Friday, January 30, 2015

Jones New York Will Close Stores, End Wholesale Business

jones ny This week hasn’t exactly brought good news for women’s fashion. Kate Spade announced yesterday that it would shutter its Kate Spade Saturday and Jack Spade stores, and today, Jones New York announced it would close stores and discontinue its wholesale business.


Bloomberg reports that the multichannel women’s sportswear brand will close 127 outlet stores and terminate its wholesale business throughout the year.


The company sold apparel in a number of department stores, such as Macy’s, at Jones New York Outlet stores and through its own website.


Officials with the company say the move was made after a review of its recent performance and outlook.


“We recognize that the Jones New York brand is important to many loyal customers, and we are pursuing strategic alternatives for the brand,” Interim Chief Executive Officer Andrew Hede said in the statement. “We will work with our wholesale customers and vendors to ensure an orderly transition over the course of this year.”


Jones Group Inc., which owns the brand as well as Nine West, was acquired by private equity firm Sycamore Partners in December 2013 as part of a $1.2 billion deal.


Jones New York to Close Stores and Seek Strategic Alternatives [Bloomberg]




by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Exec Formerly Known As “Comcast Frank” Has Some Tough-Love Advice For Company


Once upon a time, Frank Eliason was better known Comcast Frank, heading up the cable company’s Digital Care team during a time when people began to realize that complaining on the Internet could get results. He left Comcast in 2010 to take his social media and customer service skills to Citigroup, but his legacy of giving a damn about customers remains. So after months of seeing Comcast make one huge goof after another, Frank apparently felt compelled to pen an open letter to his former employer with some good advice.

“I have had the privilege of working for the company,” Eliason writes in a lengthy post on LinkedIn, “and I consider many who work there to truly be family, but today I have to say I am disappointed.”


Though we take issue with his assertion that Comcast customer service complaints had quieted in recent years — we can testify that they have not — we agree that the last year has been one disaster after another for the company.


There was the Aug. 2014 incident in which a desperate Comcast retention specialist desperately demanded that writer Ryan Block provide a reason for canceling his service.


Comcast apologized profusely for that incident an insisted that this wasn’t how employees were trained, though employees told us differently, and an in-house Comcast memo acknowledged that the employee was doing “what we trained him to do.”


“I have no doubt that the corporate office did not realize that employees were trained this way,” writes Eliason, “but I am confident that the customer service representative was doing what he was taught — up-selling, or retaining, rather than risking the loss of a subscriber. In any job we strive to perform according to how we’re measured. And for most companies, employees in a retention department are measured on the number of customers they save from closing an account.”


The Ryan Block call was followed by other high-profile customer service disasters like this one, and this one, and this one — and let’s not forget about the customer who was fired from his job at a Comcast vendor after complaining about thousands of dollars in overcharges for service and equipment.


And 2015 has not gotten off to a great start, with the most recent cock-up — the customer whose name was changed to “A**hole Brown” by someone at Comcast.


“From what I have seen, Comcast has been handling this in the best manner you can expect,” writes Eliason. “They have offered the Customer credits for multiple years of service and they have privately and publicly apologized.”


He says he agrees with Comcast Senior VP Charlie Herrin, who wrote in response to the incident that “we need to show them respect, patience, and enthusiasm to provide them with an excellent experience.”


But Eliason questions what it is about the employee culture at Comcast that is still allowing for these sorts of gaffes to occur.


“How can this happen today?” he asks. “Why do we not hear many incidents like these from other companies? Companies do implement technology solutions to prevent these type of things, which Comcast has stated they are working on, but often other companies do not have the same issue because they hire people to fit within their company culture.”


Because human customer service is a huge expense for businesses and doesn’t directly generate revenue, companies have both been trying to automate the process, removing humans from the equation whenever possible. And for those times when you must use actual people, businesses are more frequently going the cheapest possible route while also turning frontline customer service reps into de facto salespeople, argues Eliason.


“Call centers tried to shift to become sales centers,” he explains. “This is why any time a customer calls, they’re pitched everything under the sun instead of actually helping you with the reason why you called in the first place. We have been in a age of outsourcing, and finding the cheapest means possible to provide customer service. Comcast has become the poster child for this shift in company thinking.”


Eliason believes there is something wrong with the inside culture at Comcast that allows bad behavior to persist.


