Sprint service

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:58:31 -0700, "mose" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I see many posts casting aspersions upon Sprint and I wonder how so
>many can find fault. My experience with Sprint has been excellent and I
>believe it will continue.
>
>I have been with Sprint over six years without any problem that has not
>been quickly explained or corrected. While I am not a 'power' user as
>many are the service has been excellent and forthcoming. My phones
>are upgraded without charge when I request it and my plan cannot be
>touched by any provider. I have three phones that are commonly used
>by my wife and family in house and two vehicles and we seldom use
>more that a third of applicable minutes. I pay by auto credit card, have
>no problems in billing.
>
>Perhaps many of those having difficulties with Sprint are difficult to deal
>with themselves or expect more from Sprint than could be expected or
>outside their plan.

I also had excellent experiences with Sprint, but had to leave
it recently because, for reasons having nothing to do with service I
decided to purchase iPhones. I was with Sprint for nine years prior to
that.

However, I have to say that customer service is indeed a HUGE
and real problem. I used to dread calling them for ANYTHING. As long
as your service is working and you make no changes you're fine. Sprint
has a strong network that never failed me, no matter where I traveled.
However, if you need to call CS to add a line or a service, or even
get credit for something, the chances are EXTREMELY high that, like a
house of cards, whatever you'd set up before will be completely
disrupted, and you'll have to call back again and again to set things
straight.

Each time I renewed my contract I was offered decent
incentives (more minutes, additional line at no charge, etc.). But
each time I found myself calling CS repeatedly over the course of the
next week, and each time I asked them to read back my plan there was
some error, somewhere. What's more, the web page NEVER reflected the
reality of my plans - not even close.

Problems with CS are not a figment of anyone's imagination.
Sprint's customer service is just a complete mess. But as I say, when
things are properly configured you can pretty much hum along with
flawless service (just praying you'll never have to deal with CS for
anything critical and a bad time).

DGI

---

› See More: Sprint service

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:03:25 -0500, "trailer" <[email protected]> wrote:

>David, I have to agree with just about all you said.
>
>My Sprint service has always been ok, but the CS stinks. I find it
>difficult to understand why they cannot fix the CS problem.

I had a friend who worked for Gateway in its heyday (not in
CS). He explained that when a company is financially strapped to any
extent, the customer service budget is going to be slashed. It's not
sheer evil (though it feels like that). It's a cold, hard business
decision to put more into R&D and production, with the earnest goal of
alleviating or lessening the _need_ for CS. If you can make a more
solid, fool-proof product that does what the consumer asks it to do
consistently, you theoretically won't need as large a customer service
force.

On that model Sprint can be said to have succeeded to some
degree.

It's also interesting to note that this was corroborated by a
book I read about the changing status of the American work force
(sorry, I can't cite the name at the moment). It offered a case
history of a large American corporation that devoted something like
6.7% of its budget to CS, which was a pretty large force considering
this corporate giant's overall budget. They had no problem supporting
this work force until 1999, when the cost of health insurance started
to rise dramatically. But they couldn't reduce the number of employees
(because they made a product that required lots of customer
interaction) so they had no choice but to close down their American CS
department and open one in India. This was in 1999, and this was
considered a pioneering event that many big corporations followed in
the ensuing years.

DGI

David G. Imber wrote:
> they had no choice but to close down their American CS
> department and open one in India. This was in 1999, and this was
> considered a pioneering event that many big corporations followed in
> the ensuing years.

Following the articles in the industry publications, the cost of
off-shore (typically to India) has a hidden cost. Call it cultural bias,
language comprehension, accent...whatever, the backlash from the
American public has left a sour taste in tech support.

My personal opinion is that the real problem with customer service call
centers is that the employees simply don't know enough. And this isn't their
fault -- I fully expect that they really do know everything their employer
requires them too, just that the requirement is often little more than being
able to read back a "troubleshooting" flowchart from a computer screen.

If I were running Sprint's customer service, my goal would be to have all
employees be as knowledgeable as those in Sprint's current "executive
services" branch -- and I'd be confident that doing so wouldn't cost me
significantly more than what I was already paying for what they already have.

when I worked (now retired), I always felt like if you take care of your
present customers, not only will they give you repeat business, but they
will always give your company a good reference, which leads to new business.

unfortunately, my last employer did not subscribe to good customer service.
they no longer exist.

"Joel Koltner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
My personal opinion is that the real problem with customer service call
centers is that the employees simply don't know enough. And this isn't
their
fault -- I fully expect that they really do know everything their employer
requires them too, just that the requirement is often little more than being
able to read back a "troubleshooting" flowchart from a computer screen.

If I were running Sprint's customer service, my goal would be to have all
employees be as knowledgeable as those in Sprint's current "executive
services" branch -- and I'd be confident that doing so wouldn't cost me
significantly more than what I was already paying for what they already
have.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:59:43 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>If I were running Sprint's customer service, my goal would be to have all
>employees be as knowledgeable as those in Sprint's current "executive
>services" branch -- and I'd be confident that doing so wouldn't cost me
>significantly more than what I was already paying for what they already have.

I have dealt with executive services, and that would be great.
But I think you'd be surprised at how that would affect the bottom
line. For each worker there isn't just a wage, but insurance, worker's
comp. etc. and it adds up to a lot. Particularly insurance.

