They has to be other ways to deal with this than just issuing a press release that you are dumping 1200 customers. How about a premium for more than 10 calls per month? That might cause nuisance customers to go somewhere else, but it would be their choice. A totally different PR issue.

But Harvey brings up a good point. In spite of the bad PR it may be a good business move if it frees up resources to allow the business to better serve their remaining customers.

For example in the Sprint case, what if removing those 1200 or so customers from their customer base meant that everyone else had a significantly shorter wait time when they called in for customer support? That would be a huge benefit for their customer base and for the business, wouldn’t it?

This will cripple any business, especially a business offering a service for a flat rate.

I think they did the right thing – a small handful of customers using all the resources means that the rest of the customers get average or bad service because there are no staff available.

Basically, if someone needs 40-50 support calls per month, they should be with a provider that is geared up for that and be paying a premium for it. Sounds harsh but I don’t see how you can afford to keep customers like that. If any of my customers called me 40-50 times per month (and the average was once per month), I’d fire them too. Clearly the business relationship is not a good match for either party, so move on.

Blog Bloke – how can it be a dumb move financially? I’d say the cost of fielding 40-50 support calls was far more than the customer would be paying per month. From a PR point of view, I totally agree, this could backfire.

I agree that dissing customers doesn’t make much sense.

What about a business casting off customers that cost them money? Does that kind of an approach perhaps help keep costs down for their other customers?

Or is it just dumb?

I’ve been fired by Dr.’s for just asking questions. Arrogance knows no bounds. Long time no see Chris.

Cheers!

…BB