611 CSRs have little authority and thus a high turnover since
that leads to a high level of frustration; although the Kansas Call
Center did confirm to me they have loosely enforced 10 minute handle
time guides, as opposed to the 6 minute strictly enforced handle time
limits at Sprint I used to experience.
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:42:34 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
<bkfiv2hsig0o5gut7vvdj6t7e30tbbbsud@4ax.com>:
> 611 CSRs have little authority and thus a high turnover since
>that leads to a high level of frustration...
From my experience in running tech support operations I can tell you
this is nothing unique to Cingular -- call center reps have high
turnover throughout this and other industries, with stress from
difficult or even abusive callers being the single biggest cause.
It's a thankless job.
Call centers are often outsourced out of the USA not only because of
lower cost, but also because people in other countries are more willing
to put up with stress from callers due in part to being more grateful
for the employment.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>
> 611 CSRs have little authority and thus a high turnover since
> that leads to a high level of frustration; although the Kansas Call
> Center did confirm to me they have loosely enforced 10 minute handle
> time guides, as opposed to the 6 minute strictly enforced handle time
> limits at Sprint I used to experience.
>
I see you don't have any new material, so you're forced to simply alter
your old lies.
Nobody confirmed anything- you're a troll, and a bad one at that.
My prediction- "Karl" will be changing carriers within six months and will
contiue to "expose" big secrets about Cingular until he goes. His claims
will get more outlandish as time goes by, as will his number of contacts
with upper level executives.
How do I know? He started spouting the same crap about Sprint a couple of
years back before he switched over to Cingular. The rant he uses above is
almost verbatim when compared to his old Sprint rants.
If Karl knew anything about modern call center management, he would realize
the obvious error of his statement. Customer Service call centers around
the globe have migrated away from call time as their primary metric to
measure efficiency and profitability. It has been replaced by a philosophy
of driving down call volume by trying to resolve as many issues as possible
during the initial call, thereby eliminating repeat calls. Fewer calls
require fewer agents to answer the phones, even at the expense of Karl's
imaginary call time metric.
The reason for Karl's impression of little CSR authority comes from his
need to exact revenge on his carrier for every little perceived problem-
his measure of satisfaction is not in the resolution of the issue, but the
number of free months of service he can extort out of them through sheer
annoyance. Anybody claiming to call a VP over a single text message is
proof in the flesh.
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:02:21 -0500, Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
>news:bkfiv2hsig0o5gut7vvdj6t7e30tbbbsud@4ax.com :
>
>>
>> 611 CSRs have little authority and thus a high turnover since
>> that leads to a high level of frustration; although the Kansas Call
>> Center did confirm to me they have loosely enforced 10 minute handle
>> time guides, as opposed to the 6 minute strictly enforced handle time
>> limits at Sprint I used to experience.
>>
>
>I see you don't have any new material, so you're forced to simply alter
>your old lies.
Calling Sprint nasty policies against their Customers and CSRs a lie
does not make it so. Just Google it and see
its true. I dont know why a Sprint apologist is hanging out
in a Cingular group, other than to spread misinformation.
Just spoke to a colleague today who experienced Sprint's Worst
customert service. She went on a Caribbean cruise, but before going
she was assured by the CSR she could use her phone with no roaming
charge. Sprint CSRs with their short handle times tell you what you
want to hear to get you off the phone quickly.
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:c7liv29t611nd9t05prbrn3pbfrkhq6mme@4ax.com:
> Call centers are often outsourced out of the USA not only because of
> lower cost, but also because people in other countries are more willing
> to put up with stress from callers due in part to being more grateful
> for the employment.
>
Actually, that is not true. Many studies (including one currently underway
at the University of Michigan) show that the inability to understand the
many facets of american culture leads to the inability to handle the
business cost-effectively. Because of cultural and language barriers, the
calls last longer and drive a higher volume of repeat calls, both of which
add cost to the business- while the cost per minute is cheaper offshore,
the cost per call when additional second-tier support is factored in to
handle the additional escalation volume is actually on par with many
onshore call center options. This is why you are seeing a number of
successful companies pull their work back onshore.
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:02:21 -0500, Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>>
>>karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
>>news:bkfiv2hsig0o5gut7vvdj6t7e30tbbbsud@4ax.co m:
>>
>>>
>>> 611 CSRs have little authority and thus a high turnover since
>>> that leads to a high level of frustration; although the Kansas Call
>>> Center did confirm to me they have loosely enforced 10 minute handle
>>> time guides, as opposed to the 6 minute strictly enforced handle time
>>> limits at Sprint I used to experience.
>>>
>>
>>I see you don't have any new material, so you're forced to simply alter
>>your old lies.
