GATINEAU – With the large Canadian telecom players reading the writing on the wall (where it appears the Commission is seriously considering some sort of new code of conduct for telecom sales practices) a few of the larger carriers last week set out some ideas for commissioners to consider while they deliberate.
Each company last week essentially told the CRTC during its hearing into telecom sales practices the same thing: “There’s no problem with us when it comes to selling wired or wireless products and services to Canadians.” If there is, added most of the intervenors, the problem stems mainly from the actions of Rogers and Bell anyway. Those two, the largest providers in the country, appeared before the commission panel for about three hours each on Friday.
As others before them, Rogers and Bell representatives insisted while there are rotten apples in every bunch and they do make a some mistakes, a few pretty bad, there is no systemic problem with telecom sales.
Consumers and their advocates (including federal politicians) have a far different perspective – that there are glaring problems which must be addressed with new rules. Also, since anecdotes like the one about a poor grandma who was connected to two broadband providers but owned no computer (a real intervention, by the way), resonate far better with Canadians than all the statistics the telecom companies showed that 99% of their customers are satisfied, the CRTC seems poised to do something.
On Friday, Shaw Communications proposed one answer: ban all door-to-door sales by contractors, meaning all such sales forces must be telecom company employees, like Shaw’s are. This targeted measure would remove a serious consumer irritant without standardizing the sales processes in ways which would take flexibility away from the telecom companies.
“In our view, the clearest evidence of serious consumer harm on the record arises in the context of door-to-door sales,” added Shaw’s SVP of marketing, pricing and packaging Sanae Takahashi (pictured above in a CPAC.ca screen cap). “This proceeding has illuminated disturbing examples of vulnerable Canadians feeling intimidated or harassed by aggressive and relentless agents… These consumer interventions clearly demonstrate the stress, frustration, confusion and privacy concerns associated with this channel.”
Shaw representatives also insisted a visit to a front door gives a customer no choice in a sales interaction, calling them “intrusive and unplanned,” added Takahashi, with little to no accountability for the information provided. This leads to serious mistakes, misunderstandings and mismatches in expectations between the companies and the customer. Third party sellers, or contractors paid 100% on commission just exacerbate the risks, which is why Shaw doesn’t use them for door to door sales, she said.
So, the company called for that ban – as well as the establishment of not just a “do-not-knock list” which some companies, including Shaw, keep but a “can-knock” list of consumers who have consented to receiving a door-to-door sales pitch. Commissioner Christopher MacDonald, however, noted such a list could end up being “a list with no names on it.”
It’s worth noting here that Telus the day before told commissioners door-to-door sales are crucial to growing its fibre-to-the-home business – for sales as well as being able to tell customers why their roads and sidewalks are being trenched or why those technicians are up a ladder in the back lane. Also worth noting is Telus uses these sales, many third party and most 100% on commission, to win broadband and TV customers away from Shaw, the west’s biggest TV and broadband supplier.
“Just last week in our fibre areas we had 6,422 sales and 43% of those were from the door-to-door channel.” – Tony Geheran, Telus
Tony Geheran, Telus’ EVP CCO even gave a peek into the company’s recent sales saying Thursday: “Just last week in our fibre areas we had 6,422 sales and 43% of those were from the door-to-door channel.”
Bell Canada, which was the last to appear at the hearing, noted what several others before them had outlined – there are already ample laws and codes, be it from the CRTC (TV Service Provider Code, Wireless Code, Telecom Act) or federal (Competition Bureau) or provincial governments (various consumer protection laws – such as Saskatchewan’s Direct Sellers’ Act) which protect consumers well from unscrupulous sales practices.
Said Rogers VP legal-consumer Julie Laurence in French during the company’s Friday appearance: “The increasing number of consumer protection measures put in place in recent years has enabled consumers to make informed decisions… to ensure that consumers receive fair treatment.”
Despite that, Bell proposed five new measures for Canadian telecom companies to abide by: 1. Show consumers offers in clear language they can understand; 2. Offer a 30-day “buyer's remorse” option so customers can change their minds; 3. Orders placed must be confirmed with the customer within 24 hours of the order placement; 4. A “do-not-knock” list must be kept by each company; 5. Each carrier must have a whistleblower policy to protect employees who report bad behaviour.
It’s worth noting most of the companies reported they do some or all of this already. Shaw, however, noted one of those pesky “unintended consequences” of codes which mean well, but cause other things to happen. For example, the CRTC Wireless Code calls for a 15-day window where a customer can cancel a new contract if they change their mind. This is a serious challenge when Shaw’s Freedom Mobile wins a customer away from one of the Big Three, said the company’s SVP wireless sales Pat Button, because the incumbents “use the trial period to aggressively win back” customers, he said. Freedom did at one time offer a 30-day period, but the win-back sales were so relentless from the incumbents, it had to cut it in half to the Code’s minimum.
Telus representatives said Thursday the industry should come up with a code using the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee while Rogers, which was opposed to a new code in its written submissions in this proceeding, told the Regulator Friday even though the company doesn’t believe one is necessary, if there is to be one, it wants to take an active part in helping write one.
While the proposals are all helpful, as is the information on how the companies try their best to do right by their customers, commissioners pressed, especially Rogers and Bell, on the mistakes cited in the various individual submissions – some of which were serious customer service failures, or overly aggressive tactics.
Vice-chair telecom Christianne Laizner repeatedly pushed Rogers for a definition on what it believes is aggressive sales tactics in its appearance Friday. “If the customer says, I don’t need a bundle… how many times do they have to say it before the agent takes no for an answer?” she asked.
“One ‘no’ should be sufficient,” said Eric Agius, SVP customer care (pictured).
Final submissions stemming from the public hearing are due November 1st. The Commission is to file a report on this to the federal government by the end of February.
We will have more on this later this week as we analyze just what we saw over the hearing’s five days.
