posted
Vincent Ferrari called AOL seeking to cancel his account.
quote:FERRARI: Listen, I called to cancel the account. Helping me would be canceling the account. Please help me and cancel the account. AOL: No, it wouldn't actually. FERRARI: Cancel my account. AOL: Turning off your account, ... FERRARI: Cancel the account. AOL: ... would be the worst thing that FERRARI: Cancel the account.
The recording is on the page linked to below-- and it is actually only part of the conversation. At one point, AOL asks to speak to Vincent's father.
Vincent is 30.
quote:AOL: OK, cause I'm just trying to figure out FERRARI: Cancel the account. I don't know how to make this any clearer for you. Cancel the account. When I say cancel the account, I don't mean help me figure out how to keep it, I mean cancel the account. AOL: Well, I'm sorry, I don't know what anybody's done to you Vincent because all I'm FERRARI: Will you please cancel the account?
posted
In his article, he says he called AOL to really see if cancelling his service would be as difficult as everyone says. It was an experiment. I imagine he wanted to do it the hard way without going straight to the person who could possibly get it done faster.
Posts: 2064 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have mixed feelings here. I partly agree with the comment from the Consumerist page below:
quote:Has anyone considered that the AOL rep might have suspected that there was some kind of social engineering going on? Given the high amount of press AOL received from people being able to social engineer their way to cause misery to other AOL users, I'm certain that their reps were trained to listen for clues for people who are just trying to cause grief. Just playing Devils Advocate here. Judging by the way the questions were phrased I believe that the rep didn't believe the caller was who he claimed to be-- and instead just thought it was some dumb kid calling to be a prick or cause grief on an account that had, as far as he could tell, legitimate use on it (A claim that contradicted what the caller stated, an immediate red flag for someone who would have been on the lookout for a social engineering attack).
This is a legitimate reason to have brought up the usage statistics in the first place.
On the other hand, Vincent said that the account was under his name, and it was his credit card - all of that information should have been on file, and readily accesible by the CSR. Once that had been confirmed, it was pretty thick-witted and downright rude/hostile to continue pressing the point.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had a very similar situation when I canceled my account. And then come to find out 8 months later, the account had not been canceled. After a move and losing the confirmation number. I was out the charges for 8 months of service, that my bank allowed to be charged to a void credit card account. Needless to say, lots of lawyers and a huge legal battle later, I got back about 1/2 of what was owed me. AOL is the devil of corporate business and I will never use an AOL product again in my life (other then the disks they are great for target practice).
Posts: 224 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It reminds me of the time I had aol and tried to cancel it, but each time they said I could have more free months...they ended up giving me 9 months free before I finally got sick of calling them to cancel every month, and told them to just end it.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm about to watch the interview with the rep. But before I do so, I will say that I just listened to the call, and I think this rep is a scapegoat. I think he did exactly what AOL wants their reps to do -- because I experienced almost exactly the same thing about 5 years back when I cancelled my AOL account. They won't let you off the phone, they continually insist that you keep your account, they argue with whatever reason you give them for canceling... I don't think this guy Jon violated AOL policies at all.
Okay, now to watch the interview...
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They won't let you off the phone, they continually insist that you keep your account, they argue with whatever reason you give them for canceling... I don't think this guy Jon violated AOL policies at all.
Well, you know what we need to do, then-- get a whole bunch of people to call and cancel and record the conversations.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They exist.. but the ones I know seem to want to keep it. I remember helping people get used to a cable modem after having AOL. They have a hard time understanding that they're automatically online and they don't have to click on anything like the AOL icon. Also, they get so used to filtering the entire internet through AOL's browser that getting them to understand what the Internet is really like is hard. No, the net is not just a browser, and yes, there are browsers other than AOL, and no, websites have URLs, not keywords...
I think it's sad that AOL is making this rep their scapegoat. This is definitely AOL policy--these reps are rewarded according to how many accounts they keep.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've worked in a calling center before for a comparable company and AOL doesn't seem to operate much differently.