>
>
> Calling Sprint nasty policies against their Customers and CSRs a lie
> does not make it so. Just Google it and see
> its true. I dont know why a Sprint apologist is hanging out
> in a Cingular group, other than to spread misinformation.
Where was the misinformation in my post, Phillipe? Why did you decide to
surgically remove everything else that I wrote? Could it be that it hit a
little too close to home and provided more fact than the sum total of your
posts on the subject?
>
> Just spoke to a colleague today who experienced Sprint's Worst
> customert service. She went on a Caribbean cruise, but before going
> she was assured by the CSR she could use her phone with no roaming
> charge. Sprint CSRs with their short handle times tell you what you
> want to hear to get you off the phone quickly.
>
Wow- now I understand why my burger was so expensive today. I didn't
realize that the fry girl at McDonalds made enough to go on a cruise.
> Actually, that is not true. Many studies (including one currently underway
> at the University of Michigan) show that the inability to understand the
> many facets of american culture leads to the inability to handle the
> business cost-effectively. Because of cultural and language barriers, the
> calls last longer and drive a higher volume of repeat calls, both of which
> add cost to the business- while the cost per minute is cheaper offshore,
> the cost per call when additional second-tier support is factored in to
> handle the additional escalation volume is actually on par with many
> onshore call center options. This is why you are seeing a number of
> successful companies pull their work back onshore.
Yeah, I wondered why some major companies were giving up on India and
moving their call centers back to the U.S..
Still, I'll miss the calls trying to sell me some credit card product
where the guy is talking so fast that he's totally unintelligible. I
listen in fascination while he rockets through his sales pitch, totally
unaware that no one can understand what he's talking about.
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:45f9ed19$0$27170$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> Scott wrote:
>
>> Actually, that is not true. Many studies (including one currently
>> underway at the University of Michigan) show that the inability to
>> understand the many facets of american culture leads to the inability
>> to handle the business cost-effectively. Because of cultural and
>> language barriers, the calls last longer and drive a higher volume of
>> repeat calls, both of which add cost to the business- while the cost
>> per minute is cheaper offshore, the cost per call when additional
>> second-tier support is factored in to handle the additional
>> escalation volume is actually on par with many onshore call center
>> options. This is why you are seeing a number of successful companies
>> pull their work back onshore.
>
> Yeah, I wondered why some major companies were giving up on India and
> moving their call centers back to the U.S..
>
> Still, I'll miss the calls trying to sell me some credit card product
> where the guy is talking so fast that he's totally unintelligible. I
> listen in fascination while he rockets through his sales pitch,
> totally unaware that no one can understand what he's talking about.
>
I should add that while the number of calls taken onshore increases, the
amount of back-end, non-customer facing work being done offshore continues
to increase, as does the amount of computer related customer interaction
being offshored (ehelp desks). There is far less of a need to understand
culture and dialect in these facets and the communication being returned to
the customer can be checked via software prior to it going out. This leads
to a much lower cost per transaction in most cases, something that call
center interaction isn't providing as frequently.
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:15:13 -0500, Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in news:5onjv29uesiudmo600dnphc9ngmmm2m7q1
>@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:02:21 -0500, Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
>>>news:bkfiv2hsig0o5gut7vvdj6t7e30tbbbsud@4ax.com :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 611 CSRs have little authority and thus a high turnover since
>>>> that leads to a high level of frustration; although the Kansas Call
>>>> Center did confirm to me they have loosely enforced 10 minute handle
>>>> time guides, as opposed to the 6 minute strictly enforced handle time
>>>> limits at Sprint I used to experience.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I see you don't have any new material, so you're forced to simply alter
>>>your old lies.
>>
>>
>> Calling Sprint nasty policies against their Customers and CSRs a lie
>> does not make it so. Just Google it and see
>> its true. I dont know why a Sprint apologist is hanging out
>> in a Cingular group, other than to spread misinformation.
>>
>> Just spoke to a colleague today who experienced Sprint's Worst
>> customert service. She went on a Caribbean cruise, but before going
>> she was assured by the CSR she could use her phone with no roaming
>> charge. Sprint CSRs with their short handle times tell you what you
>> want to hear to get you off the phone quickly.
>>
>Wow- now I understand why my burger was so expensive today. I didn't
>realize that the fry girl at McDonalds made enough to go on a cruise.
I always known when I've won an argument. The other side lapses into
lame attempts at personal insults, and shows their immaturity.
Cant dispute that Sprint Customer service for 5 years straight now
every year ranks worst by Comsumer Reports, J.D. Power and the Yankee
Group?
So instead start with the juvenile insults.
