The Customer View

Escaping AOL: A Peek Behind the Scenes

As with many newsworthy issues, by the time the word hits the national media, it is old news.  The "English-only" policy at Geno's Steaks in South Philly, mentioned in earlier entries, has actually been in effect for six months.  Now, the desperate measures that an AOL rep took to try to prevent a user from closing his account have come into the national spotlight.  However, in speaking with a colleague who worked for many years at AOL, I learned that this type of thing has been part of their culture for quite some time, and while the company publicly denounces the extreme measures taken by the customer service rep in this situation, they have also set up lucrative incentives for reps who can retain accounts.

My colleague explains it this way:

AOL has made a huge investment in retaining members because the more members they have, the higher the ad rates they can charge. (There is far more money to be made in selling ads than AOL memberships.)  Internally, the reps who receive cancellation calls work in what is called a retention queue. Their job is to sell people on the service, so they won't cancel.  While making efforts to retain customers is not a bad thing, the real problem was in the way the incentive programs were set up, and the actions of one of the original retention managers. The reps were getting two bonuses, one was 24-hour save bonus, and the other was a quarterly bonus made up of the accounts that the rep in question had kept for 90 days.

The guy who was the retention manager easily met his first quarterly goals, which were pretty low. Then the game started to get elevated, with no internal controls on rep behavior. There was a period where reps were abusing the system by telling the customer they were canceling an account when they really weren't. The reason for this was twofold; first the management was putting high pressure on the reps to retain accounts, otherwise people would be fired.  So the reps started to cut corners and game the system to their advantage. Second thing is the incentive for the 24-hour save was greater than the 90 day incentive. We had retention reps who were making close to, if not more than $100,000 a year, due to bonuses and incentives. Basically it boiled down to no internal controls to prevent negative behavior and plain old greed.

So, a situation that AOL tried to make appear to be simply the fault of a bad customer service rep, is in actuality part of their corporate culture.  Pretty pathetic.

  -- Chuck Dennis

Parting is Such Sweet Sorrow

As most customer-focused people know, it is usually more cost-effective to keep a customer than to find a new one.  The current customer typically does not require the same amount of "selling to,"  product / service explanations and training, and buying incentives.  Thus, it behooves businesses to make every reasonable effort to hang onto existing customers.

The operative word here is "reasonable."  Recently, media mega-giant AOL far exceeded any definition of the word "reasonable" in their efforts to salvage an account that a former customer wished to cancel.  You want details? 

For some time now, AOL has had a reputation for being easy to sign up with, but difficult to separate from.  This reputation is underscored here, by this particular customer service rep's tenacious attempt to argue the customer out of his decision to terminate his account. 

It's all well and good for a service rep to try to salvage the relationship, by asking if there is anything that the organization can do to keep the customer.  And even if that question comes up empty, it's still permissible and commendable for the rep to ask the customer for feedback on what the organization could have done better, so as to not lose other existing customers. 

But once the customer makes it clear (as this customer did) that all he wants to do is terminate the account, and is not interested in an exit interview, then the thing to do is cancel the customer's account, thank them for their business, and wish them well.  That's how you handle such matters with professionalism and class.  You may not have this customer's business anymore, but your organization's reputation and dignity are in tact.

It is puzzling that a huge conglomerate such as AOL would use such tactics to desperately try to preserve a single user's account.  AOL said, in a statement, that they regretted the incident and have fired the rep, but really, what are the chances of one lowly customer service rep pulling out all the stops, on his own, in order to prevent an ordinary customer from closing his account.  I have to believe that the reps are trained, to some degree, to steer people away from closing accounts.  Even to the point of this rep telling this 30 year old customer that he wanted to speak to his father (who had a sub-account)!

Desperation is such a sad, ugly thing.

  -- Chuck Dennis

The Cheese on that English is Spreading

Well, I am not the only one who has taken notice of the Geno's Steaks "English-only" policy.  A quick search on Google regarding this issue reveals over 81,000 hits!  Whoa, pony!

As one friend, an attorney in Philadelphia, put it: "...it hasn't hurt this clown to take this position, he's gotten a week of national media coverage because of it."  So I guess the old saying is true - there's no such thing as bad publicity.

And, as this is a business blog and not a political one, I will try to keep our focus on the business aspects of this matter.  In my last entry, I questioned the business sense of alientating (no pun intended!) a significant portion of your customer base by insisting that English be spoken at your establishment when ordering a product.  I also think about how completely out of luck most US travelers would be, if merchants in other countries adopted the "Geno's policy."

But then, I look at the number of hits on Google, and think about my friend's comment about national media coverage, and I think that this has turned into the type of publicity that the top PR firms dream about.  Whether Mr. Vento, the proprietor of Geno's, is now known as a champion of US values or known as a xenophobe, the fact is, he is now "known" from coast to coast.  P.T. Barnum would have loved this guy.

  -- Chuck Dennis

Ya Want Cheese with that English?

We try not to get too political in this space, but sometimes political issues spill over into customer issues, and we feel compelled to comment.

Being a native of the Philadelphia area, and having grown up on cheesesteak sandwiches, I was drawn to this article in today's Boston Globe, about a famous cheesesteak joint in South Philly called Geno's. 

The gist of the article is that the proprietor of Geno's has instituted an "English-only" policy for his customers.  This is ironic, given that Geno's is located in an area settled and developed by Italian immigrants, and that the proprietor's own grandparents struggled to learn English when they came here from Italy in the 1920's.  Part of this policy might be fueled by the fact that, in the past 20 years, the neighborhood has been infused by different types of immigrants, those of Hispanic and Asian origin.

Joseph Vento, the proprietor of Geno's, is trying to mask this "English-only" policy as an attempt to "help these people."  Does he really believe that by forcing people to order their cheesesteaks in English (not to mention their "Freedom Fries" - I kid you not!), he is helping the process of assimilation into the open arms of America?

Aside from the obvious political and racist overtones here, let's look at this from a customer service viewpoint.  The world is changing.  People come to this country, and to other countries, looking for a better life.  As they struggle to build their new life in a new culture, are they supposed to put aside all purchases of products and services until they master the local language?  Is this not just a tad self-serving?

Rather, intelligent businesses should want to reach out to customers of all nationalities.  The customers may speak different languages, but their money is still US green.  And businesses that build reputations as being ethnically friendly will see a rise in business activity, as customers they have graciously served (in spite of language or cultural differences) will tell their friends, neighbors, and colleagues.

If your business is located in an area populated with people of different nationalities and cultures, you do not do them any favors by humiliating them by insisting they deal with you only in English.  You will not win any humanitarian awards for forcing your language on them.  Consider that over 30 million people in the US (12% of the population) speak Spanish as their primary or secondary language.  Regardless of your political or cultural leanings, or your feelings toward the US immigration policy, does it make sense to alienate a significant chunk of your customer base by imposing your language preferences on them?

Finally, as a matter of full disclosure, I always preferred to do business with Geno's chief competitor across the street, Pat's Steaks.  They never worried much about English; they spoke "Sout' Philly."

  -- Chuck Dennis