Jul 11 2006
Well well well…
It seems AOL’s retention policies have raised the eyebrow of New York State Attorney General and Gubernatorial Candidate Elliot Spitzer.
Spitzer says AOL customer woes remain an issue
Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:41 PM ETBy Joseph A. Giannone
NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who last year struck a settlement with America Online regarding its customer service policies, will meet with AOL to discuss if the Internet services giant still blocks customers from canceling their accounts.
Last year, Spitzer investigated AOL’s customer services policies and how it paid service representatives after about 300 New Yorkers complained about how difficult it was to cancel. AOL, a unit of Time Warner Inc.
, in August agreed to reform its procedures, provide fee refunds and pay New York $1.25 million in penalties and costs. Yet AOL may not be out of the woods. On June 28, lawyers from Spitzer’s office sent a letter to AOL demanding more information about its customer service and is seeking a meeting with its executives.
“The Internet bureau of the attorney general’s office has reached out to AOL to express its concerns and is seeking to meet with the company to discuss the situation,” a Spitzer spokeswoman said.
Earlier this month the New York Times reported that a Bronx man, who spent 21 minutes trying to cancel his membership, recorded his conversation after an AOL customer service rep refused to cancel his account, despite dozens of requests.
The audio file, posted to the man’s own “blog” Web site and widely circulated by Internet users, has helped draw attention to AOL’s aggressive tactics.
“Obviously, we have to do something,” Spitzer told Reuters following a campaign appearance before the Independent Press Association of New York on Monday. “It’s an issue.”
Spitzer seeks election as New York’s governor in November.
Investigators from the Internet bureau, which follows up on consumer complaints involving the Web, last year revealed that AOL paid bonuses to staff who dissuaded a certain number of customers from canceling. AOL agreed to reform its ways.
But the spokeswoman said Spitzer’s 2005 agreement focused on the compensation programs that encouraged customer service representatives to dissuade defections.
“We’re still looking to see if there was any violation of the settlement. It is a concern to the office,” said the spokeswoman, who declined further comment.
AOL also declined to comment.
Ruh roh…
Technorati Tags: aol, elliot spitzer
July 11th, 2006 at 11:39 am
That’s a shame.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:59 am
?
July 11th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
I grow weary whenever a government official (especially one who’s particularly looking to score political points) steps in on customer service disputes. It can easily backfire on the efforts made by consumer activism with porous litigation that customer service chumps like AOL can use as an excuse to continue to abuse consumer trust.
Consumers like yourself, Vinny, are a lot scarier to companies like AOL than Elliot Spitzer can ever hope to be. Isn’t that the big complaint about corporations? It seems they are above the law because they can hire powerhouse legal teams that take settlements like what Spitzer negotiated last year and eat them for lunch.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Where you’re wrong, however, is that AOL ran afoul of NY Consumer Protection Laws when they were rewarding retention folks for keeping customers aboard. This recent case only highlights the fact that they’ve done very little to change their practices.
He’s not stepping in now, he’s making them follow through on the promise that kept them out of court two years ago.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Like I said, I’m weary. But I guess we’ll see what good or bad comes out of it. I’m still betting AOL will come out on top once this guys scores his political points.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Vinny, I wonder how long you’re gonna milk this AOL thing? Between you and the consumerist it seems like a circle jerk between the two of you.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Steve - There’s totally nothing wrong with Vinny following up on this. I’d much rather get raw consumer experience from regular folk than fluffed crap from politicians and the Media.
July 11th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
This AOL thing has EVERY customer service dept’s attention in every industry - they all need to relook at how they handle things and improve on them - some have it right and alot don’t - there are alot of them who outsource to people making $8/hr and the service is horrible, understaffed, and more of a dis-service than a service. And this will show those types of companies that they are not going to get away with it. Vinny was just the person who happened to pry open AOL’s Pandora Box (one in which they tried to keep closed so all their demons wouldn’t get out) - don’t shoot the messenger who exposed what they are doing. AOL has gotten in trouble time and time again for their retention practices and all they did was sign consent orders but still walked close to the line or aligned their policies to run parallel to their previous behavior. But if you give anyone enough rope they eventually hang themselves and that is what AOL has done. They can’t keep anyone working there - and even though their retention consultants are now called ‘customer care consultants’ they still are required to make 2 saves attempts. One thing I am curious about is that if they are going to change this ‘retention’ philosophy then they need to change all the management of the front line staff. What do I mean? Well at the call centers all the managers are/were retention managers - so they still have that mindset - and like most old dogs - you can’t teach them new tricks - therefore the dead wood must be broken off and burned and therefore new and fruitful branches can grow - of course this is all metaphor but you get the picture - keeping all these morons around who are still screwing up the company is killing them. AOL will just ride this out - sign a consent form and admit no wrong doing but will agree to consent. I have said this time and time again - aol is a company that never proactively chooses to make positive and good changes for the customer - they are forced to comply time and time again and they only barely comply and push the line again til they get in trouble.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:26 am
I think Vinny (and the rest of the blogosphere) and Attorneys General both have important and vital roles in this overdue consumer revolution. And sure, if AOL has been violating their 2005 agreement with the state of New York, there needs to be serious consequences.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:29 am
Bonejob: Apt comments as usual. You might consider contacting the NY Attorney General’s office, particularly if you worked at AOL after the 2005 agreement.
