The lengths to which Stoneacre goes in ensuring customer satisfaction are enormous. In fact, the relentless pursuit of acknowledgement for the excellent service is in itself the single aspect of the service that is a problem. Not content with providing a good service, they pummel customers by all and any means available, to extract information from them, to make sure they are happy. This is bordering on madness, as evidenced by a call to me the other day. My mobile rang, and I answered it to discover it was Lucy (not her real name) from Stoneacre.
LUCY: "Hello, is that The Man Who Says Cunt?
[ I should say at this point that she used my real name, but I'm sure you worked that out for yourself ]
TWMSC: "Speaking."
LUCY: "Hi, my name's Lucy, I'm calling from Stoneacre; I believe you've recently had your car serviced and I wondered if you're okay to answer a few questions?
TMWSC: "Okay."
LUCY: "It was a 1 litre Picanto, registration blah, blah, blah, is that correct?"
[ I resisted the urge to be sarcastic, and suggest that I'd accidentally had someone else's car serviced by mistake ]
TMWSC: "Yes, that's right."
LUCY: "On a scale of one to five, with five being the top score, how would you rate the service provided by Stoneacre?
TMWSC: "Five. Everything was fine, as it always is."
LUCY: "And how likely would you be to use Stoneacre again for servicing your car?"
TMWSC: "I've always used Stoneacre, and will continue to use Stoneacre. The service is excellent."
LUCY: "Would you be likely to recommend Stoneacre to friends and family?
TMWSC: "Yes."
LUCY: "Could you tell me how long you are expecting to keep your car?
TMWSC: "Not really. It's a spare car, not my main car, and it's just a back-up, so who knows. I've only done about 2000 miles in it last year, 5000 the year before, and I have no specific plans."
LUCY: "And how many miles do you do per year? Oh, you said that, . . . . . . I'll put 5000 per year."
I was starting to get very bored with the whole palaver, and with Lucy, who was nice enough, but so clearly reading from her script. I was being 'processed' by Lucy because it was her job to deal with a list of people and ask dumb questions, without any sort of interest in the comments or answers, and with a style that included a severe absence of actually listening.
TMWSC: "Look, I don't mean to be funny, but you're obviously using a script, and that's fine, but I'm a bit busy and I am happy with the service, as usual. The only part of the service from Stoneacre that's a problem is the ludicrous lengths you all go to to ensure I am happy with the service - it's quite mad! I get emails, texts, phone calls and letters. In fact, I am bombarded with things that all seem to want me to be pleased with Stoneacre. This onslaught is the only thing that is not good about the service! Can you just put me down for very happy and leave it at that?"
LUCY: "Can I just check that you are aware of our service plan -"
[ I had to cut her off mid flow / script, as she was clearly not listening, let alone taking the cunting hint ]
TMWSC: "Look I am sure you're very nice and you are just doing your job, but there is absolutely NOTHING about Stoneacre that I am not aware of - I reckon I know more about Stoneacre than you! I am trying to be very nice, and patient, so shall we call it a day and you can just put five out of five.
LUCY: "Can I just check some details? I've got your mobile number because that's what we're on now. I've got blah, blah, blah for your home number - is that correct?
TMWSC: "Yes."
LUCY: "And your email is blah, blah?
TMWSC: "Yes!"
LUCY: "And your address is blah, blah ...
TMWSC: "You KNOW all of this, because how else would you successfully bombard me with so many emails, phone calls, text messages and letters, oh, and junk mail as well? You've had this on file for ages and you've put it all to good use! The only thing I am NOT happy with regarding Stoneacre is the stupid amount of input in trying to check if I am happy! In fact, it's the only thing that might make me UNHAPPY! You're spending a fortune on emails, letters, calls, surveys and everything that was excellent is jeopardised. Now, shall we just agree to end the call as I'm too busy for any more.
LUCY: "Okay. Just to let you know that after this call, the manufacturer might contact you -"
[ Again, I cut her off, and with incredulity, and a raised voice with a perplexed twang, say ]
TMWSC: "I DON'T WANT to be contacted by anyone, haven't you heard a word I've said? If I AM contacted, then I will most definitely NOT use Stoneacre again! I am now going. Thank you."
LUCY: "Oh."
The call ended.
I sat still for a couple of minutes, while my breathing returned to normal, and I could begin to process the information that was associated with the horrendous experience of having Lucy talk at me, and follow a script that achieved nothing, other than to alienate me. I went downstairs and ignored the beeping answer machine on the landline. Some half hour later, Mrs MWSC revealed that she's checked the phone and it was a message from a daft cow at Stoneacre, and that the message would not delete. It had necessitated her turning the cunt (machine, not Lucy) off, and then resetting it! Stoneacre strikes again.
* * * *
PS: In the running order of nuisance from junk mail, the worst offender is of course Virgin Media, with the enormous number of envelopes delivered, along with inserts and general junk. But even Virgin Media is surpassed by Stoneacre for overall levels of grief, because whilst Virgin offers a steady input, it is very 'passive', relying solely on physical mail. Stoneacre has input via various means and is truly more tenacious is pestering.
...
No comments:
Post a Comment