When I was recounting a particular problem to my Gateway
friend I complained that I couldn't get anywhere with the first level
CS people. He said that was because I was dealing with $4.95/hour
workers and they really could be doing much simpler work for the same
pay (this is like 11~12 years ago). But then I told him that even the
higher level CS people seemed uncaring, and he said "yeah, then you're
speaking to a $6.50 an hour person".

I don't think it should make a difference, one should take
pride in one's work whatever the comparative pay -- but I can
understand what he was talking about. He said these things without any
particular ill-will toward the people involved. It was just
matter-of-fact.

DGI

"David G. Imber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> But I think you'd be surprised at how that would affect the bottom
> line.

You might be right, although how many customers you gain or lose through good
vs. mediocre or crappy customer service is difficult to measure.

I also might underestimate how effective the oursourced customer service is...
maybe they really do solve 90+% of peoples' problems in a timely and correct
manner?

> I don't think it should make a difference, one should take
> pride in one's work whatever the comparative pay -- but I can
> understand what he was talking about. He said these things without any
> particular ill-will toward the people involved. It was just
> matter-of-fact.

Agreed.

I do think advertising something along the lines of, "we pay our customer
service personnel good, 'living' wages, so while we're not the cheapest
service available, we are the best" can be effective... when it's all true.

---Joel

"Andy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> the reps get paied at best 10 an hour with minimal to no benifits why take
> the time to get to know the products:

Because *some* people still take great pride in what they do, *regardless* of
how much (or how little) they're being paid to do it. Not to mention that
even at near-minimum-wage jobs there's often a great deal of variation from
job to job in how "interesting" any given person finds the work.

I spent my undergraduate college years working as a generic "student hourly"
for a bunch of materials sciences grad students. I designed and built power
supplies, microcontroller circuits, wrote plenty of software, and also learned
how to run a milling machine and a lathe. While I didn't make any more money
than if I'd been, e.g., flipping burgers, it was an immensely more interesting
and useful experience. (And it's not like I could have found any other jobs
paying much better either, been in school full time and all...)

Finding these sort of "win-win" situations is what good hiring managers are
supposed to do: Maybe the competitive market just doesn't allow you to pay
that much money to your employees, but of those who are willing to work for
what you can afford, there's still a huge variation in how well they'll
perform. Better still, paying "a little more" than the competition can often
garner "a lot more" productivity and benefits from your employees -- if,
again, you choose them wisely.

I've seen many small businesses -- paying "decent" (e.g., >$15/hr) wages --
where it's clear to me that, if better employees had been hired, only, say,
2/3 would be needed. So... pay those employees $20/hr and you're still ahead
of the game! (Since $15*3/2 = $22.50 -- employees make more money, employer
spends less, everyone wins.)

There's little more detrimental to an employee's livelihood and career than
taking a job where the bulk of the employees are "just average."

---Joel

"Joel Koltner" <[email protected]> amazed us all with the
following in news:[email protected]:

> "Andy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> the reps get paied at best 10 an hour with minimal to no benifits why
>> take the time to get to know the products:
>
> Because *some* people still take great pride in what they do,
> *regardless* of how much (or how little) they're being paid to do it.


I would agree, but qualify that statement by saying that the *some*
referenced continues to represent a smaller and smaller percentage of the
american working class as time goes by.

"The Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I would agree, but qualify that statement by saying that the *some*
> referenced continues to represent a smaller and smaller percentage of the
> american working class as time goes by.

Yeah, I suppose I'd have to agree with that sentiment.

It's too bad that so many people can't see that, in the long run, "I'll do as
little for my employer and fellow man as I can possibly get away with" is
worse for the individual as well.

> I do think advertising something along the lines of, "we pay our customer
> service personnel good, 'living' wages, so while we're not the cheapest
> service available, we are the best" can be effective... when it's all true.

I was recently in the market for a new ISP and chose the one who
advertised that they specifically do *not* offshore their tech support.
I expect to call their tech support just about *never* but am happy to
reward a company behaving in a socially responsible way.

> My experience with Sprint has been excellent and I
> believe it will continue. I have been with Sprint over six years without any problem that has not
> been quickly explained or corrected. *


I have been with Sprint for over 5 years. I have always had great
service. In April, I went on a retreat up in the mountains, I had
service, no one else did. The only reason I ever considered switching
is that I use my phone more like a PDA than a phone (although I do
talk a lot too!!), and I own a Mac... so I wanted a phone I could sync
with my computer. So last month, I made the decision to break my
contract and go to AT&T and get an iPhone. I didn't like the idea of
AT&T and within 6 days, I made the choice to cancel my service and go
back to Sprint. It was the best decision. I told my dh, that I might
not be 100% happy with any phone, but I have to like the network.
Until Apple looses their exclusive contract with AT&T, I won't be
going back to an iPhone!!! (on top of the fact that I live in a large
city and can't get service IN MY HOUSE... the map showed us being in
'moderate' coverage from about a half mile east of us to a half mile
west of us and about a mile south... UGH!!)

I have a few places where we have holes, and drop calls, but for the
most part, I know where most of them are and I Love sprint!!! (there
is a tower for another company in the school parking lot and my
friends with that company still can't get service in their home.... I
am back and here to stay!!!

As for my phone, I got the instinct... and still trying to figure out
how to get around the lack of Mac support, but google does sync with
my Mac, if only I could get the phone to not crash every time I try
and open my calendar!!!