> The support tech had the gall to tell me they’d reactivate her account as a one-time exception, and I practically wanted to kill the guy over the phone.
This is language used in the service industry to signal that a “favor” is not policy.
“It’s over the return period, but only by a couple of days, so…”
“You’re a month out of warranty, but I believe you that this has been going on for a while before you brought it in. Well…”
It sounds, to me, like this was someone who was inexperienced (whether at the job or at the task of deescalating a situation). I think that they applied a standard qualifier because they lacked the insight to see that it wasn’t applicable. I doubt they really believed the same exception shouldn’t apply if this happens again.
They want to let you know that you are not important to them and that you should feel bad for bothering them; and you should behave well by not making the same 'mistake' again.
At least from my own retail experience, the whole "we're not supposed to, but..." means exactly what was said -- we're not supposed to, but we're willing to make an exception this time because insert reason.
It's not so much that I feel bothered, but rather I am more-so uncomfortable having to bend the rules (but that might just be me).
This mean-spirited view slanders those who have the least control over policy. Frontline support personnel have a limited palette of authorised remedies available to them, and anything beyond predetermined options often does require them to stick their neck out.
I suspect there is a policy otherwise the customer service reps wouldn't be allowed to do it.
Sort of like how you CAN travel without id, but it is in TSA's best interests to not let you know it is possible or the details.
I remember a friend - who was quite astute in saving money - would routinely get his discounts on things because there was a policy to allow expired coupons at certain stores.
This is language used in the service industry to signal that a “favor” is not policy.
“It’s over the return period, but only by a couple of days, so…”
“You’re a month out of warranty, but I believe you that this has been going on for a while before you brought it in. Well…”
It sounds, to me, like this was someone who was inexperienced (whether at the job or at the task of deescalating a situation). I think that they applied a standard qualifier because they lacked the insight to see that it wasn’t applicable. I doubt they really believed the same exception shouldn’t apply if this happens again.