Swiftly Shovelling Crap On A Fire

Posted on July 19, 2006 by Vinny

“At AOL, we have zero-tolerance for customer care incidents like this – which is deeply regrettable and also absolutely inexcusable. The employee in question violated our customer service guidelines and practices, and everything that AOL believes to be important in customer care – chief among them being respect for the member, and swiftly honoring their requests. This matter was dealt with immediately and appropriately, and the employee cited here is no longer with the Company.”

Many of you will recognize that statement. It came out of the mouth of Nicholas Graham to just about every news reporter he could give it to. He even put it in a written apology to me intended for publication here for you, my readers. Nicholas was out in front of the cancellation story, and we were being made to believe that AOL is proactively addressing these issues because they value their customers (even exiting ones) dearly. We were all meant to feel warm and fuzzy because something was done and AOL wasn’t tolerating a misbehaving employee. Hell, I never doubted the sincerity of the AOL folks who spoke to me for a second. Why should I? I had no reason to.

AOL has tried, and feverishly so, to paint this as an isolated aberration outside the realm of normal everyday practices at the online giant. For all their spinning, and no matter how many employees they fire, and no matter how much spin they dish out of their corporate offices in New York and in Virginia, one indisputable fact remains.

They’re full of crap.

I have proof.

Apparently, someone in AOL’s Retention Department dropped a little package off over at Gawker Media. When Ben opened it, he was gifted with an actual copy of AOL’s Retention Department manual. I won’t bore you with the details of it. Frankly, it’s loaded with fake touchy-feely corporate empathy for their valued members. One page, though, really sent me into a frothing frenzy.

As Consumerist put it when they ran that graphic:

In a public statement, AOL’s Nicholas Graham claimed that John, “violated our customer service guidelines and practices, and everything that AOL believes to be important in customer care – chief among them being respect for the member, and swiftly honoring their requests.” If this is true, then why is there such a complex system designed to thwart those very requests? Brevity thrives on simplicity.

It angers me no end that Jon was fired. Oh sure he was annoying, and he seemed to have a problem listening to spoken English, but he was obviously following procedure and was fired for doing so; the spin being that he didn’t honor my request quickly.

Are you kidding me, AOL?

In the interview with CNN, AOL explained that they were monitoring my comment section and handing out the comments left there as “required summer reading.” Well you know what? We now have our own “required summer reading,” my friends, and it’s your corporate manual. The very thing you’ve gotten into every newspaper and television interview and contradicted is the one thing we have in our hands.

You’re lying, and we have the proof.

It should be interesting now, to see if AOL tries to do any more damage control over the release of the manual. No longer can they just deny their policies and pretend they don’t exist. No longer can they call their policies an outrage, aberration, mistake, or isolated incident. In fact, when you read something like this:

If you stop and think about it, every Member that calls in to cancel their account is a hot lead. Most other sales jobs require you to create your own leads, but in the Retention Queue the leads come to you! Be eager to take more calls, get more leads and close more sales. More leads means more selling opportunities for you and cost savings for AOL.

You really do have to wonder if they really give a crap about you wanting to cancel your account after all.

Knowing that AOL is probably still reading my blog, I’d love to pose an open challenge to any AOL execs that are still handing out snippets of my site as “required summer reading.” Go ahead and explain your theory of honoring member requests quickly and respecting your members. And while you’re doing it, remember we have the manual in our hands that basically says we’re all numbers and “hot leads.”

Mr. Graham, as you put it in the New York Times, we’ve had our “Eureka Moment.”

And the discovery is that you and your company are full of it.

[tags]nicholas graham, aol, retention, liars[/tags]

This entry was posted in Amusing. Bookmark the permalink.

