Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 18 of 18
  1. #16
    Eric
    Guest

    Re: Another example of "GREAT" Customer service

    <<I am a manager at a "little company", and we would not be "prone" to
    do anything even CLOSELY resembling the negligence or down-right
    uncaring attitude I have experienced in dealing with Sprint's CS
    department.>>

    Sorry, I didn't mean any offense. I was mostly referring to smaller
    companies just starting out -- who can make errors in rep training and
    areas like that. It would be easier to give a smaller company the
    benefit of the doubt, but with Sprint... it is much more difficult.

    Eric




    See More: Another example of "GREAT" Customer service




  2. #17
    DRBETZ
    Guest

    Re: Another example of "GREAT" Customer service


    Eric wrote:
    > *<<I am a manager at a "little company", and we would not be "prone"
    > to
    > do anything even CLOSELY resembling the negligence or down-right
    > uncaring attitude I have experienced in dealing with Sprint's CS
    > department.>>
    >
    > Sorry, I didn't mean any offense. I was mostly referring to smaller
    > companies just starting out -- who can make errors in rep training
    > and
    > areas like that. It would be easier to give a smaller company the
    > benefit of the doubt, but with Sprint... it is much more difficult.
    >
    > Eric *

    No offense taken...
    I know what you meant.
    What I find offensive is a company with the potential that Sprint has
    giving the message that customer service is not important to them by
    allowing this. I could understand if this was an isolated incident, but
    this happens almost EVERY time I have to deal with CS. I personally am
    glad that I am not a stockholder in the company.

    --
    Posted at SprintUsers.com - Your place for everything Sprint PCS
    Free wireless access @ www.SprintUsers.com/wap




  3. #18
    O/Siris
    Guest

    Re: Another example of "GREAT" Customer service

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]=
    =20
    says...
    > If they are "not supposed to be in effect until tomorrow", why would
    > they be posted today? Or why would the website not have an "effective
    > 10/06/2003" posted on it?
    >=20


    Because some fairly major work began on the site tonight, scheduled to run=
    =20
    through tomorrow. We were told the site would be unavailable to view plans=
    =20
    during the outage, so someone probably doesn't realize the information is=
    =20
    getting out "live."

    --=20
    -+-
    R=D8=DF
    O/Siris
    I work for SprintPCS
    I *don't* speak for them.



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12