NTL Not interested in long standing customers

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Neil

You're missing the point a bit here.....

It's that "take it or leave it" attitude that loses customers for any company.

The point that is being missed is that someone has to bear the cost of any subsidy, incentive, bribe, or whatever you want to call it given to customers.

Who bears the cost?

The customers that don't get a reduction in price. They either have to pay an higher price because the cost of these incentives are factored in to their price or suffer the effects of the company having less cash to invest in the infrastructure and services.

[Graham F]

Originally Posted by Neil

Most companies would not treat their customers like the 2 posters here.
Please read the thread again & tell me if you think that the CSR's responses were acceptable.



If ntl don't want to keep a customer that spends £80.00 per monjth with them because they can't make a profit from that, then ntl are in bigger trouble than they realise.

OB-Why can't you just accept my point that these people were treated in an attrocious manner & ntl (or any company that spoke to customers like that) do not deserve that person's money.

Don't make this thread out to be something it's not-we are discussing the manner in which these wage paying customers were spoken to & treated by ntl.

[Edit]-Or perhaps you feel it's ok for those CSRs to deal with ntl customers in that way?

I know I don't......

lol...chill neil

Is it not the case often that people think they are being delat with badly when they don't get what they want?

for example - I had a customer complain about me the other day because I was not able ot offer an evening appt, even though the company i work for does not offer that. they said my attitude stunk and i didn't know anything about customer services. When in fact my attitude was no different to all the happy people i speak to all day every day, bad news is hard to execpt for some people, especially when they expect to get something then are told no you can't have it

morale of the story from my point of view is don't ring a company threatening to leave unless they give you a new offer!! As sometimes companies are not going to give you what you want.

hope that all makes sense, kinda posting between calls at work

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Neil

Most companies would not treat their customers like the 2 posters here.
Please read the thread again & tell me if you think that the CSR's responses were acceptable.



If ntl don't want to keep a customer that spends £80.00 per monjth with them because they can't make a profit from that, then ntl are in bigger trouble than they realise.

OB-Why can't you just accept my point that these people were treated in an attrocious manner & ntl (or any company that spoke to customers like that) do not deserve that person's money.

Don't make this thread out to be something it's not-we are discussing the manner in which these wage paying customers were spoken to & treated by ntl.

[Edit]-Or perhaps you feel it's ok for those CSRs to deal with ntl customers in that way?

I know I don't......

You can take the customers of any large company and find a few customers who say that they have suffered a similar response from the CS department. NTL are not unique here. You tend to find that a customer who doesn't get his/her own way can give a very much embroidered version of what happened during their exchange with the customer service agent. I have spent hours watching and listening to till point CCTV tapes following customer complaints and have found the complainants version more often than not is far from the truth of what actually happened.

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by Neil

Mark-with respect.....

You can't say "they do", because is it clear from the thread starter's post that "they don't"!

The only point that I am trying to make is that any company that lets nigh on £1000 per year's worth of business go that easily clearly doesn't give a you know what, & must have a very arrogant attitude towards it's customers.

You're taking what a couple of staff said to a customer, which I can tell you quite categorically they should not have done, and presuming that to be the policy of the entire company.

You must remember that for the last 18 months my entire job has been retaining customers. I *know* how important the company consider this to be, I have sat in on meeting after meeting after meeting where the latest retention strategies were briefed out, where ideas and feedback were asked for, where managers drummed it into us how we must NOT just let customers go, I'm the one who has had calls monitored and scored and had managers point out everything I could have done to save that customer but didn't.
So please, don't tell me ntl don't care about retaining existing customers, because I know full well that they do.

As for individual staff telling people they can 'take it or leave it', if it's that blatant they should go, however, do remember things get twisted. There are many customers who ring up month after month wanting discount after discount after discount, there comes a point when these people have to be told, 'sorry, but we can do no more for you in this regard'. Usually when I tell a customer that, I get a complaint made against me about me 'bad attitude'. So please try and see the other side of the coin. No company should routinely bribe its customers to stay by throwing money at them...there's a lot more to Retentions than that.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Neil

Most companies would not treat their customers like the 2 posters here.
Please read the thread again & tell me if you think that the CSR's responses were acceptable.

It was entirely acceptable IMO. The CSR explained to the customer what he could do to get the discount he wanted, and he didn't like the answer, then threatened to leave. The CSR said it's up to him, which it is.. - I can't see what so unacceptable about that?

If ntl don't want to keep a customer that spends £80.00 per monjth with them because they can't make a profit from that, then ntl are in bigger trouble than they realise.

But if he got his discount, ntl wouldn't be getting £80 a month, would they....

