Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

Why Wind Mobile lost two customers today

37047 Views 153 Replies 35 Participants Last post by  g011um
This morning I read about the Wind Mobile All in the Family plan.

I thought, excellent, I am going to sign both my kids up with new phones.

Went to my local Blockbuster and asked for the deal. The helpful sales clerk apologized and said that he couldn't give me the deal and that I had to talk to "corporate." The guy is a nice guy and I wanted him to have the sale but he said the only way I might have a chance was to go to a corporate Blockbuster store.

Okay, so I hopped in the car and drove ten minutes to the Blockbuster store at Parklawn and Queensway. Went inside and asked the clerk how to sign up for the All in the Family plan. She said I had to have a "form". I said, I don't have the form but I would like to sign up for the plan. She then proceeded to tell me how I could sign up for "better" plans and so on.

I said no, I wanted the All in the Family plan that I had read about. She refused to offer me the plan and refused to tell me why some people were eligible and I wasn't.

  • An hour of my time was wasted.
  • Wind Mobile lost two customers.
  • Wind Mobile has gained a vocal critic for its refusal to even exlain to me why I was not eligible for a deal it was offering some and not others.

Seems like Wind has learned about customer service from the Big Three!
1 - 6 of 154 Posts
I read the thread at the other forum; just as many supporters as haters. Not sure what the point of directing people there was. I did come across this little nugget posted by profets

I tried to post some things positively about it but he doesn't really care to hear.
Umm, could it be because profets and otafool come across as shills for Wind? That's the sense I get from their posts. I don't see any logical counter discussion.
This is a wind employee review, not a Wind review. There is nothing about service at all.
Hard to review the service when they won't provide it. I also don't recall Hugh stating he was reviewing the cellular service.

If you were smart you would have printed the form to begin with, called the stores ahead to confirm, and then went in with the form. You would have had no issues whatsoever then...
Are you actually serious, or just trying to provoke some sort of response (which I guess you were successful at)? Does ANYONE ever call ahead to make sure they have the plans, the phones, the SIMs etc? My experience has been they the person I talk to on the phone has no more of a clue about stock than I do. They just want to get you on the door.

Lesson learned I guess.
Condescend much?
Again, I think some people are missing the point: Thompson, as the voice of this site, has a responsiblility to make sure that posts reflecting the site's official position are balanced and based on a complete professional analysis, and not driven by personal frustrations.
This has been said a few times, and I fail to understand it each time. Is Digital Home not his site? Isn't anything he posts the official view of the site, by virtue of it being his?

Or are you trying to state that he can't write an article unless the entire forum membership agrees with his viewpoint? Were that the case, he'd never be able to post anything. To me, the forums are not part of the site. They are ancillary; a nice place for us to discuss articles posted on the site (and he graciously allows is space to discuss other things as well).
Would his experience been any different if he simply ordered from the website using an advertised plan?
I'm inclined to say no. Fine, perhaps he wasn't supposed to be allowed to sign up for that particular plan (but they did let him!) However, the plan he selected didn't cause the problems with the SIM cards, didn't cause the CSRs (even second level support) to be inept, and didn't cause a store that should have processed a return to not process that return.
Influencing Google's search results is very relevant, as a Google search is someting that many, many Canadians are likely to do when researching a change in mobile providers. Moreover, it further demonstrates the influence the site has, and as such also stands as yet another reason why the site's owner needs to separate articles presented as professional reviews (which implies a full assessment of the product) from personal experiences.
So because Wind and it's employees sucked so bad that Hugh wasn't able to get service from them, he shouldn't have been allowed to write his article? He's only allowed to review their service? I read his article as a review of the company.

With respect to separating personal experiences, I dare you to find a single review of any product or service that isn't someone's personal experience. When CNet editors review a piece of tech, for example, they report how well they perceived the product did in certain tests, how easy or hard they thought it was to use, how they feel it compares to similar products. It's 100% personal experience. That's why review from different organizations differ.

And of course Hugh's article should appear in Google. At the top of the search results I hope. Yes-men, fanboys and shills are not lacking on the Internet. Any review that is 5/5 or 10/10 is suspect for me. A negative review is far more interesting in my opinion, and far more useful in helping me make a decision -- what are the problems? do I think I might encounter the same, or am I in a different situation? -- those questions are only answered by reviews like Hugh's, not the glowing praise of the marketing and PR department.

Would I consider Wind if they were available in my area? Perhaps, but I'd approach them as a much more informed consumer having read Hugh's article and the experiences he reported in this thread.
See less See more
The notion that he's not "allowed" to write is a red herring; who has said that?
It seemed to me that you as much did. Fine, take the word "allowed" out -- So because Wind and it's employees sucked so bad that Hugh wasn't able to get service from them, he shouldn't have written his article?

If a reviewer is going to recommend against using a particular service, I expect them to actually use the service, to fairly assess the quality of the service, and so on. If they were unable to use the service, or if they have problems with trying to get the service, fine, write a piece saying that they were unable to review the service because of x, y, and z.
I think we're looking at the article differently. I didn't see it as a review of Wind's service (customer service maybe). I saw it as a review of Wind, and his recommendation being to stay away from the company. Their cellular service may be fine, but the company is horrible to deal with. If he ever gets a phone to work on their network, I'd bet he would then write a review of their cellular service.

Where it crossed the line - in my opinion, and apparently in the minds of several other people - was in still calling it a review, and in attaching an official "do not use" recommendation.
Would it make everyone feel better if he had called it an "opinion piece" instead of a review (although I personally don't see the difference, other than semantics)? The end result would still have been his recommendation to stay away from Wind. And I'll echo my previous comments from this thread; everything he writes, whether a "review" or not, is the official viewpoint of this site, because it his site. It's nice he lets us hang out here in the forum, but our voice really means nothing.
See less See more
1 - 6 of 154 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.