Bonejob

Yeah makes you wonder why they gave a huge 90 day bonus - hmmm 3 months? Doesn't that also align with a company's quarterly review for their stock holders - so the more people you can retain for 3 months (or quaterly in the eyes of AOL) will show a higher number of customers - AOL didn't tell the stockholders that 'x' number of members were in 'limbo' with free months on their account and they will probably call back to cancel. So the subscriber number includes all the open accounts. So let's calculate this: last quarter I think AOL lost roughtly 800,000 subcribers so project that for a year and that is about 3.2 million subscribers per year being lost - ok but what we dont' know is how many more called and got 'free' months and are part of the number they are listing as 22 million. Let's assume the average number of calls taken by a rep is 50 calls a day and they retain the minimum of 48% (24 per day) times that by 7 days = 168 per week per rep. Factor that by multiplying by 4.3 (because some months have more days/weeks than others) = 722.40 per month per rep. take that times 12 months = 8668.80 saved per year for 1 rep. Now I believe aol has 4 or 5 retention centers with about 400 employees each - so let's imput those numbers
8668.80 saves per rep per year x 400 employees per center = 3.4 million saves per one center per year x 4 centers = 13.9 million subcribers saved with credit who may or may stay with aol as they are on free months. Aol claims they have 22 million subscribers - but with this rough and conservative math you can see that way over half of the existing 22 million subscribers are speculatively projected to be on free months or not real firm customers who are either waiting for their free months to end. But if you report to stockholders 9.1 million or 22 million which number are they going to like more? So when you see the subscriber number is 22 million remember the math and that they aren't all diehard AOL loving committed members - over half of them are customers probably on free time just waiting to call back and cancel. or they are credit whores just playing the game and getting free AOL
Bill

You'd think the Enron scandal would have taught AOL to quit with any monkey business. Apparently AOL has done both "creative accounting" and "creative revenue assurance."

There's another word for "creative revenue assurance": Robbery.

In my own experience, when the guy tried to confuse me saying he was getting me set up with a free month, while not actually cancelling the account -- and I had to interrupt him to say "NO!" -- that was an attempt at robbery. The robbery failed with me, but it clearly succeeded with others.
bonejob

Interesting question. Like I said before the only reason AOL does do anything like sacrifice a lamb is because someone complains or something like this happens. Otherwise it would be a big deal. Or if they flat out don't want you to work there anymore they would just find a reason to can you. Like you didn't meet the 48% saves rate. Oh and by the way that was just to get your bonus - most managers required a 65% saves rate or you would be put on corrective action. You just do what you got to do to get it done. Generally though we got 2 bonus' one was the 90 day retention bonus and that was the more lucrative one. But if you could tell somone didn't want to stay at all then you would atleast try to save them for 24 hours as that one was less lucrative but a bonus none the less. Plus one middle management person told me that even if it is a 24 hour retained customer or one saved with credit they can use the retention data and manipulate it to show investors that the 'bleeding' of AOL constomers leaving wasn't too bad. AOL got in alot of trouble with creative accounting (ala ENRON Style) doing that type of stuff too. ENRON was the mother of all whores and AOL is more like your street whore. But going back to the sacrifical lamb thing they would cut anyones throat to push the responsibility on something else. AOL creates the culture and the environment for something vile to grow then freaks out when the weeds start popping up. I honestly did help some people out with some issues but I honestly didn't feel good about 75% of the saves I got.
But I was listened to and no one said much of anything other than I was an example and more people needed to be more assertive like I was.
All the CSR's did what they needed to do to keep the money flowing in and to please their boss. But I think most everyone knew that it was just a matter of time before the shizzo would hit the fan and AOL's creaky deck of cards would come crashing down. I just don't think that some of the people thought AOL would lop of their heads as it fell.
Bill

I wouldn't be surprised if, at this point, John is traumatized from this extremely expected turn of events. I might direct this question to Bonejob: Say Vinny's call happened when you were still an AOL CSR. And it just so happened that you were the one to be recorded. You were doing your job as AOL taught you, and you "dug" and denied and rebuffed. Then your first name, and your voice, is all over the news and internet...and the big bosses find out who you are, and fire you (sacrificial lamb). If you dare, you read the blogs -- but you might find it too disturbing. Suddenly millions of strangers have heard your private conversation and are thinking ill of you. Some defend or understand you, but many people still consider you a villian (or at least the face of a villianous company). And of course the company will *not* stand behind you. How would you feel and what would you do?

I can't speak for the real John, or Bonejob, but I think I were in that position I'd be freaking the hell out!! It would take tremendous courage for me to come forward, and I would only do so if there were a "strength in numbers" situation -- such as a whole group of former AOL CSRs who could stand with me, and verify my experiences (how I was trained, the demands and bonus/threat structure, the environment).

A casual Googling did not turn up an ex-AOL employees' group. Bonejob, are you at all in touch with any of your former colleagues?

A website for ex-AOL CSR employees might be a very good thing.

Absolutely, teri, treating a cancellation call as a sales call is fundamentally offensive. AOL is not a charity. Customers who wish to cancel owe AOL not one additional penny ever.
teri

Bill - I agree with you 100%, If Jon got fired for this incident, then every CSR who engaged in this type of behavior should be fired as well (As should "management" as they obviously encouraged this behavior). But...Jon should have gotten fired for his unethical behavior. The only point I was trying to make was that, I feel it's now Jon's job (and every ex-AOL employee who was shafted because they were expected to follow an unethical code of conduct)to stand up and say that he/they were forced to behave this way in order to meet AOL quotas. That's all. I'd be seething if some moron was getting a monetary bonus for something I got fired for.

