Comments on: AOL Won’t Deny Manual’s Authenticity http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/07/22/aol-wont-deny-manuals-authenticity/ Specializing in Bovine Fecal Detection Since January of 2002 Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:29:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Bill http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/07/22/aol-wont-deny-manuals-authenticity/#comment-191239 Bill Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:40:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2543#comment-191239 Bonejob: If AOL is ethically challenged enough to do what's been already elaborated on this blog, their presenting misleading numbers to stockholders would simply be completely consistent. Your theory about the 90 days makes perfect sense. Does anyone know what Steve Case (AOL founder) thinks about all these shenanigans? Bonejob: If AOL is ethically challenged enough to do what’s been already elaborated on this blog, their presenting misleading numbers to stockholders would simply be completely consistent. Your theory about the 90 days makes perfect sense.

Does anyone know what Steve Case (AOL founder) thinks about all these shenanigans?

]]> By: Bonejob http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/07/22/aol-wont-deny-manuals-authenticity/#comment-191238 Bonejob Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:14:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2543#comment-191238 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 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

]]> By: Bill http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/07/22/aol-wont-deny-manuals-authenticity/#comment-191237 Bill Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:00:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2543#comment-191237 Alexander: Congrats on the doing the right thing. If I were you, I'd write down your stories...a journalist may want to speak with you. This stuff should go into a book. Alexander: Congrats on the doing the right thing. If I were you, I’d write down your stories…a journalist may want to speak with you. This stuff should go into a book.

]]> By: Alexander http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/07/22/aol-wont-deny-manuals-authenticity/#comment-191236 Alexander Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:22:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2543#comment-191236 I wish I still had all my manuals and training materials, etc, from when I worked for AOL. It was several years ago, and it was quite possibly the worst job of my life. I lasted about six months before I decided that my soul was far more valuable than a mere paycheck. I should not say mere, however, for the paychecks were quite substantial. I was good at what I did, "saving" customers, no matter what it might take. CSRs only made $8.00 an hour when I was there, so the vast bulk of what would have likely been $50,000 a year was bonuses based on my saves rate. You do the math. Not only did I get paid based on how many I saved, but my very job depended on maintaining a certain percentage of saves verses cancels. I do not know if they still call it saving, but that is what we did. We saved all the poor souls from cancelling the almighty AOL. While the rep in your call definitely went over the top, I got chills, hearing echoes of so many of my own calls. The script has not changed that much in the intervening years, and I pursued the same hard sales line myself more than once. And then the condescension and put upon "you are such a horrible customer" patience the CSR displayed when you started to show your frustration, and the demand that you would listen to the final cancel script before he finally cancelled your account. Much to my chagrin, I am certain my voice revealed the same emotions more than once. But I escaped the lure of good money and great benefits, I pulled my soul back from the brink of that special fiery hell that is reserved for those who talk little old ladies into keeping a service they don’t need, want, or understand. Fast talking and honeyed tongues are the trademarks of the elite of the AOL savers, not to mention an utter lack of morality and conscience. I am so glad you have brought their reprehensible sales practices to light, and I am only surprised it was not done sooner. Good luck. I wish I still had all my manuals and training materials, etc, from when I worked for AOL. It was several years ago, and it was quite possibly the worst job of my life. I lasted about six months before I decided that my soul was far more valuable than a mere paycheck. I should not say mere, however, for the paychecks were quite substantial. I was good at what I did, “saving” customers, no matter what it might take.

CSRs only made $8.00 an hour when I was there, so the vast bulk of what would have likely been $50,000 a year was bonuses based on my saves rate. You do the math. Not only did I get paid based on how many I saved, but my very job depended on maintaining a certain percentage of saves verses cancels. I do not know if they still call it saving, but that is what we did. We saved all the poor souls from cancelling the almighty AOL.

While the rep in your call definitely went over the top, I got chills, hearing echoes of so many of my own calls. The script has not changed that much in the intervening years, and I pursued the same hard sales line myself more than once. And then the condescension and put upon “you are such a horrible customer” patience the CSR displayed when you started to show your frustration, and the demand that you would listen to the final cancel script before he finally cancelled your account.

Much to my chagrin, I am certain my voice revealed the same emotions more than once. But I escaped the lure of good money and great benefits, I pulled my soul back from the brink of that special fiery hell that is reserved for those who talk little old ladies into keeping a service they don’t need, want, or understand. Fast talking and honeyed tongues are the trademarks of the elite of the AOL savers, not to mention an utter lack of morality and conscience.

I am so glad you have brought their reprehensible sales practices to light, and I am only surprised it was not done sooner. Good luck.

]]> By: Kael http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/07/22/aol-wont-deny-manuals-authenticity/#comment-191235 Kael Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:49:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2543#comment-191235 Millions of people will be ecstatic the day AOL files for bankruptcy. And that day will be coming soon. Millions of people will be ecstatic the day AOL files for bankruptcy. And that day will be coming soon.

]]> By: Bonejob http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/07/22/aol-wont-deny-manuals-authenticity/#comment-191234 Bonejob Sat, 22 Jul 2006 23:44:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2543#comment-191234 Vinny is right - even though that manual is purported by AOLTECHGUY (and I am assuming he is from india since most of their tech is done over there now) it does prove they follow that flow chart still and their tactics haven't changed. The only thing AOL did change is the bonus structure but the tactics haven't. Maybe they have changed 'NOW' but they didn't when first FTC agreement was signed and they didn't when the second FTC agreement was signed and they didn't when change them when the NY Attorney General settled with them. the tactics stayed the same but the bonus' changed. And when I was there whenever AOL Federal watchdogs were going to be listening to calls our managers TOLD US FLAT OUT that they were listening and not to follow this flow chart as they had instructed with several saves attempts and the keep digging attitude. Then when they were gone it was business as usual. Vinny is right – even though that manual is purported by AOLTECHGUY (and I am assuming he is from india since most of their tech is done over there now) it does prove they follow that flow chart still and their tactics haven’t changed. The only thing AOL did change is the bonus structure but the tactics haven’t. Maybe they have changed ‘NOW’ but they didn’t when first FTC agreement was signed and they didn’t when the second FTC agreement was signed and they didn’t when change them when the NY Attorney General settled with them. the tactics stayed the same but the bonus’ changed. And when I was there whenever AOL Federal watchdogs were going to be listening to calls our managers TOLD US FLAT OUT that they were listening and not to follow this flow chart as they had instructed with several saves attempts and the keep digging attitude. Then when they were gone it was business as usual.

]]> By: Vinny http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/07/22/aol-wont-deny-manuals-authenticity/#comment-191233 Vinny Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:19:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2543#comment-191233 The current call flows? You need look no further than my call. Go ahead. Compare it to what Consumerist posted. I don't care if this manual is 100 years old. They're still following it. I'm open to receiving some materials. Apparently someone was pissed enough at AOL to send it to Consumerist, so maybe they'll send it there. Who knows. One way or the other, though, we already know that they were lying when they said AOL procedures require the honoring of member requests quickly. Bravo sierra. Period. The current call flows? You need look no further than my call. Go ahead. Compare it to what Consumerist posted.

I don’t care if this manual is 100 years old. They’re still following it.

I’m open to receiving some materials. Apparently someone was pissed enough at AOL to send it to Consumerist, so maybe they’ll send it there.

Who knows.

One way or the other, though, we already know that they were lying when they said AOL procedures require the honoring of member requests quickly.

Bravo sierra.

Period.

]]> By: aoltechguy http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/07/22/aol-wont-deny-manuals-authenticity/#comment-191232 aoltechguy Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:23:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2543#comment-191232 I'm not offering any kind of excuse. What I am saying is that a training manual used within the last 12 months would be much more interesting as it would show the current call flows and tactics used by retention. I work in tech for a reason, I'd like to think that my department has somewhat higher standards of customer service. In any case, perhaps someone could send you a current copy of the retention training manual and pod sheets ( these show the member connect flows ) -- I think it would be even more eye-opening than this one is. I’m not offering any kind of excuse. What I am saying is that a training manual used within the last 12 months would be much more interesting as it would show the current call flows and tactics used by retention. I work in tech for a reason, I’d like to think that my department has somewhat higher standards of customer service. In any case, perhaps someone could send you a current copy of the retention training manual and pod sheets ( these show the member connect flows ) — I think it would be even more eye-opening than this one is.

]]> By: Vinny http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/07/22/aol-wont-deny-manuals-authenticity/#comment-191231 Vinny Sat, 22 Jul 2006 19:11:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2543#comment-191231 It's not surprising that someone would use that excuse. If they aren't using it anymore, why the hell does my call seem so close to both the manual and the flowchart? I'm open to explanations. It’s not surprising that someone would use that excuse. If they aren’t using it anymore, why the hell does my call seem so close to both the manual and the flowchart?

I’m open to explanations.

]]> By: aoltechguy http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/07/22/aol-wont-deny-manuals-authenticity/#comment-191230 aoltechguy Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:35:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2543#comment-191230 I'm not defending AOL but the training manual consumerist has posted has not been used for training retention specialists at AOL for well over two years. What you want to get your hands on is the training manual used just after the NY class action suit resulted in changes in training curriculum that skirted so creatively around the "changes" AOL made. I’m not defending AOL but the training manual consumerist has posted has not been used for training retention specialists at AOL for well over two years. What you want to get your hands on is the training manual used just after the NY class action suit resulted in changes in training curriculum that skirted so creatively around the “changes” AOL made.

]]> By: aoltechguy http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/07/22/aol-wont-deny-manuals-authenticity/#comment-12574 aoltechguy Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2543#comment-12574 I'm not defending AOL but the training manual consumerist has posted has not been used for training retention specialists at AOL for well over two years. What you want to get your hands on is the training manual used just after the NY class action suit resulted in changes in training curriculum that skirted so creatively around the "changes" AOL made. I’m not defending AOL but the training manual consumerist has posted has not been used for training retention specialists at AOL for well over two years. What you want to get your hands on is the training manual used just after the NY class action suit resulted in changes in training curriculum that skirted so creatively around the “changes” AOL made.

]]> By: Vinny http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/07/22/aol-wont-deny-manuals-authenticity/#comment-12575 Vinny Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2543#comment-12575 It's not surprising that someone would use that excuse. If they aren't using it anymore, why the hell does my call seem so close to both the manual and the flowchart? I'm open to explanations. It’s not surprising that someone would use that excuse. If they aren’t using it anymore, why the hell does my call seem so close to both the manual and the flowchart?

I’m open to explanations.

]]> By: aoltechguy http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/07/22/aol-wont-deny-manuals-authenticity/#comment-12576 aoltechguy Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2543#comment-12576 I'm not offering any kind of excuse. What I am saying is that a training manual used within the last 12 months would be much more interesting as it would show the current call flows and tactics used by retention. I work in tech for a reason, I'd like to think that my department has somewhat higher standards of customer service. In any case, perhaps someone could send you a current copy of the retention training manual and pod sheets ( these show the member connect flows ) -- I think it would be even more eye-opening than this one is. I’m not offering any kind of excuse. What I am saying is that a training manual used within the last 12 months would be much more interesting as it would show the current call flows and tactics used by retention. I work in tech for a reason, I’d like to think that my department has somewhat higher standards of customer service. In any case, perhaps someone could send you a current copy of the retention training manual and pod sheets ( these show the member connect flows ) — I think it would be even more eye-opening than this one is.

]]> By: Vinny http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/07/22/aol-wont-deny-manuals-authenticity/#comment-12577 Vinny Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2543#comment-12577 The current call flows? You need look no further than my call. Go ahead. Compare it to what Consumerist posted. I don't care if this manual is 100 years old. They're still following it. I'm open to receiving some materials. Apparently someone was pissed enough at AOL to send it to Consumerist, so maybe they'll send it there. Who knows. One way or the other, though, we already know that they were lying when they said AOL procedures require the honoring of member requests quickly. Bravo sierra. Period. The current call flows? You need look no further than my call. Go ahead. Compare it to what Consumerist posted.

I don’t care if this manual is 100 years old. They’re still following it.

I’m open to receiving some materials. Apparently someone was pissed enough at AOL to send it to Consumerist, so maybe they’ll send it there.

Who knows.

One way or the other, though, we already know that they were lying when they said AOL procedures require the honoring of member requests quickly.

Bravo sierra.

Period.

]]> By: Bonejob http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/07/22/aol-wont-deny-manuals-authenticity/#comment-12578 Bonejob Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2543#comment-12578 Vinny is right - even though that manual is purported by AOLTECHGUY (and I am assuming he is from india since most of their tech is done over there now) it does prove they follow that flow chart still and their tactics haven't changed. The only thing AOL did change is the bonus structure but the tactics haven't. Maybe they have changed 'NOW' but they didn't when first FTC agreement was signed and they didn't when the second FTC agreement was signed and they didn't when change them when the NY Attorney General settled with them. the tactics stayed the same but the bonus' changed. And when I was there whenever AOL Federal watchdogs were going to be listening to calls our managers TOLD US FLAT OUT that they were listening and not to follow this flow chart as they had instructed with several saves attempts and the keep digging attitude. Then when they were gone it was business as usual. Vinny is right – even though that manual is purported by AOLTECHGUY (and I am assuming he is from india since most of their tech is done over there now) it does prove they follow that flow chart still and their tactics haven’t changed. The only thing AOL did change is the bonus structure but the tactics haven’t. Maybe they have changed ‘NOW’ but they didn’t when first FTC agreement was signed and they didn’t when the second FTC agreement was signed and they didn’t when change them when the NY Attorney General settled with them. the tactics stayed the same but the bonus’ changed. And when I was there whenever AOL Federal watchdogs were going to be listening to calls our managers TOLD US FLAT OUT that they were listening and not to follow this flow chart as they had instructed with several saves attempts and the keep digging attitude. Then when they were gone it was business as usual.

]]> By: Kael http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/07/22/aol-wont-deny-manuals-authenticity/#comment-12579 Kael Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2543#comment-12579 Millions of people will be ecstatic the day AOL files for bankruptcy. And that day will be coming soon. Millions of people will be ecstatic the day AOL files for bankruptcy. And that day will be coming soon.

]]> By: Alexander http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/07/22/aol-wont-deny-manuals-authenticity/#comment-12580 Alexander Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2543#comment-12580 I wish I still had all my manuals and training materials, etc, from when I worked for AOL. It was several years ago, and it was quite possibly the worst job of my life. I lasted about six months before I decided that my soul was far more valuable than a mere paycheck. I should not say mere, however, for the paychecks were quite substantial. I was good at what I did, "saving" customers, no matter what it might take. CSRs only made $8.00 an hour when I was there, so the vast bulk of what would have likely been $50,000 a year was bonuses based on my saves rate. You do the math. Not only did I get paid based on how many I saved, but my very job depended on maintaining a certain percentage of saves verses cancels. I do not know if they still call it saving, but that is what we did. We saved all the poor souls from cancelling the almighty AOL. While the rep in your call definitely went over the top, I got chills, hearing echoes of so many of my own calls. The script has not changed that much in the intervening years, and I pursued the same hard sales line myself more than once. And then the condescension and put upon "you are such a horrible customer" patience the CSR displayed when you started to show your frustration, and the demand that you would listen to the final cancel script before he finally cancelled your account. Much to my chagrin, I am certain my voice revealed the same emotions more than once. But I escaped the lure of good money and great benefits, I pulled my soul back from the brink of that special fiery hell that is reserved for those who talk little old ladies into keeping a service they don’t need, want, or understand. Fast talking and honeyed tongues are the trademarks of the elite of the AOL savers, not to mention an utter lack of morality and conscience. I am so glad you have brought their reprehensible sales practices to light, and I am only surprised it was not done sooner. Good luck. I wish I still had all my manuals and training materials, etc, from when I worked for AOL. It was several years ago, and it was quite possibly the worst job of my life. I lasted about six months before I decided that my soul was far more valuable than a mere paycheck. I should not say mere, however, for the paychecks were quite substantial. I was good at what I did, “saving” customers, no matter what it might take.

CSRs only made $8.00 an hour when I was there, so the vast bulk of what would have likely been $50,000 a year was bonuses based on my saves rate. You do the math. Not only did I get paid based on how many I saved, but my very job depended on maintaining a certain percentage of saves verses cancels. I do not know if they still call it saving, but that is what we did. We saved all the poor souls from cancelling the almighty AOL.

While the rep in your call definitely went over the top, I got chills, hearing echoes of so many of my own calls. The script has not changed that much in the intervening years, and I pursued the same hard sales line myself more than once. And then the condescension and put upon “you are such a horrible customer” patience the CSR displayed when you started to show your frustration, and the demand that you would listen to the final cancel script before he finally cancelled your account.

Much to my chagrin, I am certain my voice revealed the same emotions more than once. But I escaped the lure of good money and great benefits, I pulled my soul back from the brink of that special fiery hell that is reserved for those who talk little old ladies into keeping a service they don’t need, want, or understand. Fast talking and honeyed tongues are the trademarks of the elite of the AOL savers, not to mention an utter lack of morality and conscience.

I am so glad you have brought their reprehensible sales practices to light, and I am only surprised it was not done sooner. Good luck.

]]> By: Bill http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/07/22/aol-wont-deny-manuals-authenticity/#comment-12581 Bill Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2543#comment-12581 Alexander: Congrats on the doing the right thing. If I were you, I'd write down your stories...a journalist may want to speak with you. This stuff should go into a book. Alexander: Congrats on the doing the right thing. If I were you, I’d write down your stories…a journalist may want to speak with you. This stuff should go into a book.

]]> By: Bonejob http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/07/22/aol-wont-deny-manuals-authenticity/#comment-12582 Bonejob Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2543#comment-12582 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 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

]]> By: Bill http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/07/22/aol-wont-deny-manuals-authenticity/#comment-12583 Bill Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2543#comment-12583 Bonejob: If AOL is ethically challenged enough to do what's been already elaborated on this blog, their presenting misleading numbers to stockholders would simply be completely consistent. Your theory about the 90 days makes perfect sense. Does anyone know what Steve Case (AOL founder) thinks about all these shenanigans? Bonejob: If AOL is ethically challenged enough to do what’s been already elaborated on this blog, their presenting misleading numbers to stockholders would simply be completely consistent. Your theory about the 90 days makes perfect sense.

Does anyone know what Steve Case (AOL founder) thinks about all these shenanigans?

]]>