This is priceless -- a leaked copy of the manual AOL gives its staff on how to retain customers that call up to cancel their service.

Now, AOL certainly has a right to retain its customers. And, heck, I suspect that every other subscription/service-based company has a similar manual or set of procedures (or wishes it did). But, at some point, "No means no," and AOL and its reps seem blithely set on completely ignoring that point and continuing onward despite customer anger, outrage, and hair-pulling insanity. After all, as long as the customer never gets to actually cancel, it's a win for AOL, right? Except for, y'know, all that legal stuff and everything.

(via BoingBoing)

UPDATE: The full manual can be found here. Again, the objection is not to the idea of trying to retain customers, or even better understand why a customer is leaving, but to the inability of AOL to acknowledge that, at some point, you're not losing a customer but you're gaining an enemy if you don't just cancel the frelling account.

Filed under :: Big Business :: Media Moguls
Link · Print · Edit · TR/G

Dave, it's probably just an unintended slip, but when you say "Now, AOL certainly has a right to retain its customers." I would have to disagree. I'd say that they have the right to TRY to retain their customers, but even that is limited by the rights of the customers to choose not to be an AOL customer.

The only reason I mention it is that I think there's a general looseness of usage of the word "right" in our society today, and I think we need to be more careful about how we think of rights.

Quoth ***Dave ...

Dave, it’s probably just an unintended slip, but when you say “Now, AOL certainly has a right to retain its customers.” I would have to disagree. I’d say that they have the right to TRY to retain their customers, but even that is limited by the rights of the customers to choose not to be an AOL customer.

Agreed. They even (for their shareholders) have an obligation to try and retain their customers. And they have the legal authority (if we don't want to call it a right) to do so up to the limits of commercial law.

The point being, of course, that having the authority and it being a smart idea are two very different things.

Your point on the language is well-taken.