AOL Apologizes For Infamous Cancel Call

AOL has said they’re sorry for hiring the infamously bad CSR that was so terribly loathe to let Vincent quit AOL.

Here’s the Nicholas Graham, Executive Vice President of AOL Corporate Communications, sent Vinny:

    Vincent, thank you for returning my phone call. I appreciate hearing from you and being able to talk to you – and to personally apologize for your experience. At AOL, we have zero-tolerance for customer care incidents like this – which is deeply regrettable and also absolutely inexcusable. The employee in question violated our customer service guidelines and practices, and everything that AOL believes to be important in customer care – chief among them being respect for the member, and swiftly honoring their requests. This matter was dealt with immediately and appropriately, and the employee cited here is no longer with the Company.

    Vincent – please get in touch with me again in the future I can be of help at all. And good luck to you and to “Insignificant Thoughts”.

    Sincerely,
    Nicholas

The italics denote the part of the heartfelt, personal message Nick wrote that wasn’t a word for word copy of what the PR office said when they fired the guy in the first place. At AOL, it’s the personal touch that counts.

Interesting note, from what we gathered during our interview on CNBC (which is pumping this story to the max) this morning, is that the CSR was not internal. AOL had hired an outside call center. That might explain John’s flagrant disregard for company policy, let alone common decency.

Previously: Reader Tries To Cancel AOL

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Madrid says:

    “Interesting note, from what we gathered during our interview on CNBC (which is pumping this story to the max) this morning, is that the CSR was not internal. AOL had hired an outside call center.”

    Looks to me like a demonstration of AOL’s willingness to pass the buck at the drop of a hat, especially when said hat has a dirty sweatband soiled by the sweat that is their underhanded customer retention policies.

  2. ModerateSnark says:

    When you say “That might explain John’s flagrant disregard for company policy,” you’re saying that tounge-in-cheek, right?

    It still seems to me he was following company policy, i.e., “try to retain the customer,” just way overzealously.

    And I still wonder if he was really fired, because, if he was, he can “go public” and tell us how much of what he did was due to an attempt to follow company policy.

    (Sorry I missed you on CNBC; I watch it fairly often, but not at all today.)