“The reason you tend not to hear about incidents like this from other companies is because people within the company would be horrified if they heard of such a thing, and they can easily escalate the situation to higher levels,” he writes. “How would you react if you worked for a company and a customer pointed out that the company changed a customer’s name to a–hole? I personally would hit the roof.”


But as happened in the A**hole Brown story, the customer claims she appealed to both the local Comcast office and the regional office to no avail. It wasn’t until she reached out to journalist Christopher Elliott that she finally got anyone to care.


“In my view it should have been able to be handled by those in the store,” contends Eliason. “They should have had the ability to escalate the situation to the senior leaders who could find a reasonable solution to a very unreasonable situation.


“I am sure Comcast will be reviewing the entire situation,” he continues, “and I hope they not only look into why the first person thought this was okay to do, or that they could get away with it (although they may have intended to go out in style too), but why others were not completely horrified by it and yelling from the rooftops for all leaders to hear? This is where culture comes into play and it should not have taken public shame to do the right thing.”


Eliason concludes his post with some actionable advice on what Comcast could do to improve its customer service and minimize the likelihood of high-profile errors:



1) Hire a Chief Customer Officer to represent the views of the Customer in everything the company does…


2) Simplify pricing strategies instead of forcing people to threaten to cancel service just to get a better rate. Stop creating situations where customers have to fight with you.


3) Review current customer service staffing and consider moving roles back to the US (please note, in my view and experience this incident was most likely done by someone in the US), where at least the service personnel can relate to what it is like to being a Comcast Customer.


4) Actions speak louder than words, so no more apologizing, but instead doing.


5) Live up to being the Philadelphian that you already are. We will support you, but you need to support us too. Treat us in the same manner you would want to be treated.



While these are all valid points, what Eliason — who supports Comcast’s pending acquisition of Time Warner Cable — glosses over is one of the main reasons that people hate their cable and broadband providers so much: lack of choice.


It’s one thing to get bad service from a company. It’s another when you have no other option for that service. Even those who get their pay-TV service from satellite or who don’t watch TV at all still rely on cable companies for broadband.


Imagine being publicly an “A**hole” by your supermarket and then having to go back to that same supermarket because you’re simply not allowed to shop elsewhere. Then you’ll understand why consumers hate Comcast and the few remaining cable companies out there.




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Adobe Accuses Forever 21 Of Pirating Design Software

(list)

(list)



Wait a minute…Forever 21 is in legal trouble over an intellectual property issue that doesn’t involve accusations that it ripped off another fashion company’s design? Yes, the fast-fashion superstore is being sued by three software companies that accuse it of pirating their expensive software. The lead plaintiff is Adobe, maker of professional software and a company that would definitely notice if an entire company were using unlicensed versions.

It used to be that a use could purchase a copy of a pricey program once, install it from a disc of some kind, and then use it into perpetuity as long as they held on to the disc and a compatible computer. (For example, I’ve been using Adobe CS3 since 2010 and regret nothing.) The rise of cloud computing and software as a service is better for software companies since they an depend on regular income between major releases. Consumers, however, have to pay monthly for programs per user, and we can see how a penny-pinching boss might not appreciate that.


The other software makers involved are AutoDesk, a maker of computer-aided design software, and Corel, maker of Paint Shop Pro and WinZip, among other programs. These companies also allege that Forever 21 was using pirated versions of their programs. “Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants continued

their infringing activities even after being contacted by Adobe regarding the infringement,” the companies’ lawyers write in the initial complaint.


They ask that Forever 21 stop using the alleged stolen software, that they destroy ill-gotten copies floating around on office computers, and the companies also ask that their damages be calculated based on the profits that Forever 21 earned using the allegedly ill-gotten software.


Adobe is suing Forever 21 for pirating Photoshop [The Verge]




by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

ESPN Selling U.S. Fans Live-Streaming Access To Cricket World Cup For $99.99


While cricket doesn’t enjoy the immense popularity it inspires in other countries, fans of the sport who’ve been going without their fixes here in the United States will have a way to watch the upcoming ICC Cricket World Cup: In a first for ESPN, the network is selling live-streaming access to the cup’s 49 matches in February and March for $99.99.

ESPN is calling it a one-time deal, notes CNNMoney, but if it’s a success, it’s likely that it could happen again in the future.