Bonejob - the work environment you have described above is, in a word, horrifying!!! It's no wonder AOL employees are put on anti-anxiety/anti-depressant drugs....Good Lord - that has got to be illegal! I couldn't have said it better than Bill - "check your brain, your heart and your humanity at the door". Not only did my AOL CSR tell me I was stupid for paying so much for Earthlink (his exact words, in his "casual attitude" were: "Man, you're getting hosed!!")but, once I explained my ethical objections to the service AOL provided, my CSR told me my morals were "for shit" (I KID YOU NOT!!!!) because AOL owned Earthlink and that my money was going into AOL's pocket anyway...and my story pales in comparison to many others...especially those who were cancelling on behalf of deceased members of their families ....It is evident that it was an enviorment of "do or say anything necessary to make the save".

Clearly, It's the "saves rate" info that is most disturbing. It really makes me sick to my stomach to think that AOL has the audacity to expect such a high retention rate. 48%???? In essence,logic dictates that to mean that I, as an individual, when wishing to cancel any service, only wish to do so 48% of the time. I can't imagine such stupidity. Some other poster here mentioned that they worked in a Retention Dept. and their quota was low...something like 5%. That's much more realistic. To expect any higher percentage...you'd *have* to resort to unethical behavior.

Clearly management knows what's going on...Any one who has worked in any office situation knows that decisons are made by Upper Management and Middle Management is expected to enforce it/follow through. The beautiful irony of that, is that when a large company downsizes, it is usually Middle Management that is the first to go...I witnessed it in the Insurance Industry in the late eighties...

I noticed it, bonejob...In the top margin of the manual the company "Outsell" has proudly put there name on that document. Outsell....it's a freakin' CANCELLATION DEPT...I guess I still always come back to this point...The severe lack of integrity that AOL exhibits...treating a cancellation request as a 'sales call'...I can't wrap my brain around something so illogical, unethical, immoral, condescending, disrespectful...
Bill

Bonejob: These additional details contribute to a picture of an environment that was simply brutal. I'd be viscerally reacting, too, man. It's like they treat people as machines...constantly taking data on your every action like you were some kind of industrial process, constantly trying to catch you doing something they deemed wrong, and whipping you for any lapse. Thinking for yourself -- except perhaps for inventing new, sick ways to "retain" -- was discouraged. Checked your brain at the door. And your heart, too, for that matter. And your humanity.

You were apparently not given any flexibility to use your judgment on what amount of note-taking was appropriate for a given call. Doesn't it depend on the call?

(Bonejob: Do they have Trader Joe's grocery stores where you live? Trader Joe's is the diametric opposite of AOL. The environments and cultures could not be more different. Employees are trusted to use their brains, and both employees and customers are treated with enormous respect, while providing huge value in their products. And Trader Joe's customers are virtually all raving fans. No need for a retention department. The quality of the product is what "retains.")

That "corrective action" stuff is extra-creepy. It sounds like what happens to members of the Church of Scientology if they are caught not towing the cult line somehow.

"Load the software up with ads" - ? Didn't they do that already? ;) Seriously. I do believe that, um, AOL invented pop-up ads. They would come up each and every time you signed on. And AOL made it intentionally difficult for someone to turn the pop-up ads off -- including literally making the small button that turned them off gray to appear that it was not checkable when it actually was. I'll never forget how put off I was by that.

That was vintage 1998. It appears that a culture where tricking customers is acceptable goes back a ways.
Bonejob

Yes mine and every CSR's job was directly tied to the numbers here is how it was broke down:

Saves Rate: when I first started there in training they said you had to have a minimum saves rate of 48% to get bonus. Then when I got on the floor what I really found out is that you have to be above that like above 55% or you would be placed on corrective action and eventually terminated. They called this a job performance issue.

Idle: this was the time you took inbetween calls - from the time the call ended to the time you took the next couldn't be more than 7% in one day - when you calculate that over 8 hrs is is like 10 or 15 minutes - so you better not make detailed accurate notes - and if you were over that 7% mark you were placed on corrective action and terminated.

Lost time: This was where you had to be signed into your phone for 7hrs and 30 min per day (minus the 2 15 minute breaks) obviously if you aren't on the phone you were termintated.

