for them, and are willing to pay what it takes have that support. Consumers don't, they care much more about price, and you get what you pay for.

If you'll excuse me, I am paying Comcast nearly $200. per month for internet, VOIP phone service, and a HD cable package with DVR that includes NO premium channels. In my opinion, their service is overpriced by a factor of 2X. So, since I'm paying twice what my service is worth, how about a little Berking customer service?!

I had Comcast for years. It was hell. I was throwing a Super Bowl party one year. The cable went out. I called immediately to see if it could be fixed by something on their end. After missing about half the game, they got it back on. I asked the person on the line if I could get some kind of credit for this happening. he said, "it was out for like an hour, you want a 25 cent credit?"

You know it's bad when your small business service response ends up in a discussion comparing the customer service model of Comcast.

That's Comcastic!

Lof8 wrote: I had Comcast for years. It was hell. I was throwing a Super Bowl party one year. The cable went out. I called immediately to see if it could be fixed by something on their end. After missing about half the game, they got it back on. I asked the person on the line if I could get some kind of credit for this happening. he said, "it was out for like an hour, you want a 25 cent credit?"

Maybe you didn't bitch loudly enough?

I called yesterday with the mentality that I was not getting off the phone without getting a substantial discount on my bill or cancelling my service. Guy tells me "Well, we can offer a discount blah blah prorated off your monthly bill blah blah depending on how long your service was out" So I ask if that's gonna be like $.75 if its only out a couple hours, he tells me they'll count the whole day, which worked out to $5 and change. I kept bitching and told him that wasn't good enough for the amount of aggravation they've put me through and threatened to cancel. Ultimately got $20 off.

+1 on the squeaky wheel thing. I have to call every year when my "special pricing" expires and they jack my bill north of $200. That's when I call and threaten to cancel. They always manage to trim some money off, just never enough. If there was a viable high-speed internet option (i.e. no monopoly), I would have satellite installed tomorrow.

WOW Really Paul? wrote: In reply to codrus: Yea, I don't get it. The business class side of Comcast is actually pretty freaking good..... In other news, I keep hearing ATT is making an epic push towards making Comcast in general look good....lol

Yeah and with ATTs latest acquisition my employment hangs in the balance

Speaking of cable company customer service:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0sAVtOt2wA (embedding disabled on this video :( )

OTOH, when i got my cable set up, the technician who came to our house was efficient, polite, and downright friendly. No problems there.

To the original topic, my dad owns a small business and has some bad customers now and then, but I would be horrified if he went online and called any of them 'whiny' in a public forum full of potential customers.

Fair has a right to act how he wants, this is a free country and I don't want that to change. He isn't bankrupt, so his company can't be all that poorly run, and I applaud anyone who can make a business selling performance parts for cars. We would all be happier if there were more companies out there selling quality products, but alas the market can't support that. OTOH, i can't stand shiny happy people, and the thought of giving one my money sickens me, so if you're still watching, add me to your banned list. My last name is my forum name, just ban us all.

moparman76_69 wrote:

WOW Really Paul? wrote: In reply to codrus: Yea, I don't get it. The business class side of Comcast is actually pretty freaking good..... In other news, I keep hearing ATT is making an epic push towards making Comcast in general look good....lol

Yeah and with ATTs latest acquisition my employment hangs in the balance

Ahh, Direct?

If you get the chance to swap over into one of ATT's positions, go for it. They have one division that is basically network but they have to do something stupid like 2 jobs per day to meet rate.

And now back from our regularly scheduled Comcast bashing already in progress....

Did the OP lose anything? Possibly. Perhaps Vorschlag had exactly what he was looking for at a great price.

Did Vorschlag lose? Possibly. Maybe the OP comes back and reorders if treated more civilly. Maybe he finds a better price somewhere else in the interim.

Did GRM lose? Definitely. I have the December issue on my desk here. I did not see a Vorschlag ad in it. I do not know if Vorschlag has ever bought ads in the past. However, they will most likely not be buying any in the future since forum members spent the better part of six pages (two were dedicated mostly to bashing Comcast) calling out the owner for being a douche.

The OP asked whether there was something wrong with the way he handled the situation. Probably not, though cancelling on a big order is annoying. Except maybe revealing the vendor's name.

Certainly there was a better way the vendor could react. He could've emailed the OP privately, reinstated him as a show of good faith, and asked that the OP please make absolutely sure he's ready to throw down when the time comes. The OP would most likely report to us all about the vendor's change of heart and once again peace would reign in the valley.