It’s the first time ESPN has sold programming directly to consumers, a trend that’s gaining steam lately. Just yesterday, Nickelodeon announced its own direct-to-consumer subscription, which will start this year. Others like HBO and Showtime have also said they’re planning similar services for customers who don’t want to get cable or satellite services.


ESPN is keeping those providers in the loop with this deal, however, teaming up with Dish Network, Time Warner Cable and Mediacom so that customers can buy the cricket package through those providers as well. Prices will vary on those packages, as each provider will get to set the cost.


It’s worth pointing out that Re/code first reported that this would happen last November, so it’s not a total surprise that it’s come to fruition.


Russell Wolf, an ESPN executive vice president calls the “digital subscription service” as a “complement to our core networks and the value of the multichannel environment.”


You see, ESPN isn’t trying to overthrow The Man, just exist alongside him, with him, if you will. Everyone makes money, everyone wins, as it’s a chance for ESPN to “develop new expertise and agility in a dynamic media environment.”


ESPN selling Cricket World Cup on the Web [CNNMoney]




by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Yelp Goes To Court To Protect Identity Of Anonymous Review-Writer


Once again, a business who is displeased with an anonymous review on Yelp is trying to sue that reviewer and attempting to compel Yelp to reveal that user’s actual identity. But this morning, lawyers for Yelp and consumer advocates were in court to argue that there is no justification for unmasking the writer of this review.

In June 2013, a Yelp user with the screen name “Lin L.” wrote a Yelp review for a real estate firm in Texas.


The review stated that the agent she worked with was “by far the worst deceitful and money greedy sales agent you would ever deal with,” who “failed to represent us as clients, never explained our contracts to us and not once did he ever ask us what we wanted to keep or take in our home,” along with other claims that she was rushed into selling the house so that the agent could make his commission.


Then in May 2014, the firm contacted Yelp to request the removal of the review. After looking into Lin L.’s comments, Yelp decided in June 2014 to allow the review to stand “because it appeared to reflect the user’s personal experience and opinions, consistent with Yelp’s Terms of Service and Content Guidelines.”


When Aug. 2014 rolled around, the firm’s lawyer contacted Yelp, claiming that Lin L. was never a client and that what she describes in the review never occurred. The lawyer warned that if Yelp did not “immediately remove this review and disclose the full identity of this individual,” the firm would file a lawsuit seeking damages and attorney fees.


Yelp’s response defended its decision to keep the review online saying it still believed the write-up reflected the user’s opinions and experiences. However, if the real estate firm were able to prove in court that the review is defamatory, Yelp would reconsider. The site also said it would not reveal Lin L.’s identity without a valid subpoena.


Keep in mind that Yelp may not even have Lin L.’s real identity. Yes, you need to provide a first/last name, e-mail address and ZIP code when registering for Yelp, but there are no assurances that the name or location info provided to Yelp is accurate. I could go in and create an account using the name Steve Sanders and giving a 90210 ZIP code, but that doesn’t make me this guy.


Back to the case at hand…


In Nov. 2014, more than a year after the original review was posted, the real estate firm filed suit in a county court in Texas, alleging claims for defamation, civil conspiracy, and exemplary damages against defendant Lin L., but did not name Yelp as a defendant. The firm did, however, issue a subpoena to Yelp’s registered agent in Delaware, demanding identifying information and “all records and documents in your possession pertaining to LIN L.”


Yelp objected to the subpoena as it was served in Delaware, seeking documents stored in California, for a case in a Texas court.


Eventually, the firm’s lawyer filed a motion to compel with the court, asking it to require that Yelp provide the information sought by the subpoena.


Last week, Yelp and Paul Alan Levy, attorney for consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, filed an opposition [PDF] to the motion to compel, and then appeared before the court this morning to make their case.


The first issue involves the validity of the subpoena. Yelp maintains that a court in Texas, where Yelp has no offices, lacks subpoena jurisdiction over the California-headquartered company. This could have been avoided, argues Yelp, if the firm’s attorney had presented the Texas subpoena to the clerk’s office of a California circuit court, along with the proper application and fee. The clerk would then be obligated to issue a California subpoena.


But even if the subpoena had been served properly, or if the court rules that a local Texas court does indeed have subpoena jurisdiction, Yelp contends that the real estate firm has not yet met the constitutional requirements for compelling Yelp to identify Lin L.