Credit: you were constantly monitored on how much credit you were giving out. We were only allowed to give out $100 in credited fees per day and no more than 2 free months at a time. But if you had too many of those you were placed on corrective action and terminated.

I didn't have a problem with most of the metrics but I noticed one key element. If you did not have a good saves rate they would use the other metrics to fire you if you were slightly deficient. If you had a good saves rate - you could have as much lost time, idle, etc as you wanted and they wouldn't.

Then there was this whole gray area of cancel intent - someone could call in and mention cancel but maybe frustrated with something like a tech issue and if you saved the call and coded it as a retention save then you could get terminated as an invalid save because a quality person might deem that as a non save because the person really didn't have true cancel intent. They had a tech issue. But another quality person might look at it differently and think it was. Ultimately things like that were very inconsistent and frustrating. It almost felt like we had to defend ourselves all the time. I never had a problem with the stats but they requirements changed all the time, there was a lack of consistency and we never knew where we stood or where the line was that you may have crossed. How do you when the behavior is rewarded and required by some managers? That is where this whole issue with Jon was. Yeah he made a bad choice and did that but AOL made him the sacrificial lamb. I spoke to an insider 2 days ago and he told me that management is saying that AOL is seriously looking into getting rid of the rentention dept all together and just make aol free and just load the software up with ads - who knows if it really happens - but supposedly they are making some huge announcement on Aug 2 -
Bill

There is a chain of approval in large, traditionally structured organizations, especially on anything connected to money (thus including paying bonuses), that can be traced from the front line eventually to the top. It's true that the top can't control every act of every employee. But the top sets the culture of the company. It's clear from The Manual that was recently released that "retention" and an elaborate program of manipulations to effect retention, was actual, approved corporate policy.

Between the manual and the monetary contingencies -- which no doubt were rubber stamped very high up in the company -- it really should surprise no one (including Nicholas Graham) that this massive dehumanization occurred. (A good book to read on bonus/threat systems, by the way, is "Punished by Rewards" by Alfie Kohn.)

I wouldn't be surprised if Nicholas Graham and other high-ups know quite a bit more than they let on. It's very clear that "retention" -- vs., say, "innovation" or "responsiveness to market changes" or "flexibility" or "smart downsizing" or "a new line of business" -- was chosen (very unwisely) as a principal strategy to attempt to maintain a workable company. This was a high-management decision. (Although perhaps they didn't know that other choices were possible.)

I had the misfortunate of working under a boss who had overt pressure to produce "numbers" (from his boss at the company of which we were a subsidiary). It was not the kind of business that lent itself to easy metrics (thank heaven), so I don't think anyone had quotas imposed upon them. But there was constant pressure...a poisonous atmosphere fueled by the pressure on the boss from higher up (as well as his own severe emotional problems, but that's another story). As with the situation Bonejob describes at AOL, he never explicitly said that his compensation (if not his job) was tied to "the numbers," but I would bet it was. He was treated brutally, and he in turn treated people below him brutally. The kick the dog phenomenon. I hate that.

People are slowly realizing that businesses do not have to be thoughtlessly set up to follow a traditional, militaristic, rigid hierarchical model. The W. L. Gore Company in Delaware (makers of Goretex and other things) has an unusual "flat" organizational structure, and continually ranks as one of the best places to work, and also produces outstanding, innovative products. See the website for "Great Places to Work." (You probably will not find AOL there.)

The "retention" strategy -- and subsequent tragedies -- at AOL never had to happen. There are better ways to do business.
Bonejob

