Comment by Aurornis
5 months ago
> (this is usually successful, but can backfire badly -- CashApp terminated my account for this shenanigans)
When I was at a medium-sized consumer-facing company whose name you’d recognize if you’re in the tech space (intentionally vague) we had some customers try this. They’d find product managers or directors on LinkedIn then start trying to contact them with phone numbers found on the internet, personal email addresses, or even doing things like finding photos their family members posted and complaining the comments.
We had to start warning them not to do it again, then following up with more drastic actions on the second violation. I remember several cases where we had to get corporate counsel involved right away and there was talk of getting law enforcement involved because some people thought implied threats would get them what they wanted.
So I can see why companies are quick to lock out customers who try these games.
I realize why this is bad. Full stop.
I wonder if it ever evoked an dive into exactly what happened to leave these customers with thinking this was the most likely avenue for success? Hopefully in at least some cases their calls with CSRs were reviewed and in the most optimistic of best cases additional training or policies were put into place to avoid the hopelessness that evokes such drastic actions.
That would require empathy from someone who is, right now, bragging about how they sicced their lawyers and the cops on customers they were fucking over.
I'm going to guess that the answer would be "nope, didn't care." That Cirrus isn't going to pay for itself, friend...and you can't retire at 40 without breaking a few eggs.
I remember when Google was locking accounts because people had the audacity to issue a chargeback after spending hours trying to resolve Google not delivering a working, undamaged phone they'd paid well over half a grand for. Nobody at Google cared, but when the money (that Google never fucking deserved in the first place) was forcibly and legally taken back, the corporation acted with narcissistic rage...
> That would require empathy from someone who is, right now, bragging about how they sicced their lawyers and the cops on customers they were fucking over.
How do we know they were fucking them over?
There's always going to be a subset of people who take any perceived slight as an attack on their honor, and will over-react. (I've had death threats for deleting a reddit post, fwiw.)
> So I can see why companies are quick to lock out customers who try these games.
Most of the companies who customers try these "games" against are places like Google and Meta that literally do not provide a way for the average customer to reach a human. None.
Those have got it coming for them, the megacorps' stance on this is despicable and far worse than the customers directly reaching execs who could instantly change this but don't because it would cut into their $72 billion per year net profit.
This is a case where laws simply did not catch up to the digital era. In the brick and mortar era it was by definition possible to reach humans.
I get that your company was smaller and probably did allow for a way to reach a human but that's not generalizable.
Regarding the evolution of the law:
Long ago when Google tried to launch its very first phone somewhere in Europe I can distinctly remember that it was initially not allowed to because of some regulation that mandated a company selling telephones to have a customer service.
Can't remember if they eventually found a loophole or if the regulations were changed.
> but that's not generalizable.
You only referenced two companies...
EBay, Amazon, Walmart, CVS, etc.
Name a major company, then try to contact customer service and interact with an actual human.
Even if they do have a contact phone number, good luck navigating the mazes of voice prompts.
Amazon isn't actually so bad about this, but I couldn't tell you if their CSR chat bot is an actual person or mid-level AI by now.
5 replies →
Two companies that are so gigantic they combine to a great percentage of number of "company interactions" the average Westerner has on a daily basis.
Anyway, I don't think it contradicts my point? Your company exist, mom and pops exist and there's a whole spectrum between them, so it's not generalizable.
I think the sort of desperate mailing works better when you reach out to execs and VPs, not PMs and managers. Some founders had well-known emails and it was common to hear stories about escalating (eg jeff@amazon). It’s a well documented technique that many people have had great success with.
I’m not an exec, but I work on a major product in a major company. A significant portion of Americans use my work. My corporation has a reputation for poor customer support ATM. If I started getting personal emails or phone calls, I’d contact corporate security or lawyers just out of fear and confusion. That said, I’d be peeved on behalf of my customers if that same treatment was applied to messages directed at our household-name-CEO.
Honestly not condoning people crossing the line of threats/abusive behavior, but it sounds like you worked at one of those companies that make it impossible to get ahold of someone, don’t respond to customers, or other poor customer service issues, and then are surprised people resort to this
[dead]