OB-Why can't you just accept my point that these people were treated in an attrocious manner & ntl (or any company that spoke to customers like that) do not deserve that person's money.

Because I don't think he was treated attrociously at all. He didn't get what he wanted and got the hump. And you're being melodramatic.

Don't make this thread out to be something it's not-we are discussing the manner in which these wage paying customers were spoken to & treated by ntl.

I'm sorry??????!! Maybe we're reading different posts, but from what I can see, the post was about an existing customer not getting the same deals a new customer would, being told by the CSR he couldn't get the deal he wanted, then the customer threatening to leave, and the CSR telling him in a perfectly civil manner that that was his choice, and then the custiner throwing his toys out of the pram. I do believe it's you making the thread out to be something it's not.

[Edit]-Or perhaps you feel it's ok for those CSRs to deal with ntl customers in that way?

I know I don't......

I don't think customers being treated shoddily by CSRs is at all OK - but neither do I think that just because I don't get or hear what I want all the time, that I've been treated badly. Which is what IMO seems to be the case here.

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by Neil

Most companies would not treat their customers like the 2 posters here.
Please read the thread again & tell me if you think that the CSR's responses were acceptable.

No they weren't, but what you've done Neil, again, is taken this and stated that it is the company's official policy and that therefore every single customer is treated like this.

It simply isn't the case, and it's actually offensive to me personally, given that Retentions was my job until two weeks ago, to suggest that it is.

Please differentiate between one member of staff apparently giving a poor service, and the national policy of the company as a whole, because at the moment you're not doing.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Mark B

You're taking what a couple of staff said to a customer, which I can tell you quite categorically they should not have done, and presuming that to be the policy of the entire company.

You must remember that for the last 18 months my entire job has been retaining customers. I *know* how important the company consider this to be, I have sat in on meeting after meeting after meeting where the latest retention strategies were briefed out, where ideas and feedback were asked for, where managers drummed it into us how we must NOT just let customers go, I'm the one who has had calls monitored and scored and had managers point out everything I could have done to save that customer but didn't.
So please, don't tell me ntl don't care about retaining existing customers, because I know full well that they do.

As for individual staff telling people they can 'take it or leave it', if it's that blatant they should go, however, do remember things get twisted. There are many customers who ring up month after month wanting discount after discount after discount, there comes a point when these people have to be told, 'sorry, but we can do more for you in this regard'. Usually when I tell a customer that, I get a complaint made against me about me 'bad attitude'. So please try and see the other side of the coin. No company should routinely bribe its customers to stay by throwing money at them...there's a lot more to Retentions than that.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

The point that is being missed is that someone has to bear the cost of any subsidy, incentive, bribe, or whatever you want to call it given to customers.

Who bears the cost?

The customers that don't get a reduction in price. They either have to pay an higher price because the cost of these incentives are factored in to their price or suffer the effects of the company having less cash to invest in the infrastructure and services.

So who "bears the cost" of a CSR that openly lets a customer (who invests £960.00 per year) just walk away?

The existing customers do of course!!

Whatever way you look at it, & whatever way you dress it up, losing customer's business in this day & age has an affect not only on the business, but also the existing customers.

Loss of revenue is not a good thing for any business.

[zovat]

The problem is (IMHO) that there is a danger of setting a precedent.

If everyone was to call and say "give me this special offer or I will walk" and NTL did this, then NTL would be making a loss on all fronts.

NTL, like any other company, will give people reduced rates to get them to join, once they have joined, they are likely to stay, and the price goes up to the standard rate.

In this case, it sounds like the CSR did not follow procedure and put the call through to retentions, however, the meat of the discussion seems ok to me - if someone is threatening to leave, and you cannot accede to their demands, then they have the right to change suppliers, should they wish to do so, that is their choice to make.

the wording may or may not be exact, however what is often missed in these transcript type discussions, is the tone in which things were said.

"I'm sorry, there is nothing more I can do for you" can be said in such a way as to be seen os "go away, I can't be arsed to help", or "I really wish I could help you, but I am unable to do so".

The fact is that someone wanted a discount that new customers were being offered as an incentive, and was refused that discount - they were given an option - cancel, then sign up again - but declined it.

We cannot always get what we want, and sometimes it is easier to moan about the person, rather than admit that you tried (no harm in trying, after all ) and failed to get a discount.

Just remember - you probably got some kind of incentive when you joined, so you really should not complain that others get one when they join.

As ever - just my opinions - feel free to ignore or disagree

Originally Posted by orangebird

Deep joy. Another 'bash ntl thread' for no good reason other than operating in a way the most companies do.
TBH, why would ntl want to keep a customer, if they're not making any profit?

