You've probably heard the joke about the lost helicopter pilot. Hovering near a building, he holds up a sign asking where he is, whereupon the people inside write out a sign telling him "You're in a helicopter." Of course, the pilot then realizes he must be in Redmond. It's an old joke, but one that I was reminded of by a gripe a Visio customer recently sent me.
"I was engaged in a consulting project where I felt Visio software would be helpful in diagramming," the reader wrote. "I had used Visio previously, prior to the product being purchased by Microsoft, and had really enjoyed the functionality of the program. I purchased the 2002 version of Visio in late September, fully understanding that the 2003 version was to be released soon, but secure knowing that I would receive that new version under Microsoft's Technology Guarantee Program. I submitted all of the required materials for the upgrade by the deadline, but inadvertently sent a photocopy of one of the certification items rather than the original physical item. Nevertheless, it was clear from all the documentation that I submitted that I had indeed genuinely purchased the software."
Microsoft returned the order in January and asked the reader to resubmit it with the original proof of purchase rather than the copy. As no deadline was indicated on Microsoft's resubmission request, the reader admits the paperwork sat on his desk and then was inadvertently packed away. "I finally unpacked those materials in March, located the boxtop, and re-submitted my order," the reader wrote. "Several weeks went by without a response. When I called Microsoft, I was advised the re-submitted order had been received past the close of that Guarantee program and they would no longer honor the upgrade."
The reader fully admits he blew it by forgetting about the resubmission for several months. "Please understand that I fully concede Microsoft was well within its rights," the reader says. "Never mind that we had a genuine order, submitted for a technology guarantee upgrade on time, clearly authentic, but marred by a minor submission flaw. The program was over and they had every legal right to decline.
I gently challenged the Microsoft folks who took my phone call. What were the pros/cons of the decision for them? I really could see no harm in accommodating me, and no real advantage in refusing to do so. However, neither the CSR nor the supervisor would elaborate."
"So, to paraphrase Dr. Phil, I have to ask MS, 'Do you want to be right, or do you want get along?'" the reader concludes. "In any other environment where I had a choice, I'd be able to take my business elsewhere; to a company where the philosophy for building customer rapport outweighs adherence to a minor technicality. Sadly, MS once again made it all too clear they were more concerned about 'being right' than 'doing right.' That's the real cost of a monopoly."
Read or post comments about this weblog article here.
1:45:58 AM 
|
|