Yeah that is the ironic thing - that type of stuff was going on all the time - I hate to admit it but they trained me to be that way too - it was called assertive. In fact, repeatedly I was praised and even used as an example of how one should be more assertive. They likened me to pitbull who aggressively got the save but I never liked doing that and left because of that is what they required. Especially after seeing the hypocrisy of the management turning a blind eye and letting stuff go on but then when they got called on it the management sacrificed a lamb. So I don't know that the problems lie with corporate AOL - they may very well have a no tolerance policy and they may have a bleeding heart for the members. But that sentiment does not trickle down to the front line staff's management. They couldn't give a rats ass about the little guy. They had their alibi - ROGUE AGENT - if someone on their team created a buzz due to the tactics that the manager was condoning - they would turn tail and claim it was a rogue agent and his/her own choice and they weren't aware of it. When in reality the management is very aware of what is going on. They monitor calls personally to ensure compliance with the KEEP IT REAL bs - they are taking stats every 15 minutes to see where everyone is at. So to say this was an isolated incident is appalling. They are very aware of what was going on but the management makes a bonus based on the performance of the CSR's - no one talked about that yet and it was even rarely talked about when I was working there. But they did and so what the CSR's did directly impacted what management made. It went up the chain. In fact that is why alot of CSR's were fired is they were mediocre - what coach would want someone on their team that wasn't going to earn them a bigger bonus. In fact twice a year they would have something called a shift bid (kinda like AOL call center free agency) where you could put in for a certain shift - but management who wanted the top performers would actively recruit CSR's to be on their teams to get more of their own bonus money. So to sum it up yeah corporate AOL may in fact really believe in the processes and policies but the management only did to save their own face when confronted by corporate but when the big dogs weren't around it was business as normal. The management in the call center I was in had underqualified management who knew nothing about managing a team. One guy had been a pizza delivery dude prior to working for AOL and most of them got the job not from what they knew but who they knew. I know some of that goes on everywhere but atleast in my realm of a dept with the state that does go on but the person also knows what the hell they are doing too or they get run off.
Bill

A stock in trade of a cult is to manipulate emotions, and to use emotional instead of rational appeals.

Reprimanding Bonejob for pointing out that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes (in this case: an AOL's subscriber's kid can just go to IE and no more parental controls) is straight out of a cult playbook.

teri: I'm not entirely clear I understand your comments about John, but if he should lose his job for personally participating in something unethical, then truly every single CSR at AOL deserves to lose their jobs as well. Ditto re their supervisors, and the supervisors' supervisors, etc. What is outrageous, to me, is that John was basically being chosen randomly as a involuntary sacrifice (as if picked for the lottery in Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery"). If Bob or Mary or Tommy or Sue happened to pick up the phone when Vincent called (with his recorder on), and behaved as AOL CSR is trained to behave, AOL would have fired Bob or Mary or Tommy or Sue...and John would still have his job. Think about it. It's only John's random, arbitrary luck to have been the one recorded and shared with the media.

I believe one reason this story has resonated with teri, myself, and many others is that many of us had our own first-hand outrageous, inexcusable experiences attempting to cancel AOL -- memorably, extraordinarily negative experiences that linger in the mind. My guy was worse than John. I had to rebuff his intrusive, irrelevant questions and his "offers" several times, and one time he acted as if though I had said "yes" when I hadn't (quotas promote dishonesty), saying he would go ahead set me up with something, and I had to loudly interrupt him and say "NO, no no no no!" When it was clear that I was not going to be a save, he tried to get me off of the phone as fast as possible, talking incomprehensible fast. It was crazy and insulting....really memorable, perhaps the most atrocious customer service interaction I've ever experienced.
Bonejob

That is exactly why I left - I couldn't stand the morons who were my managers - you try to voice your concerns about what we are selling isn't working and they just tell you to keep digging. Just like the manual - oh one thing about the manual is that they hired a company called "outsell" out of california to create this process - they guarenteed that it would increase the csr's saves rate if you used it - with me I had several CSS (which are customer support staff and they are like a lead for the csr's) tell me that really you just badger the hell out of people until they submit or they just take the free month hoping that they will get a less pushy rep when the free month runs out. Give them free months - and then if corporate complained about too much free months given out or cash back they would offer bonus for saving people without any free time or cash back - I left at a point because of something I learned back in 1999 - I worked for a bank call center and there were all these rumors that the company was being sued due to predatory lending violations - ofcourse the managers at that bank/call center tried to squash those rumors but when higher level managers and eventually the bank ceo left - I jumped ship - the same happened at the aol call center I was at - several managers were leaving - people who were just promoted were leaving their jobs ? Don't you usually stay if you get promoted? Then the final seal was when our GM of the call center left - of course they downplayed it as he was just there for a short time and wanted to move on - we later found out he went to another call center and was making less money - yeah that was my epiphany that things were getting weird. Not to mention the janitorial staff quit and other weird things started happening with all kinds of changes and layoffs. I remember they had this big push about the aol for broadband and that if you have high speed you need aol because it will protect your high speed line - but having some common sense I knew that you can get other firewalls for free - antivirus for free - and the parental controls? hell all a kid needs to do is just click on internet explorer and that isn't an issue - I voiced this in a meeting and after the meeting I was reprimended for trying to cause dissension and not promoting aol - all this stuff I had kinda forgot about til vinny's stuff came up - insane - not to mention all the HR issues they had with people going on FMLA due to stress - you know even just thinking about that place just makes me sick - literally I am almost gagging now - oh and by the way I found out Jon was at the AOL Ogden, UT callcenter where they are still are hiring if you go to the aol.com website and look up careers. if you get a chance you should listen to Leo Laporte's "THE TECH GUY on KFI" I can't remember what episode it is but there is some good info there.
teri