When you call, depending on what you choose, your call is flagged for Add, rem, Disconnect, etc etc. You go into the menu, select the option to DX your account, and get sent to a "specialist" who is really good at persuading people to keep all their services. That's how the system works, and I think AOL is being really transparent in this regard.
The representative was clearly required to do all he could to "save" the account. I'm sure there were also plenty of incentives and commissions piled on top of that. For AOL to completely sidestep responsiblity, point fingers at the employee and claim they fired him when he more than likely was getting beaten over the head by his tyrant leaders to "save more of our shitty services", is just the kind of weaseling I'd expect from this company.
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The representative was clearly required to do all he could to "save" the account. I'm sure there were also plenty of incentives and commissions piled on top of that. For AOL to completely sidestep responsiblity, point fingers at the employee and claim they fired him when he more than likely was getting beaten over the head by his tyrant leaders to "save more of our shitty services", is just the kind of weaseling I'd expect from this company.
Even companies as money hungry as AOL do not encourage their companies to verbally abuse their customers, nor to openly accuse them of lying. There is no possible logic that would justify it, consumer or corporate.
While it should be obvious that companies like AOL will offer great incentives to their employees in charge of retention, it is counterproductive in every way possible to encourage your CSRs to behave like John did. John is exactly the WRONG kind of person to work a call center job: you CANNOT express your anger and frustration at your customers. I'd go so far as to say that 85%-95% of your job is being polite no matter what.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny that AOL software gives just as hard of a time if you try to uninstall it. It's like trying to kill a dandelion - parts of it just keep cropping up places.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard this one before, and It still makes me laugh.... mehehehehe
God, I love how the AOL guy gets him arguing about how much he's been using the account, as if he's not allowed to cancel if he's used it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had an MSN account from the early days of man's taming of electricity. It was sometimes the only way I could connect to the internet when I was on the road (they had local access numbers). My monthly charges had gradually ratcheted up to $6.95 by the time I decided I really didn't need the account anymore. I called them up, talked for less than a minute, and the charge disappeared the next month.
Maybe they were happy to get rid of older customers on their 0 minutes plan, but I have to say I'm glad I didn't go through this nonsense. Sheesh!
Score one for MSN at least.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
They were talking about this on the radio a couple of days ago and a woman called in saying that when her aunt died, she called AOL to cancel the aunt's account. She had similar problems getting the account cancelled, saying that the agent on the line kept trying to persuade her that her aunt might still need the account.
Yep, AOL is so good, they even have it in heaven. Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Funny that AOL software gives just as hard of a time if you try to uninstall it. It's like trying to kill a dandelion - parts of it just keep cropping up places.
That's one thing I found HILARIOUS about the newer AOL commercials touting their virus protection. I kept wanting to yell at the screen: "AOL is a virus!".
Its nearly impossible to remove it completely. Plus, without your permission, it goes and alters other programs (like putting a favorites link to AOL.com on your IE).
I would never agree to let someone put it on my computer, unless I had plans to reformat in the near future.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess my experience was a fluke. When I cancelled AOL two years ago, I got no protest at all. The only thing they do is send me a "free trial" disc in the mail every few months.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ferrari said that it was his father's account. He also lied when he said that it wasn't being used and that his father didn't even have the software installed. That doesn't completely excuse the AOL rep, but I can understand why he was hesitant to cancel the account, perhaps thinking it was just a prank. In all actuality, after Ferrari said that it was his father's account, the rep should have just stated that his father would need to call in and cancel it.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ferrara was the account holder, his father just used the account sometimes, under one of the identities. Ferrara was the account holder and he was paying for the account, but the rep got the wrong idea, and tried to appeal to the father.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Now that I think about it, it still hasn't been two years since termination of employement, and any sort of public discussion on the process of overcoming objections in that field may result in legal problems for myself due to the conditions of my being hired at that location. However, give me a month and a half, and I would love to further the conversation.
