Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

Why Wind Mobile lost two customers today

37045 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
No-one is denying Hugh's years of work, and I do have to say that I feel sorry for him; no-one should have to go through that. However... I do honestly feel that the "review" is a massive over-reaction to an unfortunate experience. Furthermore, as much as I hate to say it, the review as posted is an irresponsible misuse of Thompson's position at this web site.

What needs to be considered is that when a review is posted, especially when the post is from the site owner, it is generally taken as the site's official viewpoint. It's already been noted that the DH review has turned up in Google News. As such, Hugh has now stated to the world that his site - with the authority it carries as a well-established forum in the telecommunications field - recommends that Canadians avoid Wind. Some readers will see that in the news feed and, trusting his past reputation, thus avoid even considering the company altogether. However, his recommendation is based solely on a very bad experience with customer service, and does not include any assessment of the actual mobile telephone service. (He may have honestly set out to do so, but the point is that for whatever reason he as yet has no experience whatsoever with using their product.) Thus his readers are being done a dis-service in that they may end up avoiding a provider that could well give them exactly what they need.

Does this mean that Thompson should merely gloss over the experience? Certainly not - that would also be irresponsible - but he has already made his feelings clear through his chronicles in the forum. However, to take that personal experience and turn it into an "official" blacklisting of the provider is, frankly, an irresponsible use of his preferred position as the site owner. As but one example, my experience with Wind over the past five months is the mirror opposite of his, yet I do not have the luxury of the DH podium to speak from. Hugh should have been more careful in separating a personal bad experience from a professional review. As a site operator - and as such a "voice" of Digital Home, he should know better than to let his personal feelings conflict with his professional standards in that way.


Note - Let me be clear that I'm not a Wind employee, nor is this simplistic boosterism. Yes, I'm very happy with what I've experienced so far, and the holiday unlimited plan has changed how I use wireless for the better. I am prepared to work through startup glitches to see what the end result is, just as I did over a decade ago with Clearnet. I'm also quite prepared to walk if the company doesn't deliver, just as I did when Telus became overpriced and unresponsive.
See less See more
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. You may not think it fair that that Thompson has to meet a higher standard than those of us who only post in the forums, but it is a reality of the responsibility he has assumed through his position in the information industry. If Digital Home was merely a small-time personal blog, Thompson could write whatever he wanted and people would take it in context. That is not the case, however, and it is little different from the way in which news presenters have to be very careful when stating personal positions on issues. The fact that DH has the ability to influence an international news feed just reinforces that fact.
See less See more
Hugh was spot on in his assessment. Here in the GTA what he got csr wise is normal.

(middle portion deleted or brevity)

Quit defending Winds lack of customer commitment. Hit up the hofo or wind forums and you will read more and more people having issues the latter will delete them asap.. but they are there.
Rockjock, again, it's not about defending Wind. In fact, if you look at some of the strongest complaints against Hugh's post, they all make it clear that the treatment he received was not acceptable. The problem is in the way Hugh's post - as an official statement on behalf of the site - is unbalanced. If he had simply described his experience and positioned it as his personal bad experience with Wind, this might not have been an issue. His calling it a "review" (which, in the public's mind, suggests an actual assessment of the product), his positioning it as an official recommendation from the site, the complete lack of any assessment of the actual telephone and data service, the fact that DH gets picked up by international news feeds - all of that is what made the post inappropriate.
I respectfully disagree. I did not take it as a review, nor would anyone that read it IMO.
You are of course free to disagree. However, I fail to see how you can argue that most readers would not take it as such. The article title includes the phrase "A Wind Mobile Review" (emphasis added), the article incorporates a "Pros and Cons" section (like most reviews), and the first page features a statement in bold print saying "The short Digital Home review is to avoid Wind Mobile". I think it is pretty self-evident that the average reader will interpret a page titled "review" to be a review. That is where the problem lies; if Hugh had presented it as his experience with customer service, instead of explicitly making it out to be a review of Wind Mobile, this extensive discussion would be about the incident rather than his handling of it.
Anyone who reads the review enough to see him recommend against Wind will see that he didn't actually review Wind service.
No, actually, they wouldn't; he does summarize his experience, but at no point does it suggest he would not be assessing the phone or data service, which is what one would expect a review of a cellular company to do.

Also, I'm not sure what relevance the international news feeds have, as Wind is only trying to sell service in Canada.
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. Again, note that most of the strong reactions to Hugh's review are careful to make the point that they are surprised that Hugh would have done this; if peopl (myself included) did not respect him or his site, they would not have been so astonished by his post.
See less See more
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.
The notion that he's not "allowed" to write is a red herring; who has said that? Equally off the mark is the crazy idea that those who are taking issue with his opinion piece think that he is expected to only write positive statements. It is the unbalanced and incomplete nature of the piece that is the problem. I agree with you that a "review" that is fluffy, sweet, and full of superlatives is of no value to the consumer. However, it also does the consumer no good to have a respected site mislabel a piece as a review when it clearly is not. 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. 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.
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.