Bill - i decided to leave AOL when I found this nasty self-replicating virus/spyware on my computer that was slowing my computer down. AOL tech was no help whatsoever. Just read from the "Help Manual Script" and had no idea what he was saying. I did my own research. Google is amazing for that. I Googled the name of the .exe program (googling with quotes is esstential.) and found that it was downloaded by a company called People PC. Guess who hires People PC as a marketing firm? You guessed it, AOL. AOL gives them permission to download spyware to monitor the trends of AOL users (read the small print). So the fact that my CSR told me about the great anti spyware program they offer...it was almost too infuriating to listen to.
teri

Bill - Ha! Carbon paper! Remember mimeographs?!? Too funny!

I completely agree with you. The idea that my opinion (that is, my wish to cancel AOL) could be manipulated by "enthusiasm" for the product rather than the actual value of the product just proves how little respect they have for their members.

I can't help but think back to my AOL cancellation horror story. My CSR followed that manual. It was evident to me then that his "casual attitude" and "enthusiasm for the value of AOL" was insincere. But I sat there politely and listened to all the BS he had to offer. When he realized he wan't going to "overcome my objections", he became beligerant and insulting. I have never been spoken to that way in my life!!!

I think that was part of the demise of AOL - when they lost customers - they lost them for LIFE!!! Not even free AOL will ever get me to use their service again! And further more, I, like many others, go out of my way to tell everyone I know about their horrible service.

As for whistle blowers...I praise their efforts! The downfall of Enron can be attributed to a whistle blower. It's one of the few things that helps keep Corporate America honest! Bonejob is right - the laws that govern Corporate America are geared towards allowing them to "reword policies to create the mirage of compliance". Meanwhile, in the real world, it's business as usual.

With that in mind, I must say that I think Jon should have been fired. That's not to say that I don't feel bad for him and the position he may be in. I do feel bad. He got fired for doing his job. He got fired for something that another CSR is being *rewarded* for. It's really his moral duty to speak up for himself and tell the truth. The ironic thing about that idea is that I, for one, would be one of the first to rally for Jon and state that due to the way I was treated, the behavior Jon exhibited was not only allowed, but encouraged. I think that Jon, and every ex-AOL employee, really hold much of the power in that respect.

Call me naive, but isn't it really that simple? It only took 300 complaints to the New York Atty. Gen'l Office to start the Class Action law suit brought aganst AOL.

The demise of AOL is clearly inevidible. I thank Vincent for his bright idea to record his converstion. It really is proof to me that one person really can make a difference.
Bill

A customer can't have a "Eureka moment" (an AOL high-up's term to the press on what the CSRs try to give customers) if the product is simply not worth the money. What an uphill battle. I'm sure the CSRs love customers who are naive and don't know much about computers or the internet. A major nail in the coffin in my own leaving AOL was the experience, after getting DSL, of just setting my browser home page to Google (or whatever I want) and using ad-free Outlook Express to manage (non-AOL) email, and totally circumventing the AOL interface. WOW -- what a relief!!! It was like having lived next to airport for 10 years and suddenly living someplace quiet. No more screaming AOL landing pages. No more clutter. No more out of control imbedded marketing. And tons more freedom.

I am a huge fan of craigslist, which makes a lot of money and yet operates on a business model of providing a community service. craigslist has huge advantages over traditional newspaper classified advertising, and the majority of the time it is free to all parties. Traditional classified ad providers, particularly in cities where craigslist is especially well-established, have seen a noticeable, unfavorable change in their revenues. That's going to cause disruptions at the newspapers, which are unfortunate for them, but you just can't argue against the advantages of craigslist...and people are in fact moving their business in droves -- and saving money, meeting more people, etc.

