NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/misc/consumer/18754

Text File | 1992-11-06 | 4.6 KB | 98 lines

Newsgroups: misc.consumers
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!att-out!walter!porthos!troy!mpb
From: [e-mail] (22161-bunz)
Subject: Re: The Baldridge award (was "AT&T Universal Card (tm? by AT&T)")
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 21:46:49 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Keywords: AT&T UNIVERSAL CREDIT CARD VISA
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET System Software)
Lines: 84

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James Preston) writes:
> [e-mail] (22161-bunz) writes:
>
> }Personally, I'd question the ability of the customer trying to pay
> }the bill, didn't they even look into the window to see if they
> }could see the address?
>
> }The customer may also place the check between the form and the
> }window, so maybe we should require all checks be transparent.
>
> }Really though, how hard is it to place the form into the envelope, then
> }look at the envelope, just to make sure the address is visible?
>
> My god, you missed the ENTIRE fucking point!  It is EXACTLY this type
> of who-cares, blame-the-stupid-customer, point the finger ANYWHERE but
> at the real problem attitude that has sent U.S. businesses into the toilet.
>
> Yes, I freely grant that this specific problem with the bills is a small
> thing.  Yes, I grant that the customer COULD avoid any problem by checking
> the address before sealing the envelope.  But why the hell SHOULD the
> customer have to?
>
> The fact remains that many people at AT&T ROYALLY SCREWED UP!  A bad
> mistake was made, whatever you can say about the problem having a
> work-around.  And the proof that it was indeed a mistake is that they
> changed it.
>
> --James Preston
>

OK, AT&T ROYALLY SCREWED UP, and they fixed the problem.

NOT!

First off, the idea of using a window type envelope is stupid, why not
just print the address on the envelope to begin with.  That's the
answer to that problem, not the Quick Fix of printing the address on the
other side!  You can STILL put it in the WRONG WAY!

Keep in mind the current approach doesn't solve the problem of putting the check
between the payment page and the window.  Thus the poor stupid consumer
can STILL screw it up.

A truely innovative approach would be to print a code on the envelope
that could be scanned when received then all you have to do is take
out the check, key in the amount and your done.  Just think of all
the paper that could be saved by not having to send the payment slip
back.  Think of the trees that could be saved, the energy required
to carry all of those 1/3 sheets of paper back to be processed, and
the energy required to recycle all that paper.  Also, keep in mind that
for many companies, they print the stupid payment form on each page
of a multipart bill (and if they don't print it, the space is still reserved
in many cases).

Now that Clinton has been elected, maybe we can get Congress to pass
some laws about how bills should be printed so that EVERY bill that
ANYONE generates can be processed exactly the same way, and that no
matter how the stupid consumer stuffs his return mail, the letter
will get through.  Perhaps the form should have the address on both
sides, and the envelope should have two windows (front and back), that
way you can't put the check on the wrong side.

The problem with America is that we have too many people that refuse
to take responsibility for themselves, and expect everyone else
to accomodate them.  If a MAJOR screw up at AT&T
constitutes printing an address on the wrong side of a piece of paper,
then how much time and money do they spend worrying about real problems,
like making sure noone gets a paper cut from the edge of the bill?
Do they have software that reviews each bill before it goes out, just to
make sure nothing went wrong when the bill is generated?  You could give
someone a heart attack if they opened the bill, expecting to have to
pay $200.00, but something happened in the processing and the bill showed
a balance due of $200,000.00.

I agree that by taking care of the details, you can improve the overall
quality.  Personally, I like the fact that you can have a payment
arrive after the Due Date, and they still don't hit you for interest
(assuming the payment arrived before the next bill was generated).
In my mind, letting a customer slide by, rather than going for the
interest that could be charged on the (one day) late payment.  That
is an attempt at improving good will with your customers, and clearly
costs them money to do so.

Marc