“Because compelled identification trenches on the First Amendment right of anonymous speakers to remain anonymous, justification for infringing that right requires proof of a compelling interest, and beyond that, the restriction must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest,” reads Yelp’s opposition to the motion.


Yelp also points out that the mere unmasking of an anonymous reviewer may have a chilling effect on others’ decisions to exercise their First Amendment right to anonymous speech.


“Indeed, in a number of cases, plaintiffs have succeeded in identifying their critics and then sought no further relief from the court,” argues Yelp and Levy. “The federal Fifth Circuit has sanctioned a Texas lawyer who used subpoenas to identify anonymous defendants, not with any intention of litigating against them but in the hope of extorting quick settlements through the threat of public shaming.”


Yelp also asks the court to rule that the subpoena and the motion to compel is frivolous. The lawsuit was filed more than a year after the original review was posted, which is beyond the 12-month statute of limitations for libel claims in Texas.




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Delta Air Lines Flight Makes Emergency Landing After Pilot Gets Locked Out Of Cockpit


In what can only be akin to walking out the front door and realizing you locked your keys and the baby inside, the pilot of a Delta Air Lines flight found himself in a spot of trouble after the cockpit door locked behind him, forcing the first officer to make an emergency landing.

The flight from Minneapolis to Las Vegas landed safely after calling to report there’d been a bit of a snafu with a malfunctioning cockpit door, reports ABC News.


“About half way through [the 2.5-hour flight] there seemed to be some talking at the front of the plane. You could see the captain out there,” a passenger told ABC News. “There wasn’t a huge panic but some confusion.”


He explained that the door was jammed and he was stuck on the wrong side, the passenger said, calling it “very, very bizarre.”


But when the first officer was able to land at McCarran Airport in Las Vegas without a hitch, managing it “perfectly,” everyone broke out into spontaneous applause, he said.


Having the first officer on the other side of the plane meant he had access to the right controls to make the landing, but the plane needed to be towed in instead of taxiing to the gate.


“There was a door malfunctioned that locked the captain out so the first officer had to do an unassisted landing,” an airport spokesman said. “We take everything very seriously. This was an unusual landing. He called the airport so that we would have ground response available.”


Delta Plane Makes Emergency Landing After Pilot Locked Out of Cockpit [ABC News]




by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Intuit Caves To Pressure: Offers Free TurboTax Upgrades, Will Undo Changes To Software For Next Year

Intuit CEO Brad Smith is sorry.

Intuit CEO Brad Smith is sorry.



Ask, and ye shall receive. Or rather, create a fuss big enough to let a company know people aren’t okay with changes made to a popular product, and force that company to back down and do the right thing. After TurboTax customers heartily voiced their disapproval over Intuit tweaking its software and charging more for features that used to be included in certain versions of the software, Intuit has reversed course, saying it’ll undo the hell it wrought.


Intuit changed which services come with each tier of desktop software — Basic, Deluxe, Premier, and Home and Business — shifting some forms to more expensive versions. One big bone of contention was that the new version of TurboTax Deluxe no longer included four forms that are an essential part of some customers’ tax returns, forcing them to upgrade to the Premier software to gain access to those forms.


At first, Intuit tried to make good by offering a $25 rebate to those forced to upgrade, but first they had to finish and e-file their taxes and then apply for the rebate, and it only worked if they filed by April 15.


That wasn’t good enough, and now Intuit is saying it’s sorry and wants customers to come back into the fold. The company announced yesterday that it will roll back the changes it made to TurboTax software this year, and will cancel those changes for next year as well.


“These past couple of weeks have not been our finest hour,” Intuit CEO Brad Smith says in a new video posted by the company. In a blog post on LinkedIn accompanying the video, he adds that the company’s initial response and apology were off.


“Our apology and the way we handled the situation significantly missed the mark. Comments on my post as well as emails, calls and online reviews clearly stated we needed to do more to rectify the situation,” he writes.


Those customers forced to upgrade to complete their taxes can now upgrade from within the program for free, instead of waiting to complete their taxes and getting that $25 rebate. If you’ve already upgraded, you still have until April 20 to apply for the $25 rebate.


It will take until early February for necessary program changes to take effect, Smith notes, so if you don’t see the free upgrade right away, be patient.



Sorry Wasn’t Enough. Here’s What We’re Doing Now. [LinkedIn]




by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist