The End of Appearances

I wonder if Nicholas Graham was aware of the turnover rate...and if he thought anything about it. I mean, did it occur to him that Something Is/Was Wrong? Was it OK with him that AOL was putting a large number of human beings into an intolerable job...over and over again?

I hear you about consumers' ending the misery of AOL. This is a case of an organization reaping what it has sown. It's no fun to lose a job, but it's hard to imagine the next job not being MUCH better than the job of being a retention consultant -- a job that shouldn't even exist, if you ask me -- at AOL.

It's too bad that so many people have had to suffer ... or be enraged ... or have their time wasted ... or have money more or less stolen from them ... or be treated with gross insensitivity when a loved one has died. Some of the parts of what is now AOL may survive, but I wouldn't be surprised if it gets re-branded. That is, whatever becomes of it may not be called America Online or AOL. (It might be like trying to keep "Enron" as a brand name.)

About six weeks ago I heard on the Clark Howard Show that AOL was going to offer an internet-based international long distance telephoning system, with a phone handset that can be plugged into a USB port... (In fact, the product is apparently available already, but AOL hasn't launched publicity for it.) Clark -- who's been a strong AOL critic for a long time -- was keen on the product. Maybe that will be the phoenix that rises from the ashes of the former AOL.

Yeap - I had several "TOP PERFORMERS" on my teams there that I had to sit with or have them sit with me to learn the 'tricks of the trade' and that is what they said to do - and it was done all the time up til AOL got sued then they said that if they hungup on you then you had to cancel it. But some reps (with the sanction of the supervisors) were saying at the beginning of the calls that if the call was disconnected that they account would be left open and active. Then they would harrang the person til they hungup or the csr would hang up on the customer. I don't believe they encourage that anymore but it was once encouraged. What AOL is finding now is that they can't even hire anyone even after having raised their hourly rate from $10 - $14 per hour - one inside source told me the turnover rate in the retention dept. is 125% - because of the fact existing employees who transfer or who are transferred to the retention dept along with new hires are leaving (oh that is a yearly retention rate) - this was last year prior to the latest layoffs. It is a rotten place to work - we as consumers need to end the misery of AOL - if no one buys into it and we let people know how much of a scab it is - it will die - just like a plant with no water.

Bonejob: Fascinating and invaluable comments. I hope you'll be able to share more, anonymously, with Vincent and others. "A bonus for making someone hang up on you.": WOW, wow, wow. Bonejob, if I were you, I'd start taking notes about everything you can remember about your experiences at AOL. I bet some journalists and authors are going to want to talk to you. "A bonus for making someone hang up on you" is an extraordinary bit of information.

I must apologize for a mistake in my post just before yours: The phrase from Deming is actually "unknown and unknowable" -- although "unmeasurable" (what I wrote) is very close in meaning to "unknowable." "unknowable" means that you can't find out definitely. For example, you can measure a save rate and your quarterly earnings (on paper), but you can't measure the rage a "save" mindset engenders in customers, or the damage it does to a company's reputation. But what is more important to the success of a company, especially over the long term?

You also cannot put any figures on the damage to one's quality of life, and health, and soul, by having to dry heave and vomit most mornings because of the pressure on you at your job. I am sorry to hear that you went through that.

(By the way, I would like to see Nicholas Graham spend just one day in your former shoes. What if Nicholas could understand, just for a moment, the pressure John was under -- the bugspray on a boll weevil? Answering the revelation about poor customer service by summarily firing John evinced an extraordinary lack of leadership, but apparently Nicholas doesn't realize that. Forgive the tautology, but if he had known better, he wouldn't have done what he did. Deming stressed the importance of acquiring knowledge -- otherwise you are stuck with your ignorance.)

I'm sure there are some truly wonderful human beings (in addition to Bonejob) at AOL. But they are caught up in an extraordinarily dysfunctional system that ends up gutting people's humanity.

I love the comments Bill makes but W. Edwards Deming was probably speaking to people who are seeking to really enhance their company and be proactive. AOL is reactive - they have never been proactive about anything - err actually they are very good about being proactive to be reactive. I only had 3 managers there who were active and had the vision. One was laid off, the other fired, and the other is such an awesome guy and does everything right that they can't fire him. I really don't think corporate AOL is to blame fully - the real morons are the managers over the CSR's and the ones up from them. That is where the breakdown is happening. Honestly there are probably amazing people that work there but those middle and lower level managers are like monkey's humping a football - the only time i saw anyone safe from getting fired for not making 3 or more saves attempts or for not making any was if they went on FMLA claiming they were stressed and or crazy and needed pills - those people they left alone - but the people who did try to do the right thing for those people who they probably knew they couldn't keep on aol and just cancel them were written up regardless. I personally had this happen to me when I was working there - lady called for her parents who died and so I made one saves attempt asking if anyone else may have been using it or did they need to get anything off of the account - she said no so I cancelled it - 2 days later my supervisor had monitored that call and she actually put me on a verbal warning saying that I had to do 3 or more valid saves attempts (a valid saves attempt to AOL is pitching an offer based on the customer's cancellation reason, then if they rebut you have to find out reason 2 and then make an offer on that one, then so on and so forth) - or I would be put on a written then a final then terminated. So as you can see with this kind of fear in them if you get stuck and the customer only gives you one reason and you don't find out anything else or you don't pitch 3 or more things - you could be facing termination - that is what I found so dumb - Someone like vincent - he gave one reason and stood his ground - aol would require to find out 3 reasons for cancellation and then pitch 3 offers - and have them turn them down - so if you can't understand why Jon was trying to dig and dig that is why - and that is what I found to be so stupid - it defied common sense - and then we would get these stupid memo's and booklets and crap from corporate saying "you need to up the level of customer service" - but you know what - the managers rarely gave a rats arse about that and kept hammering and save save save - ok so if you want ot know a little secret on how to cancel AOL or anything - just say the person whose name is on the account is a minor - with aol it was an automatice termination of the account that cannot be reactivated no matter what - and if they ask how the minor signed up wiht a credit card in his name - just tell them you don't know but they are a minor. Honestly I don't think you will have to resort to that especially now. Oh and if you can't tell by all the experiences people have shared about aol that they have had the same experience as someone who has worked in retention at aol and hearing it from the inside that honestly how it was. I would say over 50% of the calls were saveed the same way - in fact for a long time you could count someone as a 24 hour save if they hungup on you - and you got a bonus - a bonus for making someone hang up on you - crazy huh? they can't do that now cuz of the other lawsuits. Anyway back to my point - the whole digging for info was never deemed a negative thing - hit was highly regarded and you were not deemed pushy - you were called assumptive and assertive and were often called upon to mentor other people. In fact I read on there that about someone who worked at aol stating that if you didn't have a good saves rate they would treat you like a lepper and have people sitting with you like managers and other workers. that is absolutely true and not if you were like that for a week - I mean if you were like that for 1 hour - so you talk about pressure - it was on you like bugspray on a boleweevil. Sad sad sad - I work for a state agency now and I used to literally dry heave and almost vomit every single morning from the anticipation of the stress I knew I was going to encounter at aol - now i am so much healthier and happier. F-AOL! They deserve every bruise they get from all of this.

From Merch: >

Indeed, that's the irony and the tragedy. You build up powerful equity in treating customers with respect, even if, short term, the customer suspends their business with you.

W. Edwards Deming encouraged managers to recognize that the most important figures for running a company are "unknown and unmeasurable" -- that is, things that cannot be measured. Things like reputation. Things like the value of someone cancelling the account immediately when a customer asks to cancel the account. Things like whether someone will, or will not, recommend your company to others. Things like the value of not pestering the customer with endless advertising. Things like using a large chunk of the company's human capital to torture customers who want to cancel, instead of allowing these employees to use their brains to fundamentally and creatively improve the company and what it sells. None of these things is measurable. But they can be make or break a company, particularly if you dare to look beyond the current quarter.

I agree heartily with Merch's comments re culture. The most unethical practices of a former employer of mine would never have been found written down. But people were told things, and a myriad of large and small acts of sleaziness-for-the-sake-of-short-term-profit were rewarded by management. The influence of this culture was more powerful than anything written down in any policy manual.

I was thinking of using them but now no... I wonder what kind of training the AOL employees undergo...

AOL must be truly desperate. Wake up U.S.
http://anthonylemons.blogspot.com

I also had a terrible time cancelling my AOL subscription (which was a 90-day free ride on my new laptop). It took me three days and seven phone calls. I had gotten cable internet. The people I talked to at AOL said I needed their browser. The way they talked, I wouldn't be able to get to see squat online without them. After a while you go on auto-pilot with the customer service guys. For all I know they probably told me I wouldn't be able to process Oxygen without them. All the while, I just kept repeating, "I want to cancel my account."

I wonder if AOL customers are able to access your blog through the AOL browser.

You're never going to get to the root of the behavior without some inside help. AOL may coach employees on tactics and encourage this kind of behavior through their training, but I would highly doubt it's documented in training guides with information regarding high pressure tactics found in company memos.

It's easy enough to develop the culture, train the employees and reward the ones who perform the action you want them to perform. What IS sad is that the size of a company like AOL doesn't have enough of the fish higher up in the food chain who recognize that their bottom line might go up if they treated people with respect all along.

My parents, years ago, were foolish enough to sign up with AOL and continued to be charged after they cancelled. This infuriated them and now that AOL broadband is available, do you think they would have ANY inclination to do business with AOL again? What about every person who moves or experiences a down time, without internet access? You going to run back to AOL after they treated you that way when you simply wanted to cancel an account?

Jon certainly doesn't sound like he's polished in being polite and obviously can't take a point blank "hint", but he may also have grown up, so to speak, in a culture that rewarded his tactics.

Just saw the CNN interview. Brilliant idea! I had the same experience when I tried to cancel my AOL service a couple years ago. They continually tried to talk me out of it---even after I explained that I was going to a small town in a small African nation for a year! It took forever to cancel that account.

Zero tolerance my a$$. My "cancellation" conversation was basically the same. Telling me to calm down, etc. The aol employees are told to ask those questions and to try and convince you NOT to cancell. Aol is panicking because they are not needed any more.

Great job Vincent, I only wish I knew of others having the same problem, then I would have recorded my phone call.

Vinny...better get in touch with Bonejob above! This could be just the ticket to expose AOL Mgmt., rather that "over the line CSRs"!

On the contrary, Aaron, Vinny's action shows Capitalism at its best.

It didn't take holy government regulation for Vinny to decide to record the conversation. (Some may even argue - and have, in fact - that he had to actually do more work to cover his butt from regulation).

What we are witnessing is the epitome of consumers' taking control and educating themselves about the products and services they consume in order to make decisions on their own regarding which business offers the best. Consumer action without unnecessary government intervention is at the core of capitalism.

Thank goodness there are consumer messaiahs like Vinny out there to help us make decisions for ourselves too.

Needless to say, you are a consumer's messiah.

It goes to show that companies such as AOL are an example of capitalism run amok. The consumer simply does not possess the leverage, through practical and reasonable channels, to conduct fair business transactions.

Thank goodness the banks are required by federal regulation to help their customers resolve the fraudulent charges, but nominal charges are often absorbed by banks because the dispute process is often more costly than simply refunding the charge. But ultimately the banks pass these costs to their customers in the form of higher fees and interest rates.

Recording that call and posting it online was stroke of absolute brilliance in its simplicity: let the audience of the Internet draw their own conclusion about AOL. Beautifully executed!

I sure hope this is a major turning point for the massive scam juggernaut that AOL is.

It just goes to show how unfortunate and necessary strong arm tactics are required to deal with corrupt companies like AOL that stonewall their customers.

When regular channels don’t work, the consumer is limited to litigation or public humiliation.

Looks like you made CBC's Misplay of the Week on their Sunday night news show.