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:15:13 -0500, Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>>karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
>>news:5onjv29uesiudmo600dnphc9ngmmm2m7q1 @4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:02:21 -0500, Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
>>>>news:bkfiv2hsig0o5gut7vvdj6t7e30tbbbsud@4ax.co m:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 611 CSRs have little authority and thus a high turnover since
>>>>> that leads to a high level of frustration; although the Kansas
>>>>> Call Center did confirm to me they have loosely enforced 10 minute
>>>>> handle time guides, as opposed to the 6 minute strictly enforced
>>>>> handle time limits at Sprint I used to experience.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I see you don't have any new material, so you're forced to simply
>>>>alter your old lies.
>>>
>>>
>>> Calling Sprint nasty policies against their Customers and CSRs a lie
>>> does not make it so. Just Google it and see
>>> its true. I dont know why a Sprint apologist is hanging out
>>> in a Cingular group, other than to spread misinformation.
>
>>>
>>> Just spoke to a colleague today who experienced Sprint's Worst
>>> customert service. She went on a Caribbean cruise, but before going
>>> she was assured by the CSR she could use her phone with no roaming
>>> charge. Sprint CSRs with their short handle times tell you what you
>>> want to hear to get you off the phone quickly.
>>>
>>Wow- now I understand why my burger was so expensive today. I didn't
>>realize that the fry girl at McDonalds made enough to go on a cruise.
>
>
> I always known when I've won an argument. The other side lapses into
> lame attempts at personal insults, and shows their immaturity.
And yet you are the avoiding the facts in that post and others, choosing
instead to cut and paste only the portions of the post you want to whine
about, like a child that's lost its binky.
>
> Cant dispute that Sprint Customer service for 5 years straight now
> every year ranks worst by Comsumer Reports, J.D. Power and the Yankee
> Group?
> So instead start with the juvenile insults.
>
Didn't say I wanted to dispute it- never have. The question is- who was
just barely higher on all of those surveys?
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:04:22 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45f9ed19$0$27170$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
>
>> Actually, that is not true. Many studies (including one currently underway
>> at the University of Michigan) show that the inability to understand the
>> many facets of american culture leads to the inability to handle the
>> business cost-effectively. Because of cultural and language barriers, the
>> calls last longer and drive a higher volume of repeat calls, both of which
>> add cost to the business- while the cost per minute is cheaper offshore,
>> the cost per call when additional second-tier support is factored in to
>> handle the additional escalation volume is actually on par with many
>> onshore call center options. This is why you are seeing a number of
>> successful companies pull their work back onshore.
>
>Yeah, I wondered why some major companies were giving up on India and
>moving their call centers back to the U.S..
The smart ones are using call centers with less cultural difference.
Some of my clients have had excellent results with Canada, and are
experimenting with others.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:vldmv2lnpav24jbnnc38ee7sjaicpp7uof@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:04:22 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <45f9ed19$0$27170$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>Scott wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, that is not true. Many studies (including one currently
>>> underway at the University of Michigan) show that the inability to
>>> understand the many facets of american culture leads to the
>>> inability to handle the business cost-effectively. Because of
>>> cultural and language barriers, the calls last longer and drive a
>>> higher volume of repeat calls, both of which add cost to the
>>> business- while the cost per minute is cheaper offshore, the cost
>>> per call when additional second-tier support is factored in to
>>> handle the additional escalation volume is actually on par with many
>>> onshore call center options. This is why you are seeing a number of
>>> successful companies pull their work back onshore.
>>
>>Yeah, I wondered why some major companies were giving up on India and
>>moving their call centers back to the U.S..
>
> The smart ones are using call centers with less cultural difference.
> Some of my clients have had excellent results with Canada, and are
> experimenting with others.
>
Actually, many companies are having less then desired reults in Canada.
Due to a huge ethnic diversity in most major canadian cities, many of the
language and cultural barriers are still in play in Canada. In addition,
the cost per call is merely in line with many american based call center
operations. There is no cultural or cost benefit. Canada is quickly
becoming yesterday's India.
The newest big thing is for companies to place call centers in rural areas
of the country and in smaller cities where economic conditions are not
good. In both cases they become the big, high paying (relative) in the
area and are able to employ an older base of employee- a base that has a
better work ethic and more on the line in terms of needing the paycheck. A
150 seat call center (third party) opened in Pueblo, CO a couple of years
ago drew over 500 applicants the first day they were accepting them. The
line literally went around the block and they ended up with an employee
base almost 8 years older than their average for other american call
centers. Cingular opened it's own call center in Pueblo last year with the
same results- a decision probably based on the success of the other
company. Pueblo, being economically challenged, opened their arms to both
employers and both companies ended up winning, as they got seasoned
employees for a cost far cheaper than neighboring cities such as Denver or
Colorado Springs.
What I learned about Cingular 611 CSRs 
Linear Mode
