David Baxter PhD
Late Founder
Rogers and the other woman
by Iain Marlow, Globe and Mail
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
People blame Rogers for a lot of stuff.
Bad customer service. Arbitrary fees. High prices. Lobbying against new wireless competition. Much of this is at least partially true: The company admits its customer service needs improvement, telecom analysts now worry high prices and fees might damage the company's bottom line, and its lobbying is a matter of public record.
To that list add this (alleged) grievance: You ruined my marriage.
In an article yesterday, Toronto Star courts reporter Betsy Powell details an unusual lawsuit currently facing Canada's largest wireless company.
A Toronto woman, Gabriella Nagy, is suing Rogers for $600,000, alleging the company's billing tactics revealed her extramarital affair to her husband. In this case, he had the cable TV account in his surname. She had wireless under her maiden name. Later, the husband added Internet and home phone. This is the classic telecom bundle: Selling one household a whole lot of stuff, discounting it a bit, but otherwise making a bunch of money from a more stable customer.
?Apart from administrative efficiency, (combining the billing) would result in savings to the plaintiff and her husband for the services,? the Star quotes the Rogers documents as saying.
But when Rogers combined the billing for these services, it is alleged, they tipped off the husband to her affair. He then left her, the story goes, and the grief caused her to lose her $100,000 a year job because she was weeping at work. Rogers, of course, maintains that her husband would have figured out about the affair anyway; and that it is not responsible for any sort of lifestyle fallout, regardless.
Now, people discovering about their partner's infidelities via cellphone bills is a rather well documented -- and frequently recommended -- tactic for sleuthing out cheaters. But the figure here is eye-popping. And the issues raised are rather interesting, especially since telecommunications companies are moving toward a ?one-stop shop? for wireless, cable TV, Internet and home phone lines and will likely be giving out more combined, ?household? bills for various services.
Big telecom companies want to sell as many products to you as possible, and want to make that process as easy as possible so that you stay with them. As a buyer of three or four products, you are way more valuable to them -- which is why they'll discount things if you threaten to leave. To investors, bundled customers are also more reliable, more likely to stay with the company over the long term since its such a hassle to replace every individual service. Putting everything on one bill is seen as a convenience.
It would seem from this case, however, that there are at least some merits to separate billing. It would also seem that companies cannot consider all bundling households stable, reliable customers.
by Iain Marlow, Globe and Mail
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
People blame Rogers for a lot of stuff.
Bad customer service. Arbitrary fees. High prices. Lobbying against new wireless competition. Much of this is at least partially true: The company admits its customer service needs improvement, telecom analysts now worry high prices and fees might damage the company's bottom line, and its lobbying is a matter of public record.
To that list add this (alleged) grievance: You ruined my marriage.
In an article yesterday, Toronto Star courts reporter Betsy Powell details an unusual lawsuit currently facing Canada's largest wireless company.
A Toronto woman, Gabriella Nagy, is suing Rogers for $600,000, alleging the company's billing tactics revealed her extramarital affair to her husband. In this case, he had the cable TV account in his surname. She had wireless under her maiden name. Later, the husband added Internet and home phone. This is the classic telecom bundle: Selling one household a whole lot of stuff, discounting it a bit, but otherwise making a bunch of money from a more stable customer.
?Apart from administrative efficiency, (combining the billing) would result in savings to the plaintiff and her husband for the services,? the Star quotes the Rogers documents as saying.
But when Rogers combined the billing for these services, it is alleged, they tipped off the husband to her affair. He then left her, the story goes, and the grief caused her to lose her $100,000 a year job because she was weeping at work. Rogers, of course, maintains that her husband would have figured out about the affair anyway; and that it is not responsible for any sort of lifestyle fallout, regardless.
Now, people discovering about their partner's infidelities via cellphone bills is a rather well documented -- and frequently recommended -- tactic for sleuthing out cheaters. But the figure here is eye-popping. And the issues raised are rather interesting, especially since telecommunications companies are moving toward a ?one-stop shop? for wireless, cable TV, Internet and home phone lines and will likely be giving out more combined, ?household? bills for various services.
Big telecom companies want to sell as many products to you as possible, and want to make that process as easy as possible so that you stay with them. As a buyer of three or four products, you are way more valuable to them -- which is why they'll discount things if you threaten to leave. To investors, bundled customers are also more reliable, more likely to stay with the company over the long term since its such a hassle to replace every individual service. Putting everything on one bill is seen as a convenience.
It would seem from this case, however, that there are at least some merits to separate billing. It would also seem that companies cannot consider all bundling households stable, reliable customers.
