Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by DavidMi, Jun 3, 2010.
Bought a new truck and ask if I could pay sticker price plus tax, they said that was good with them.
Do you also haggle at the grocery store? With the water company?
Yes, once a week I take the cap off my well and scream I want cheaper water.
The HD discount was removed from my account. I called and was told that was the way it was. That's ok, I replied. Now, remove me from autopay. "Uh, why would you do that?" I was asked. "Well, I'll just pay by check, send me the bill." "Uh, ok."
In post #2352 you wrote this last sentence in response to my comment regarding Directv's postcard and email offer of an additional 24 months free HD access. This is the exact text of my June 15, 2012 email from Directv. Could you please explain in what manner I am misinterpreting it?
Hello Valued Customer,
Thank you for being a DIRECTV customer. In addition to having the very best in entertainment, you will be receiving the HD experience you know and love FREE FOR 2 YEARS!
Note "you will be receiving" which is in the future perfect progressive tense meaning it will be an ongoing event.
It does not state in addition to or on top of, it just says free for a 2 year time period. So did you receive it for 2 years? If so then the post card is correct. You will be receiving is not a statement of time but a statement of fact. In fact if you really want to break it down it says you'll be receiving HD service and it will be free for 2 years. To make your interpretation correct it would need to say somehow that it was from a new date range or have a clause that made it say in addition to another promotion.
If it was intended to be an extension it would have been very clear on that. This information was the same information that was sent out when you originally, or should have been, when you received it. If they wanted to extend it for everyone then everyone would just be eligible for it again so when you called in you would get it without any issues like you did originally.
If the cards and emails, sent over many months and more than once to at least me, weren't for an extension, it should have said that clearly. They knew about the confusing nature of them in February when I told the office of the president about it, yet they continued to send them out over the next several months!
Just because you find them confusing does not mean that they will be changed. As with anything a company sends out it will go through the legal teams and make sure that it's legally accurate. As a general rule, for almost every company, all communications that go out are written for a Jr High level education.
They are very clear in what this is if you just read it and not make assumptions on word interpretations. However we read what we want to and hear what we want to. You want this to mean that it's an extension so that's how you choose to interpret it.
As one of your cusomers, I find this comment rather offensive. What happened to the customer is always right? You have defended D* dozens of times in this thread, did it ever occur to you to admit that they screwed up and should make good of their offers. There is no excuse for a company of this stature to send out such poorly worded information.
So you find it offensive that business's send out communications at a Jr High level intentionally? This has been going on for decades. Read some advertisements or statements and look at the wording used. This is done so that people are not alienated. It also means that things are written simplistically so that confusion is at a minimum. The customer has never always been right. I don't care if you go to a company that used it for it's company slogan. If a customer was unreasonable they were unreasonable. The entire point of that saying is that customer service should do everything reasonable to accommodate their customers. It was never meant as a literal saying and it's only used by people who attempt to manipulate a situation to their favor. If the customer was always right then why would anyone pay for anything. Why would people have to do anything for themselves.
I have stated the facts of what the communication said. I have also said that it was an error and that it was a negative situation that shouldn't have happened. If a communication had gone out that stated "We're extending your promotion" then I would agree with you 100% but it didn't. The communication came out stating the requirements for the promotion again even though it wasn't warranted.
So once again there was not an offer that was extended to anyone. There was not an extension of a prior offer. People who didn't have this promotion did not get the communication. The communication is not stating that there is a new promotion.
Sorry if you feel that I shouldn't post facts because it's a defense of the company. Even if I wasn't an employee I would still understand what the communication stated. I would still understand how it could upset people, and I could understand why people would want it. That wouldn't make me think it was something it isn't though. If you can find a post in this thread where I've stated that people shouldn't be upset, that this wasn't something that shouldn't have happened, or that I think people are stupid for wanting it please let me know.
I'm offended by the way you said it, clearly to demean my, and many others, interpretation of the emails and cards. For your information, I was told by the representative from the office of the president that they could indeed see my point about the confusing nature of the message. Like it or not, say it any way you want, Directv is the cause of the confusion, not the customers. If you can't see that, then shame on you.
Don't try that with the septic tank cover without first taking a deep breath!
We choose to read things as we want to. You could have read it as things are written that way as to make them simple and not to over think them.
I've stated already that DIRECTV did cause this by sending out the communications in error and it shouldn't have happened. I've also stated that it doesn't make the communication something that it's not.
I think it is time for an English lesson. (Yes I have a degree in English form Notre Dame class of '75). If it pertained to my present 24 months it would have properly said "you are receiving" (present perfect progressive tense) not "you will be receiving (future perfect progressive tense). Language has meaning and in business written promises must be honored by "honorable" businesses. If Directv sent you a communication that said you will be continuing the job you know and love for 24 months would you really take this as a termination notice since you have already worked for them for 24 months?
Are you stating that you did not receive a credit after receiving the communication and that the total amount of credits did not meet or exceed the number 24? Your lesson is incomplete as the future perfect progressive tense just means that a continuous action will be completed in the future.
So the only way that it would not have been grammatically correct is if you received that communication and then did not receive a credit afterwards. This then would make it a clearly heinous case of grammar violation in which they might reply "Their, There, They're".
There have been MANY posts of customers calling and only being offered $5/month for three months. Some have gotten more, some have gotten an additional 24. I understand you feel the need to defend Directv, but you are off base here.
I did not receive a credit after receiving the communication. Present perfect progressive is an action that began in the past and continues into the present. Future perfect progressive must begin in the future and continue onward. "you will be receiving" cannot refer to an action that began in the past. Also you did not respond to my question regarding if Directv sent you a communication stating you will be continuing in the job you know and love for 24 months would you really take this as a termination notice since you have already worked for them for the past 24 months? And by the way, what do homonyms have to do with with this discussion?
You misconstrued the response to be relevant to your situation. The post was in response to bflora's use of an English grammatical rule. I never said that people would be eligible for said discount again. The rule he stated is that something will continue and be resolved in the future.
Again it's not a defense to state a fact. It's just a fact I don't have to defend DIRECTV as there's no reason to. What I'm doing, in this specific instance, is not for the benefit of people who have already made up their minds. It's to just let people who get to this thread by a search engine to know what really happened. Do I think that those people will be happy? No but they will at least have an understanding of what did in fact happen. I've stated this shouldn't have happened but I also won't harp on the fact because it can't be changed.
You edited your post so I didn't reply to it as I was replying to the original.
I fail to see how it cannot refer to an action that started in the past. If I gave you a dollar a month for a year and stated you will receive a dollar for 24 months I could stop in 12 months and be factually correct.
You used the word continuing did DIRECTV? If they told me that I would be doing the job I know and love for 24 months I would automatically ask what happens in month 25 as that's contractual language.
I misconstrued nothing. Clearly you can't accept the facts here. That's okay, you don't have to. I don't have to respond to your blindness anymore.
"Will receive" is not the same as "will be receiving". In regards to "month 25" would this month be month 25 or 25 months from now?