Sprint Fights Back

Consumerist has an exclusive interview with an unnamed Sprint insider who says the people terminated were terminated for trying to get too many credits. Of course, Sprint still hasn't said that officially.

They touch on my spin on the whole thing: that Sprint just made themselves look very, very bad. So the black eye persists. Now there's another ugly story about Sprint, and many many people have read it.

I'm not sure painting the banned customers with a tar brush is a good move, PR wise, either. It just makes Sprint look petty. In America we also have a traditional culturally of siding with the little guy when it's little guy vs. big corporation. (Even if legally we don't in our courts.)

MSNBC hits on this, "Industry watchers are surprised that Sprint would risk bad press just to economize on service to 1,000 high maintenance customers, a minimal fragment of its 53 million customer base, especially when the company is struggling to catch up with its competitors."

I still stand by my original analysis: intentional or not, by sending these letters out en masse Sprint just told the world, "as a customer if you fuss too much, we will stop doing business with you." The decision to send those letters doesn't exist in a vacuum. Your customer service issues are not with a single customer anymore -- they are with that customer, anyone they email, and anyone who reads their blog.

I read article after article about back luck with Sprint - and from 1998 until this year I had Sprint phones (we left when we were told there was no way to have a picture phone AND a ruggedized phone on the same family plan), so I've experienced some of that very bad service myself.

Sprint has customer service problems. Sprint has a customer service reputation problem. Sending these letters publicly just tells the average phone clerk for Sprint, "don't worry if you can't solve the problem. Sprint will kick the person to the curb if they keep fussing."