Have you ever wondered about those customer service awards, branding awards and management awards that companies who stiff their customers seem to get with ease? How many of these awards are given quid pro quo for some donation, contribution or for being their awarding institution’s clients?
And aren’t these companies just so rich bragging about these awards as if the customer doesn’t know that they are a pile of horseshit?
Below are two takes on IM2 from the IM2 website and an article from Jakarta Globe (Unspun’s complaint is why the paper did not ask the IM2 guy why the company continued to greedily acquire new subscribers when it knew it didn’t have the capacity to serve them?) . Which version of IM2 are we to believe?
I was a bit disappointed that the Globe article did not go further and it was only a very short piece. Maybe we can urge them to do more digging for a feature piece?
This past week, using my dad’s account I can only log in and get proper broadband speeds between midnight and 8 am.
@Aulia: Agreed. And they merely reported what the IM2 spokesperson had to say, plus a token quote or two from aggrieved customers, without posing the spokesperson the hard questions. Neither did they use thi incident to examine how Indonesian customers are regularly stiffed by telco operators.
More importantly, my experience is that journalism accomplishes nothing if they do not have the tenacity to stay with the story. One swallow does not a summer make an one short story does not change anything.
The Globe has very highly experienced and high paid editors. It would be interesting to see if they can keep this story alive to the extent that it forces IM2 to change its greedy ways.