-A former AOL Employee.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to defend the rep's actions at all, but does anyone know WHY it was suspicious and the rep was wary?
Because people call to try and have their enemies AOL turned off all the time, and AOL gets in trouble if they allow it. "Social Engineering" cutoffs are done by ex-girlfriends, ex-wives, ex-husbands, school rivals....you get the picture.
It happenes all the time, and if it is found that AOL allowed acces, even just to shut service off, it is a breach of their privacy, covered by the HIPPA laws. (I know, HIPPA was intended for the healthcare industry, but it's ramifications cover a lot more than that).
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea, theres another site you should check out, for rivers sake. Good discussion there. If you want to discuss that sort of thing, they would be keen on talking about it. You have the link, right?
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The representative was clearly required to do all he could to "save" the account. I'm sure there were also plenty of incentives and commissions piled on top of that. For AOL to completely sidestep responsiblity, point fingers at the employee and claim they fired him when he more than likely was getting beaten over the head by his tyrant leaders to "save more of our shitty services", is just the kind of weaseling I'd expect from this company.
Even companies as money hungry as AOL do not encourage their companies to verbally abuse their customers, nor to openly accuse them of lying. There is no possible logic that would justify it, consumer or corporate.
While it should be obvious that companies like AOL will offer great incentives to their employees in charge of retention, it is counterproductive in every way possible to encourage your CSRs to behave like John did. John is exactly the WRONG kind of person to work a call center job: you CANNOT express your anger and frustration at your customers. I'd go so far as to say that 85%-95% of your job is being polite no matter what.
I still think they're weasels. Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: It happenes all the time, and if it is found that AOL allowed acces, even just to shut service off, it is a breach of their privacy, covered by the HIPPA laws. (I know, HIPPA was intended for the healthcare industry, but it's ramifications cover a lot more than that).
If that was the rep's defense, then its a bad one. He got personal info up front which was supposed to suffice for identification, if you recall from the bleeped section of the audioclip. If they need to cover their butts for identification, they shouldn't force callers to convince them of who they really are, they should simply ad a labarythine and monumentally aggravating security system like the one that Bank of America has now.
Funny, because I once called BofA to ask about a new checking account I had just opened. I gave my name, and the woman said, "alright and your social security number is: *** ** ****?" My jaw hit the floor. I was talking to her on a cellphone, and had only given my name and asked for info on my account. So there you go.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ferrara was the account holder, his father just used the account sometimes, under one of the identities. Ferrara was the account holder and he was paying for the account, but the rep got the wrong idea, and tried to appeal to the father.
The rep said he was looking at the Ferrari account and that it showed 71 hours since last month. Vincent: "no he wasn't. He doesn't even have the AOL software on his computer." Rep: "So, this is your father then?" Vincent: "Yup"
- The rep never mentioned anything about the father, the caller did. If the caller was in fact the account holder, why would he even mention at all that his father wasn't using it? The caller then seems to confirm that the account in question does actually belong to his father.
Vincent then says that he (his father) doesn't even use it, when the records show that it obviously is being used.
I don't blame the rep for at least being a little suspicious about the call.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a only-somewhat-related note: I recently got a free-trial of Rolling Stone with a Best Buy purchase. If you don't want the trial to continue to an automatic subscription you have to call within the first 60 days to cancel. I did that today, and was expecting a rep with a strong sales pitch and counterarguements to my every objection. I had my reasons prepared and was braced for the call. But they didn't even ask why I was cancelling. Just "Okay, the June issue will be your last issue. Is there anything else I can do for you today?"
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: It happenes all the time, and if it is found that AOL allowed acces, even just to shut service off, it is a breach of their privacy, covered by the HIPPA laws. (I know, HIPPA was intended for the healthcare industry, but it's ramifications cover a lot more than that).
If that was the rep's defense, then its a bad one. He got personal info up front which was supposed to suffice for identification, if you recall from the bleeped section of the audioclip. If they need to cover their butts for identification, they shouldn't force callers to convince them of who they really are, they should simply ad a labarythine and monumentally aggravating security system like the one that Bank of America has now.
