The CRTC has rules about the type of contact that ILECs can have with former customers for the first 3 months after switching to a new service provider. These are called the Winback Rules and have been the cause for a Charter of Rights challenge.

In the meantime, little border skirmishes are helping clarify what is allowed and what isn’t. For example, in April the CRTC ruled that a card with the following was not permitted:

I’m writing to say that we are sorry to see you go. Even though you are no longer using Bell for your local phone service, we haven’t forgotten about you. You were a valued member of our Bell Family and we truly appreciate having been of service.

If there is anything we can assist you with in the future or anything you would like to discuss, please don’t hesitate to call my team directly at 1 888 603-8402.

On the other hand, on Monday, the CRTC ruled that the following wording is permitted:

I’m writing to say that we are sorry to see you go. Even though you are no longer using Bell for your Residential Phone service, we haven’t forgotten about you. You were a valued member of our Bell Family and we truly appreciate having been of service.

Unfortunately, industry regulations prevent us from contacting you in an effort to win back your Residential Phone service for a period of three months. We are counting down the days until we can talk to you again. These rules do not prevent you from contacting us if you are interested in more information about your local service.

What is the difference? The second card is considered informational and there is no phone number to make the card an obvious call to action.

Technorati Tags:
CRTC, Bell, Videotron, winback, local forbearance, Mark Goldberg

I had an opportunity to speak with my colleague and friend, Stewart Dresner, while he was in Canada for a variety of privacy meetings and conferences a couple weeks ago. Given my involvement with KINSA, he mentioned the Children’s Privacy Protection Network (CPPN), for which his firm, Privacy Laws and Business, provides the secretariate function.

He pointed out that many countries may have privacy laws, but woefully few are aimed at the specific needs of children. As a matter of law – or even public policy – can we expect a child, surfing on a TV network or toy manufacturer website, have informed consent to terms of service?

In the UK, companies such as the BBC, Nickelodeon UK, Turner Broadcasting, Microsoft, Vodaphone, Warner Brothers and Disney are members of the CPPN, concerned about developing and promoting best practices with regard to the protection of children’s privacy.

Is it time for Canadian firms to demonstrate some leadership in this area as well? Do we need legislative changes or will the private sector take the initiative?

Technorati Tags:
privacy, Stewart Dresner, Privacy Laws and Business, privacy policy, CPPN

One of the bright lights at this week’s poorly attended ICCM trade show in Toronto was Jeff Doran, president of Contact Centre Employer of Choice, a consulting firm that evaluates and certifies workplaces.

Jeff recognized that there is a wide variation in the working conditions for call centre employees – from sweat shops with staff crowded around folding tables in boiler rooms, through the professional call centres that are more typical of the major carriers and service providers.

His firm provides a certification program, enabling clients to use the ‘Employer of Choice‘ brand in their recruiting and perhaps allowing companies to more easily attract employees who actually want to come to work.

Call centres are the first voice heard by customers for most companies. Happier, more satisfied workers present a better corporate image, resulting in happier, more satisfied customers.

That means less churn of employees and lower churn of clients: both resulting in lower costs.

Why not get certified?

Technorati Tags:
ICCM