There is enough vitriol going around for everyone to get splashed with it, including a certain magazine which has no dog in this fight. I just think when these flame wars with potential ad buyers get messy, everyone should remember whose pool we're playing in and refrain from pissing in it.

Next time, let's keep the vendor's name out of it unless it's a clear case of fraudulent activity /identity theft or something of that ilk. Public shaming didn't work in the 1600s. It doesn't work now, especially if the vendor ends up damaged beyond repair just for being a shiny happy person. You'll find sympathy shifting in the opposite direction then, causing possible further damage to the pool management.

Consider it from another angle: Isn't it better if GRM management knows that a potential advertiser offers this kind of customer service before giving them something of an endorsement through placement in the magazine?

GameboyRMH wrote: Consider it from another angle: Isn't it better if GRM management knows that a potential advertiser offers this kind of customer service before giving them something of an endorsement through placement in the magazine?

That is a real slippery slope. I never consider any advertiser in GRM to be an endorsement by GRM. All it means is that they ponied up the $$$$ and purchased an add. No more no less.

But if there is mention of someone in an article saying they provided seller service or a good price that is something I take note of.

GameboyRMH wrote: Consider it from another angle: Isn't it better if GRM management knows that a potential advertiser offers this kind of customer service before giving them something of an endorsement through placement in the magazine?

This. Plus, public shaming does work. It allows others to know who and what they're dealing with.

It is not news that someone in the automotive aftermarket is a E36 M3head. Perhaps that had a chance to be resolved before it blew up. Not any more.

There is no evidence of fraud, identity theft, bait-and-switch, take-my-money-and-where's-my-part or anything like that. There is an abrupt order cancellation and a hair-trigger response to that. How many times has an entity promised to buy a half-page ad in America's Most Beloved Automotive Publication, then reneged? I bet some phone calls were made. There might've been some swearing involved. Perhaps an alternative agreement was reached. I can guarantee the publisher did not head for the Big Publisher's Bulletin Board and tell everyone who's an ass.

You gotta leave people some wiggle room. Lof8 lost a supplier. Verschlag lost a customer. I guarantee you, one phone call to Verschlag explaining this time the order will go through and they take his money. If that happened, one apology (or some make-good like a free t-shirt) would come Lof8's way. Not now.

Bobzilla wrote: This. Plus, public shaming does work. It allows others to know who and what they're dealing with.

No, it doesn't. It provides an extremely narrow view of a certain set of circumstances, often damaging someone beyond redemption, either far beyond the scope of the incident or falsely accusing someone of something they didn't do.

Jerry From LA wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: This. Plus, public shaming does work. It allows others to know who and what they're dealing with.

No, it doesn't. It provides an extremely narrow view of a certain set of circumstances, often damaging someone beyond redemption, either far beyond the scope of the incident or falsely accusing someone of something they didn't do.

Actually it does. I speak from experience. Companies react to social media and one off cases very rapidly.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote:

Jerry From LA wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: This. Plus, public shaming does work. It allows others to know who and what they're dealing with.

No, it doesn't. It provides an extremely narrow view of a certain set of circumstances, often damaging someone beyond redemption, either far beyond the scope of the incident or falsely accusing someone of something they didn't do.

Actually it does. I speak from experience. Companies react to social media and one off cases very rapidly.

Ditto. I do as well. Previous employer (and current as well, but differnet field) reacted VERY quickly to social media. They (we) would reach out and do everything in their power to make it right, even if the customer was in the wrong..... that part I don't agree with.

If you're the head/spokesperson and you act like a child, you should expect to be singled out. Don't like it? Don't be the that person (whether it not be the head or not be a child). The choice is completely theirs.

In reply to Jerry From LA:

FWIW, they have run advertisements in the past, even well after the last Fair episode. Honestly, how Terry runs his business is his own choice. Just the same as his responses here and the OP's choice to share his own experience. I think nothing less of either party in this, and honestly think it doesn't really matter in the long run. Some people will always like abrasive personalities, some will dislike them, and some just enjoy watching the world burn.

Anyone who thinks Terry is bad needs to really piss off the owner of ZeroLift. He will troll you into converting to Amish......and he's awesome for that.

1988RedT2 wrote: +1 on the squeaky wheel thing.

The squeaky wheel is also the first to be replaced.