July 12th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Well they wouldn’t really violate it if you look at the ‘letter of the law’ - in all the meetings and everything that we had our supervisors would literally play word games with the agreement and with our customers. It reminded me of the whole clinton impeachment hearings and how they wrangled over what context the word ‘is’ was used in. I was literally trained by CSS’s (customer support specialist’s - they were people who helped the csr’s or the man right under the manager) and they would train us on how to ‘word’ things to our customers that were flat out extortion - for example - I was told that it isn’t legal per the consent agreement to say “I will give your money back for months you were charged for usage if you stay with us” BUT I was told that if we formed it in a question then it was legal so I could say “If there was something I can do to get you those fees back would you be willing to stay with us and try those features I told you about?” So basically we could imply anything we wanted as long as we guarenteed nothing. So after asking that question and the member said yes then I was told to just put them on hold and tell them I was checking with a supervisor (but we really didn’t need to check with them so I would play slingo for a minute or two) and then come back on the line and say - “ok the supervisor said we could do that so we have give you 2 months back credit and 1 month forward.” Also one thing that CSR’s were doing to get their bonus’ is that they would give them 2 free months (the most the system would allow) and then a credit on their bill for a third month which would guarentee them a 90 retention bonus (worth bucko bucks) - then it would autoresume the next month following. Just insane - sometimes if you have a dying beast it is better to just end it’s life or just let it die in peace. They are holding to this thing way too long - let those who want to cancel do it easily and once AOL bleeds out and those who want it can keep it and those who don’t won’t have it anymore. Then adjust it and make their software available to those who want it - but may just pay a smaller fee per month. I wouldn’t want it but there are morons out there who do like it.
July 12th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Bonejob: You may have material for a whole book here. If I were you, I’d be taking notes about all the incidents you can remember. Maybe speak them into a tape recorder. Then you might contact a journalist/author. Or 60 Minutes. The Slingo story alone is priceless.
July 12th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
I have a feeling this is really gonna come back to them somehow. Spitzer can’t be happy about it, and in the end, he is running for governor.
Should be interesting to see how they handle this one, eh guys?
Bonejob, you’re absolutely right. It’s totally insane. I really wish they would let people cancel if they want to. Like Randall said in the Times, the reason he never cancels his Netflix account is because he knows how easy it is if he ever wants to.
Big mistake on their part.
I’m glad people are talking about this, too. It seems like it not only opened up a wound and clicked for a lot of people, but it also got them to actually talk about the issue a bit. I’m sure AOL isn’t thrilled about it, but tough, I guess. People have been holding it in for a long time and now they can finally just let it out.
Venting the spleen is good for the soul, right?
July 13th, 2006 at 1:08 am
Chet, AOL has been getting away with these things for many, many, years. Consumer activism only works when choices are free, fluid, and accessible, and it is not suffocated by power-marketing. The reason consumer activism alone frequently fails is because there are working dynamics that are removed far and apart from our sole ability to “choose”. For instance, Wal-Mart likes to preach that people “want” lower prices and that’s why people continue to shop in their stores every bit as much as they complain about mom and pop stores losing out. But think about it, do people “choose” to stand in long checkout lines and be dealt with by people so disregarded by their employer they don’t even get decent health coverage? Is a nickle why you went to Wal-Mart the last time you were there? No, people go to Wal-Mart because in most cases, any other place has been wiped out by their presence and in reality it’s “what’s left” convenience.
Consumer activism, sometimes, means attempting to activate the government against the massive power of corporate economics, marketing, and industrial psychology - all which are masterfully engineered to exploit workers and consumers to the corporation’s maximum benefit, and the former’s maximum disadvantage. Granted it’s not always easy given that the halls of Washington are coated by the very manipulators that need to be checked in the first place, but time and time again we have seen our ability to choose is not enough.
July 13th, 2006 at 5:48 am
Vinny,
I haven’t seen you talk about this;
AOL is under a federal consent decree to stop the practices that happened to you (& me & million others).
They are supposed to be dinged up to $11,000 for every documented violation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54869-2003Sep23.html
You can complain online here:
https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq.startup?Z_ORG_CODE=PU01
Let your readers know so they can complain. If FTC gets enough complaints, they’ll have to do SOMETHING.
July 13th, 2006 at 11:00 am
FIGHT THE POWER!!!