Funny, because I once called BofA to ask about a new checking account I had just opened. I gave my name, and the woman said, "alright and your social security number is: *** ** ****?" My jaw hit the floor. I was talking to her on a cellphone, and had only given my name and asked for info on my account. So there you go.
I'd have called and complained - that's good for a lawsuit.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
John's boss: John, we've got to let you go John: You really shouldn't do that. JB: You're fired. John: Firing me would be the JB: You're FIRED John: worst thing you could do JB: I don't know how many ways I can say this John, but you're fired, canned, you are no longer with us, you're out the door! John: Is there a reason? JB: Ya a reporter taped your conversation John: That's not a good reason. How do you know he was a reporter? JB: I'm tired of discussing this. You're fired. Go home. John: Maybe you should go cool down. I'll continue to work here and in a few months... JB: You Are FIRED! John: you'll realize it's the best thing for all of us.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'd have called and complained - that's good for a lawsuit. [/QUOTE]
I have only so much energy. I just told her I couldn't believe she had just said my ssn to me over the phone, and the conversation had a cloud over it after that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting that the 545 hours the rep claimed Vincent used in one money totals about 23 straight days of non stop usage.
I have to imagine that's a bit much even for a DSL user. I turn my computer off most nights, if for nothing else than to save energy, let alone whatever harm might come to the computer from a month of protracted use.
Also, the free Rolling Stone from Best Buy. My best friend's family got it free from then for an entire year. They just kept sending more magazines. When she called to try and cancel, they told her she had a paid subscription, so she just went along with it.
I wish Time Magazine would do that for me.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because people call to try and have their enemies AOL turned off all the time, and AOL gets in trouble if they allow it. "Social Engineering" cutoffs are done by ex-girlfriends, ex-wives, ex-husbands, school rivals....you get the picture.
If I had enemies, I would try to SIGN THEM UP for AOL, rather than cancelling their accounts. I would only call and Cancel someones AOL account if they were an extremely close friend.
Posts: 375 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Interesting that the 545 hours the rep claimed Vincent used in one money totals about 23 straight days of non stop usage.
My internet usage is about 720 hours per month, and has been for the last five years. All of my friends with high speed access are the same.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
So it sounds like you either never turn your computer off, or it calculates that by whether or not your cable modem is on. I'd imagine most people dont turn off their cable modem. The cable company could track how long the modem is on alot more easily and ethically as opposed to how long your computer is on and active.
Posts: 375 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr intimated that the 545 hours the AOL rep had the guy down for in one month was excessive, and I just wanted to show that, depending on what AOL defines as 'usage' (whether it's connection or activity) it's not at all unrealistic.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I havn't had AOL since 1995 so maybe things have changed but doesn't it use a phone modem? That would mean that he would have to have a home telephone line dedicated to being dialed in for 23 days of the month. Maybe I'm wrong. Do they have some kind of broadband service that doesn't require dial up for AOL?
Anyways, about a month after I cancelled my service with AOL I was sent to Arizona for temporary duty for 2 months. I was in the Marines at the time. I was reconciling my checking account after I returned and found that I was still being debited for AOL service despite havig cancelled it and removing the software from my computer. I had made the mistake of allowing them to debit my bill directly from my checking account. When I called to complain they said that I had been dialed in and been logged on for a couple hundred hours each month since signing up and they had no record of me canceling my service. Now, my computer was disassembled and locked in my wall locker while I was on temporary duty on another base so there is no way that I dialed in or logged on during those months. They also claimed that the reference number for the cancellation order that I read back to them was not in their system. They processed a cancelation order eventually, and then I found another debit the next month and went through the whole thing again. In total I paid for 5 months of AOL service that I didn't use. I have no desire to ever do business with them again, and I have no doubt that the Customer Service Rep in the recording was just following procedure and is being made the scape goat by the company here.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
@ Pix