In reply to Jerry From LA:

Another thing to consider is that more than likely the vast majority of GRM subscribers/readers don't frequent the forum.

1988RedT2 wrote:

codrus wrote: It's about money. Businesses depend on their internet connections to make money, so they insist on decent support for them, and are willing to pay what it takes have that support. Consumers don't, they care much more about price, and you get what you pay for.

If you'll excuse me, I am paying Comcast nearly $200. per month for internet, VOIP phone service, and a HD cable package with DVR that includes NO premium channels. In my opinion, their service is overpriced by a factor of 2X. So, since I'm paying twice what my service is worth, how about a little Berking customer service?!

You guys think Comcast is bad, try living with Metrocast. I have no HD, about 80 channels, no velocity, 4 meg internet (even if you pay for 6,12. 20... thats all you get, 4) no phone, continuous pixelization, which is really funny considering they run commercials talking about if you switch do a dish you will get rain fade. All this for $150 a month, and if you call and tell them you are going to a dish because of the cost, they don't care they just inform you they will keep billing you until you return the dta box. Inform them about the pixelization, we don't see it here...funny, I see it on my TV and when I check with my GF on the other side of town she sees it, next they tell you they dont have a TV to check or they claim its the broadcaster....call to my parents in MA with Comcast, they are ok, funny its just people on metrocast.

They are the only game in town and they know it, other than a dish, no hope of FIOS as Verizon sold of ME,NT,VT to Fairpoint, who has their hands full trying to keep the copper phone/dsl network up.

Sorry for the rant.

Steve

8 pages? Really?

I expected 10.

Real quick…we’ve got Time Warner and decided to switch to a competitor.

Competitor has two guys spend an entire day ripping out concrete, laying upgraded cable, and re-pouring the concrete…all that remained was to come back the next day to swap out the boxes, throw a switch, and do a system check.

They showed up the next day after their service call window and no one was home as my wife had gone back to work. When they called to reschedule, my wife told them it’s over, you blew it, we’re done. They literally pleaded with her for another chance but she wouldn’t budge…eat E36 M3 Berktards – click –

I don’t derive any enjoyment from burning companies but I’m sure they habitually overbook to ensure there’s always work in the que at the customer’s expense.

Bottom line, I think we did something of a public service by imposing a cost on a company for treating its customers poorly.

GameboyRMH wrote: Consider it from another angle: Isn't it better if GRM management knows that a potential advertiser offers this kind of customer service before giving them something of an endorsement through placement in the magazine?

dean1484 wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: Consider it from another angle: Isn't it better if GRM management knows that a potential advertiser offers this kind of customer service before giving them something of an endorsement through placement in the magazine?

That is a real slippery slope. I never consider any advertiser in GRM to be an endorsement by GRM. All it means is that they ponied up the $$$$ and purchased an add. No more no less. But if there is mention of someone in an article saying they provided seller service or a good price that is something I take note of.

one thing to add to this ... GRM has shown considerable restraint and foresight in who/what they accept as customers (via ad's) and I'm sure that Tim and the rest of the crowd are aware of Terry's rep in the aftermarket world ... this by NO MEANS the first of these types of exchanges between him and customers/potential customers ..

if memory serves (keep in mind the age of this poster LOL) I seem to remember this same sort of exchange involving him in the past on this forum ... could have been other forum(s)

I don't know the other stories.. Just the one about V not willing to sell a part for a random application. And now this tantrum.

Is there more?

Because I thoroughly enjoy Terry's build documentarys and I fail to understand the justification for all the hatred.

Bobzilla wrote:

Fueled by Caffeine wrote:

Jerry From LA wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: This. Plus, public shaming does work. It allows others to know who and what they're dealing with.

No, it doesn't. It provides an extremely narrow view of a certain set of circumstances, often damaging someone beyond redemption, either far beyond the scope of the incident or falsely accusing someone of something they didn't do.

Actually it does. I speak from experience. Companies react to social media and one off cases very rapidly.

Ditto. I do as well. Previous employer (and current as well, but differnet field) reacted VERY quickly to social media. They (we) would reach out and do everything in their power to make it right, even if the customer was in the wrong..... that part I don't agree with. If you're the head/spokesperson and you act like a child, you should expect to be singled out. Don't like it? Don't be the that person (whether it not be the head or not be a child). The choice is completely theirs.

You guys have a different definition of public shaming than I do. You are talking more like consumer advocacy.