AOL responded to a change in the marketplace in a kind of caveman way: "You no leave cave. We grab you short hairs. We no let go short hairs. You always stay AOL cave." That is, they choose the crude, reflexive, and thoughtless route of trying to keep customers no matter what, no matter what the actual quality of their product. This has been a mistake.
Bonejob

That is the nice thing about Vinny's inadvertent phone call was that it created a dual benefit to the members and to the workers - I have had many conversations with tenured employees - people who have been there for 10 yrs or longer who put up with the BS because they have kids to feed and just play the game - This one person I know who I will call D-Boy has been with AOL along time in the call center and I keep in touch with him still and even when I was working there all the CSR's talked about how AOL is gonna get caught and get in trouble - and wham the FTC suit/settlement came and went - then I left and through conversations with D-Boy he said nothing has changed other than aol hid and reworded certain policies to create the mirage of compliance - he stressed to me that they were going to get caught in something again. And boy did they ever. I think the biggest thing I had a hard time with is that aol was big on selling value to the customer - when there really wasn't any. They pushed us to find out their wants and needs and tell how aol can meet that but I knew that all the features no matter what they were or products you could get them for free elsewhere. Such as antivirus protection - most internet providers will give you a free version that is the same as the mcafee that you get from aol or you can get free versions like AVG or whatever. the content is fun for 1 day but otherwise most people don't care about it. In fact most half ways tech savy people know that they really don't need aol for anything and the spyzapper and other stuff that aol offers really does a sh**ty job of protecting your computer anyway. As far as my health goes - it really was fine after leaving AOL - so I am sure AOL will reform - but the unfortunate thing is that they still weren't proactive about it - rather than honestly trying to make things better on their own they are compelled to make changes due to bad press - some companies just don't get it. Someone needs to take their balls out of their wifes purse and say we need to do this and that and make things better instead of pussi footing around in Dulles, VA - but I think it is too little too late now.
Bill

teri: I did look through some of the manual, but couldn't stomach reading all the way through (Bonejob understands how some of us can't stomach that stuff). I think you remarked previously that "calling the Cancellation Dept. the Retention Dept. gives me the creeps," and I completely agree. It's a perfect encapsulation of the trouble with AOL. Instead of keeping customers with a quality product, they are to be "retained" through the manipulative protocols outlined in the manual -- and through other tricks and games encouraged verbally by supervisors, and still more methods invented by CSRs to creatively meet the quotas imposed upon them. (The quotas are also creepy. There is so much that is creepy here, I don't know where to begin.)

My strong feeling remains that if you can't keep customers by virtue of the quality of the product, then you need to either try a different product, or close up shop.

It can be disruptive to close up shop, but there is nothing intrinsically shameful about having to do that. If you were making and selling carbon paper, and then suddenly affordable photocopiers were flooding the market, well, you just might have to quit the carbon paper business (or else drastically curtail it). There would be nothing wrong or shameful in doing that. (You might otherwise try converting your resources to produce a product for which there is still a market...but that may or may not be viable.)

What is shameful, if you ask me, is establishing a culture where the customers are kept -- or, more to the point, where their flow of money is kept -- even if the product is no longer meeting customers' needs. A win-win, mutually empathic relationship no longer exists. It becomes exploitation of one party by another.

Vincent, you've got at least two voices agreeing that this is too important a story to get buried by other, not directly related blog items. A couple weeks ago, didn't you say some kind of huge news would be coming, and that the AOL critics would going to be very satisfied? Were you referring to the access to the manual? If so, I think that's another argument for "prominentizing" (if I may make up a word) this piece. Probably you have visitors who check back periodically who were initially drawn by media coverage of the call recording story (as I was); they return to your blog and don't see a "top story" on AOL, and then they think, oh, the big scoop hasn't arrived yet.

Is this not, if not the big scoop you had alluded to, a big scoop? You yourself cite the manual as significant proof of AOL's disingenuity. That's pretty major stuff.

I admit that I feel a little funny about the manual -- which is probably, legally speaking, protected property of AOL -- leaking out...but for the sake of justice it may be fair. This could perhaps be considered whistleblowing. I imagine Mr. Spitzer's office would have demanded the manual eventually.

Re-reading Bonejob's post here I am struck again by the stress of a CSR at AOL job...what a nightmare situation, at least for someone with half a conscience. It's like they were slavedriven...and forced by threats of termination to mistreat people. Awful.

Vincent, you've arguably done a humanitarian service at the least by providing some relief to the slaves in the slave den in the {wince} Retention Department (or Retention Queue, per the manual) of AOL. Thank you.
teri

I said it before, and I'll saying it again:

Just the idea of calling a "Cancelation Dept." a "Retention Dept." gives me the creeps. But then again, I was raised with a sense of morals and ethics.

I read AOL's Retention Manual. All 89 vile pages. It has got to be the most unethical document I've ever read. I could never treat another human being as poorly as AOL's "Retention manual" encourages its employees to do.

