You mean it gets disconnected if I don't pay?

[taxguykarl]

Me: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
SC: Oh, just the five minutes.
Me: Ah, thank you. Anyway, no it's not.

Not so fast, she didn't pay for that either.

[crashhelmet]

I came across an account like this where I work a few years ago. I started crunching the numbers and came to the conclusion that we were actually paying the customer to have our internet service. He not only argued and complained his way into credits, but he got refunds in excess of what he had actually paid. Many a head rolled in our retention and tech departments after that.

CH

[PepperElf]

I'm sure you can guess where this is going. She'd called back to us, threatened to cancel her 5 lines and go to the competition and some spineless retention rep had put a fat credit on her account to stop that from happening, thus restoring her service without her needing to pay anything.

5 lines she doesn't pay on... how is this good for the company?

[CrazedClerkthe2nd]

5 lines she doesn't pay on... how is this good for the company?

It's one of those things where all they care about is the numbers, not the story behind them.

You see to corporate, it looks better on the spreadsheets to retain 5 lines (even if those lines are not profitable at all) than to lose 5 customers.

It' dumb, but that's how it works.

[crashhelmet]

It's one of those things where all they care about is the numbers, not the story behind them.

You see to corporate, it looks better on the spreadsheets to retain 5 lines (even if those lines are not profitable at all) than to lose 5 customers.

It' dumb, but that's how it works.

For subscriber-based companies, the number of subscribers is more important than profit or service provided. A larger subscriber base can potentially make more money. Not to mention, word of mouth tends to affect them more than any other type of company.

[EricKei]

You see to corporate, it looks better on the spreadsheets to retain 5 lines (even if those lines are not profitable at all) than to lose 5 customers. .

I imagine it's a tax writeoff or something. As for "higher numbers of subscribers = good" even if they don't pay, I can only assume that they go by the newspaper/magazine notion that, for every paid subscriber, there are four or so friends/family members he shows it too "every time", thus, subscribers x 5 (plus newsstand circ) = circulation, and higher circulation means higher ad rates...I don't see too many ads on basic cell service, tho x.x Maybe it's to justify unneeded expenditures/contracts on network expansion in areas where it's not really needed...?

[Mr Hero]

Me: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
SC: Oh, just the five minutes.
Me: Ah, thank you. Anyway, no it's not.

Well that was hardly five minutes.

[BeenThereDoneThat]

Well that was hardly five minutes.

I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.

[eltf177]

And that's why "customers" like her throw tantrums like spoiled children -- because 9 times out of 10, it works.

And "customer" is still too strong a word, this is a scammer pure and simple.

I agree, how can any company stay in business giving free service to clowns like this? When I threatened to leave my cable company they said "bye!"; no discourt or special offers. I left them and that was that...

[zara1269]

Don't we, the consumers who actually pay our bills, end of footing the bill usually for people like this? This makes me sick.

[cinema guy]

There are possibly other reasons for having subscribers.

Corporate could be selling advertising based on the number of subscribers. Or simply bigging up the value of the company, "We've got more subscribers than Other Company."

Companies like to boast they have the biggest warehouse, or offices on 8 different continents, they are suppliers to the Queen, and so on and so. Customer numbers, and especially numbers of new customers, can be a big part of that.

Of course they don't like to mention the customers who aren't actually paying.

[EricKei]

Don't we, the consumers who actually pay our bills, end of footing the bill usually for people like this?

Yep. That's exactly how it works.

I have heard it said that, for most businesses, The 5% of people who are "problem customers" -- like this one -- cause something like 90% of excess costs for the company. And when the company goes over budget, those costs get passed right on to the legit 95% of customers in the form of higher rates, little fees, et al.

[ShadowBall]

Well I don't think the person qualifies as a customer when you are paying them to use your service. But I know corporate is sooo worried they might lose one user and might have them say mean things on the internet that they're perfectly fine with losing money and bending over backwards for the goddamn scammers.

And much like children, when a scammer learns they will get their own way if they scream loud enough. Sounds like that's how this prick managed to sustain their service without actually paying. This is just one person - I can only imagine how much is lost in credits from all the shrieking banshee scammers who use that service.

Dump the problem people - if they aren't even paying, I don't see the big deal. So you lose a few people. Not even a considerable amount of all subscribers in general. But I guess it's worth losing money just to make a few douchebags happy.

[Hyndis]

Sadly, where I work its very common for a small percentage of customers to be such bad "customers" that we're paying them a huge amount of money just for the "privilege" of keeping them as "customers."

Its probably something like 2% or so that are like this, but they ruin it for the other 98%. Because of the asshattery from the bad customers, we have to add a lot of addition checks that everyone needs to go through, thus slowing things down for everyone and inconveniencing the vast majority who are good, normal, sane people.

[Ironclad Alibi]

Sadly, where I work its very common for a small percentage of customers to be such bad "customers" that we're paying them a huge amount of money just for the "privilege" of keeping them as "customers."

Maybe some smart company lawyer or accountant can come up with a way to report all those credits to the IRS as income for those SCs. Then those SCs get to pay taxes on their credits. And the IRS doesn't give in to screamers.