Right, I'm paying NTL around £1500 a year for the services they provide. If they're not making a profit out of me then they shouldn't be in business, end of chat. But for that £1500 I expect delivery of products and service, not notoriously fragile servers and equally notoriously bad customer service.

And retaining existing customers is far cheaper than recruiting new ones. So treating your customers with decency and respect is an investment; it will return greater profitability in the long term.

NTL certainly do not operate in a way most companies do. I have longstanding trading relationships with many companies who manage to treat me with courtesy and respect. Companies who when things go wrong, acknowledge it and fix it. In crass marketing terms this is called turning an 'ouch' into a 'wow'. NTL turn an 'ouch' into a 'life threatening injury'. They are inept.

The sad thing is that when the products work, they're great. But when they don't (which happens far, far too frequently) NTL just don't know how to deal with it. Let's just hope the planned new CS regime which they're currently trumpeting (and using as an excuse for current service levels) is more than a load of hot air. Then perhaps we won't have cause for another NTL bashing thread.

Finally Neil, I take your point about switching back to BT. But I'd still need to get lines re-connected, pay a broadband installation fee etc. Then there's the telly (I'd gladly get rid but the kids would lynch me). What I want, and I'm sure everyone else does, is to deliver what they promise in their marketing. Then we'll be happy and they'll make money.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Mark B

No they weren't, but what you've done Neil, again, is taken this and stated that it is the company's official policy and that therefore every single customer is treated like this.

It simply isn't the case, and it's actually offensive to me personally, given that Retentions was my job until two weeks ago, to suggest that it is.

Please differentiate between one member of staff apparently giving a poor service, and the national policy of the company as a whole, because at the moment you're not doing.

Here we go again....

How many more times do I have to point out that when I say "ntl treats it customers badly" I am not referring to all staff??

I know that their are plenty of customers who are perfectly happy with the treatment they receive from ntl.

I am only referring to the muppets that have been referred to by the posters in this thread.

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by Neil

Here we go again....

How many more times do I have to point out that when I say "ntl treats it customers badly" I am not referring to all staff??

I know that their are plenty of customers who are perfectly happy with the treatment they receive from ntl.

I am only referring to the muppets that have been referred to by the posters in this thread.

But you're not Neil, you're saying that this is the policy of the company, when it isn't.

Any member of staff that thinks customers leaving is unimportant shouldn't be in the job, and I know their managers would say the same thing.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by andyl

Right, I'm paying NTL around £1500 a year for the services they provide. If they're not making a profit out of me then they shouldn't be in business, end of chat. But for that £1500 I expect delivery of products and service, not notoriously fragile servers and equally notoriously bad customer service.

And retaining existing customers is far cheaper than recruiting new ones. So treating your customers with decency and respect is an investment; it will return greater profitability in the long term.

NTL certainly do not operate in a way most companies do. I have longstanding trading relationships with many companies who manage to treat me with courtesy and respect. Companies who when things go wrong, acknowledge it and fix it. In crass marketing terms this is called turning an 'ouch' into a 'wow'. NTL turn an 'ouch' into a 'life threatening injury'. They are inept.

The sad thing is that when the products work, they're great. But when they don't (which happens far, far too frequently) NTL just don't know how to deal with it. Let's just hope the planned new CS regime which they're currently trumpeting (and using as an excuse for current service levels) is more than a load of hot air. Then perhaps we won't have cause for another NTL bashing thread.

Originally Posted by andyl

Finally Neil, I take your point about switching back to BT. But I'd still need to get lines re-connected, pay a broadband installation fee etc. Then there's the telly (I'd gladly get rid but the kids would lynch me). What I want, and I'm sure everyone else does, is to deliver what they promise in their marketing. Then we'll be happy and they'll make money.

Fair point, but BT would reconnect you for free, & most ISPs are doing free/discounted activation on their BB products (such is the market today)

Sky do free installs on their DTV packages, & Freeview is just a case of plugging in the STB normally, but I do totally take you point that you just want the service that you are paying for from ntl.

Great post BTW.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Neil

Here we go again....

How many more times do I have to point out that when I say "ntl treats it customers badly" I am not referring to all staff??

I know that their are plenty of customers who are perfectly happy with the treatment they receive from ntl.

I am only referring to the muppets that have been referred to by the posters in this thread.

I beg to differ - where in this thread have you stated that it's a singular case?

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Mark B

But you're not Neil, you're saying that this is the policy of the company, when it isn't.

Any member of staff that thinks customers leaving is unimportant shouldn't be in the job, and I know their managers would say the same thing.

So why is this attitude still present within ntl?

You know as well as I do, that this must be the oldest complaint aimed at ntl over the years, & yet it is clearly still happening.