Bill - your "cult" analogy is very appropriate. If you have time, read the manual. It gets particularly creepy toward the end. The amount of effort put forth to encourage CSR to manipulate the customer...ignore customer wishes ("I want to Cancel...."). I couldn't do that for a product I actually *believed* in, never mind the "Worst Tech Product Ever", that is, AOL.

Bonejob - you reacted exactly the way an ethical person would react to an unethical situation/environment. I'm sorry it affected your health so adversely. Take comfort in knowing that AOL is dying a slow (and hopefully very painful) death.

Vincent - i agree with Bill - I would hate for this to be glossed over...keep up the good work!
Bill

Bonejob: Grim. Just grim. I'm really sorry to hear about what you -- and apparently hundreds of others -- went through. It sounds like a cult. Like in a cult, the leader's PR statements greatly contradict reality. I imagine the management there when faced with an apparent problem engaged in a lot of blamestorming, instead of using their brains productively to (a) try to deeply understand the problem, and (b) figure a better, smarter, more humane business model.
Bonejob

If any of you read the consumerist posting about AOL killing you? Well working for them will kill you and if it doesn't then it will stress the hell out of you - when I worked there (and I mentioned this in other posts) I had such an anxiety of going to work there that I would literally get sick to my stomach and would gag. After consulting with my doctor he stated it was stress related and after leaving there I haven't had that problem anymore. Furthermore, twice when I came into work (this is within a 1 year period) there were on 2 different occasions people who were having some sort of major medical issues as ambulances were outside and paramedics were putting them on a stretcher. I would say over half the people in the 400 person callcenter were on some sort of anti anxiety medication (this was by their own admission) and alot of people were using their annual leave as soon as they got it because they hated coming to work or they found a way to get on FMLA due to stress. The management sucked - and for aol saying they don't tolerate things they certainly tolerated several things from their management. Let me tell you about a manager named X - he was 40 something and a real scab - he was my manager and fired a coworker because he was gay but actually on the paperwork they said it was performance. My friend filed a grievance and won his right to collect unemployment. The other coworker was a very nice and mild mannered girl who wasn't logged into her phone for 7hrs and 50 min (their anal requirement) but he fired her for only being logged into her phone 7 hrs and 25 min - but then one day he was gone to another team and we had a different manager - evidently he made sexually harrasing comments to a female worker and was transferred to a different team in another part of the building - this didn't surprise me since 'x' was standing by me one time and a girl walked by and he told me "wow check out her breasts" -- then he evidently made harrassing comments to several coworkers on the new team he was on and was then let go - my point is that AOL tolerates stuff - and if they tolerate a verbally and sexually harrassing manager they will tolerate CSR's who get saves - until someone raises a stink - then they whack the csr and claim they were a rogue agent. One thing that added to all the stress is that AOL had 100 ways to fire you if they wanted - you had to maintain a saves rate, meet certain log in requirements for your phone - etc etc -- not hey have some sort of customer satisfaction matrixx but unbeknownst to alot of people they managers still tell the employees that they have to have a saves rate or they call that a nonperformance issue and will administer corrective action. What AOL doesn't tolerate is being made a fool and being exposed - if that happens then they whack whatever underling they can - make them the sacrificial lamb and then spin spin spin. Our local news has a consumer advocate and has done several stories on AOL and he showed up at the call center and the aol brass freaked out and the management told the CSR's that they had better not talk to anyone from the media or they would be terminated on the spot. They had the media rep handle all the responses and they were the typical nicolas graham dog and pony show responses.
Bill

Vinny: It seems like this important follow-up post is getting buried. I bet a lot of people who might like to see it are missing it. It really brings the AOL story full circle -- gives you (and all of us consumers) validation. Is there any way in which it could be made more prominent?
Bill

Treating, as corporate policy, a cancellation request as a "hot lead" in the "Retention Queue" is absolutely not "swiftly honoring their [customers'] requests." And how many thousands (millions?) of us had the infuriating experience of being treated as a hot lead in the Retention Queue -- instead of just cancelling the account? Lucy has some serious splaining to do. Also explain why so many people are reporting having been tricked or deceived into non-cancellations. And explain how in some cases employees got bonuses for getting customers to hang up on them (thus avoiding an account cancellation). And explain why employees tried to keep accounts open for dead people. Explain Bonejob's stories. Explain the stories of other employees who have come forward.

And, of course, firing John -- who was but a manual-compliant and supervisor-compliant AOL employee, following true AOL policy, not the stuff thoughtlessly made up for the media as a quick attempt at damage control -- is a travesty.

Swiftly Shovelling Crap On A Fire

IT.tv