Internal Documents Show Why Verizon Isn't Fulfilling Advertised Discounts For Tens Of Thousands

By consumerist.com on April 18, 2008 1:05 PM 13922 views

These internal Verizon emails, sent by the same insider and as a a followup to "LEAKS: Insider Says Verizon Isn't Fulfilling Advertised Discounts For Tens Of Thousands," shows why some of our readers have complained about Verizon offering them one price and billing them another, and then being inflexible in offering service credits. It appears to show that Verizon mailed out a half a million "Blitz" promotional rate cards, then decided it was an error and pulled the offer from the computers. Then Verizon let people get the advertised offers, but only if the customer specifically asked for it. Around the same time, on March 3rd, management cuts the discounts reps can give to $150. Two weeks later, it's $50. Two weeks after that, it's zero. Even if a customer was overbilled and legitimately deserved a credit, tough titties, Texas, you weren't going to get it. Verizon insider's explanation, rebuttal to the response by Verizon PR pointman John Bonomo, and the internal emails, inside...

Anonymous writes:

I recently wrote to the consumerist about the fact that Verizon is acting in a manner most would consider inconsistent with a customer-first attitude. Only in bizarro world could the statements that were made be construed as an attack on it's employees. Unfortunately John Bonomo, Verizon's director of Media Relations, saw it as exactly that. He believes that it did 'his or her colleagues a disservice and dishonoring the work that they do on behalf of our customers.' Mr Bonomo also said that there were 'a number of inaccuracies', but failed to identify any. All he did was state that customers entitled to the tv will get them, and acknowledges that delivering the set would take some time, and we said that as a part of the promotion.' That's funny, I never stated that Verizon wasn't going to give everyone their tv's, only that it was taking longer then it takes conceive and deliver a baby.

Mr Bonomo goes on to say that employees should be commended and here I am in total agreement. For far too long we have suffered at the hands of individuals posing as management, people who have no clue how to properly run a company. They actually believe it's acceptable to refuse to credit a customer who we admit we over billed, simply because we're given too much credit to everyone else. They think it's perfectly fine to knowingly send out fliers advertising a price, then decide not to honor them, and to then claim they were sent out *in error*.

Some readers of the consumerist have asked 'how do we know what he said is true?' Excellent question. To prove it, I submit to you the emails from the director and the head of marketing which is the basis for most of what was stated in my previous article. I believe they stand for themselves, and I challenge Mr Bonomo to defend the policies that these emails impose on us as employees, and on the customers who they claim to value.

First is the NJ marketing summary which clearly state on the 2nd page that effective 2/18 the blitz offers were to be made permanent. Second is an email from Judy Peters stating that all offers are rescinded. Following this is a far more detailed email dated 3-15 detailing what has been rescinded, why, and what is left to offer. The language is very threatening (even to management, which is referred to as IHD) This email was sent only a few weeks after half a million letters offering these rates were mailed out, and it clearly stated as so in the NJ marketing plan on our website. After being rightfully called out for being so asinine, Judy Peters sent another email explaining that the offers are now back in effect, but ONLY if the customer indicates awareness of them. We can't proactively offer them. Note the specific use of the phrase 'letters sent in error' which contradicts Verizon's own internal marketing information, which indicates that the offers were in fact meant to be sent.

Following that is an email informing us of the first of what would be two times where we simply didn't give anyone their proper discount if they had a specific bill date.

Then we have three emails from our director and the head of marketing. The first one, dated March 3rd, tells us that we're been partially neutered and that we are now only able to adjust $150 without first needing to seek management approval. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph if you want real insight into how management thinks. Then there's a followup sent March 18th cutting it to $50. Finally there's an email telling us that we are not to give any credit to anyone for any reason for the remainder of the month.