1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Business Person of the Year

Discussion in 'Archive' started by -, Dec 8, 2001.

  1. Guest

    Hi again. I didn't know you well enough to know if you were being sarcastic or not so assumed(my bad) that you were telling it as you perceived it.

    I agree with you entirely about their advertising claims. The 500 channel garbage was exactly that garbage. I'm not entirely convinced that the hype actually worked in drawing new subscribers or getting old subscribers to upgrade to the new dish or programming. When we start talking about hundreds of channels I think you automatically have to take off for the music channels, PPV channels, and Fox sports channels. What is left? Maybe 40-50 decent channels while the rest is crap.

    I would much rather see E* put forth a campaign that would exploit their better bang for the buck. Additionally I would like to see them go back to something they've gotten away from....letting the SUBSCRIBER choose a package of their creation for a set price. Again they could exploit empowering the consumer while at the same time exploit the providing of value.

    I don't necessarily agree that the addition of locals was a bad idea. I'd base the decision upon cost and subscribership. It is obviously going to cost a heck of a lot to provide so many channels. At the same time I highly doubt, though to be fair I don't have numbers on this, that there are as many locals subscribers as there are straight out broadcast channel subscribers.

    Personally as long as I get the programming that is found on CBS, ABC, Fox, NBC, and the superstations, I could really care less where they are based. Maybe a return to west coast/east coast offering isn't a bad idea.

    Truth be told that was one of my favorite things about Primestar. While all the channels were west coast and or east coast, they varied in location. I enjoyed the varying news coverages, sports that would be shown etc. My favorite was ABC out of Miami. Since I'm a Dolphin fan I got to see Don Shula's talk show before every Monday night game. Unfortunately they changed feeds so that they could provide the Olympics out of Atlanta.

    Back to the issue though....While Chuck may have opened the door, and honestly I'm not sure whether E* or DTV had locals first, it was the cable companies that did push for the must carry rulings since it was the cable companies that were in effect standing to lose the most and being treated unfairly. J
  2. Guest

    Obviously, DirecTV had locals first - in the form of E/W nets. But Charlie started adding all the other cities, offering them to whomever wanted them. THAT'S what ticked off the cable companies, because THEY couldn't do that. So they threw the ball back in Charlie's court and said "fine, if you want to do that, then carry EVERY channel in that city like we have to."

    This was Charlie's baby, and I'd love to see a poll of how many think locals have ruined DBS - of maybe there is one. Anyone that thinks locals have ruined DBS couldn't possibly agree that Charlie is the Businessman of the Year. That would be a contradiction in terms.
  3. Guest

    Do I really have to go back and quote you again ad-infinitum to remind of what you have said in previous posts??? Okay, maybe you did use the exact phrase "there is low morale," but how would you classify employees who "just don't care," "don't give a crap," "are chased out," "tired of seeing it (the B.S.) happen," etc. -- Do I really have to remind you?

    The definition of low morale is... oh nevermind, that's getting old...

    As for being awarded Businessman of the Year, I honestly respect your opinion on whether or not he is qualified for the award. But, I truly believe that he does deserve such recognition based on what he has accomplished.

    Similarly, I happen to think that Walmart and their business tactics of coming into small towns and running every other business, small and large alike, out of town is evil and despicable. However, as a business they would have to be applauded for doing what they sought out to do -- that is build a successful, profitable money-making business.

    In the same regard, FROM A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE, Charlie Ergen has built a successful business that will be profitable within a few years. He has millions of customer who return each and every month with money and continue to subscribe. His stock is considered one to watch. For those and several other reasons, he is a successful businessman. For the people he pisses off along the way up, well, that's unfortunately the cost of doing business in this country.

    Name ONE COMPANY whose customers AND employees are 100% happy 100% of the time. When you can do that, you've got a leg to stand on for knocking Charlie for receiving such an award.
  4. Guest

    >>"Name ONE COMPANY whose customers AND employees are 100% happy 100% of the time. When you can do that, you've got a leg to stand on for knocking Charlie for receiving such an award. "<<

    Oh, is THAT the criteria? Who said anything about 100% of the people being happy 100% of the time?

    I've worked in plenty of places where the employees had "low morale" - but they still did their jobs. Dish does NOTHING to discourage employees from not caring about their jobs. They don't get discliplined, written up, suspended - NOTHING. It's the people that care who end up getting mistreated. God forbid someone below Charlie and his Nazi managers have an idea or better way to do something. THAT'S why I dislike Charlie so much.

    My point is that he shouldn't have been named Businessman of the Year because of his intra-corporate tactics - not because of his external business tactics. But perhaps how you treat your employees isn't a consideration for this award.

    I assure you - I'm not the only one (of higher position) that feels this way about Dish Network. I had 2 managers above me that were damn good at there jobs who left because of the reasons I've given. And Dish did nothing to keep them there and ended up replacing them with people that had no clue or experience in those positions. Maybe that describes every company out there. But I, unlike the rest of you, want to promote the fact they treat people this way and try to get this kind of thing changed - not just sit here and say "that's just the way it is" or "every company is like that". It's because of people like you that force tghings to be this way in the first place. So I'll take all the ridicule you can hand out, but I stand foirm in what I say about Charlie and his company (from firsthand experience - not as an observer like most of the rest of you).
  5. Guest

    The locals situation is an external business tactic -- and you have spent plenty of time in this thread whining about that.

    How many pessimists do you know in this world that are successful? I'm all about getting things done with as little buearocracy and with as much encouragement in the ranks as possible.

    The suggestion that every company in existence has former employees just like you is not an assertion that people like me condone such behaviours within a company. From DiSH's perspective, you are just collateral damage. A person can either play with the big dogs in their company, earn the respect of their peers and be successful, or they don't fit the mold of that particular organization (i.e., some people are born to be used car salesman and others can't stand to lie to a customer's face -- therefore, they shouldn't be in that line of work).

    I've said it before, it's a fact of life in the corporate world and DiSH Network is not a unique player. Move on and find another job that is more befitting of your personality and ethics -- stop agonizing over what didn't work for you. It's sounds like some of your former managers were able to make the transition without coming here to complain about their former employer.
  6. Guest

    E has klots of employees leaving, with the local call center I hear about these folks who start at E and migrate to better positions, in other companies.

    In the past I posted ideas to elp employee morale, I doubt any of those low cost ideas were implemented.

    E has some problems in not properly supporting their employees, heck their dealers dont get treated very well either.

    But look at their growth, they are doing lots of stuff right:)
  7. Guest

    I did some checking a MAJOR source of local call center churn is the pay. E is paying just over $7 a hour for new hires whereas other centers like cellular are paying nearly $12 a hour to start. E s other locations pay the higher rate also, so employees use the local center as a stepping stone for other jobs... That all well and god for the workers bettering themselves, but employee churn cost them experienced trained workers. This jst doesnt tick off the subs but other employees as well who are forced to TRY to clean up the messes undertrained workers create. CSRs get yelled at a LOT!

    Then too E looses subs over such problems, and supervisors have little authority to make subs happy.

    I checked on this after a espically bad problem a CSR created for me. After the 7th call still had loose ends and supervisors wouldnt compenstae me I inquired as to how much leeway they have to issue credits or other compensation. Found out it was near ZERO:(

    A low level verison friend has $200 of authority and he is just a first level complain handler. They monitor that they dont give away the house, and he documents why he gives out credits, but ultimately those credits save the company money from otherwise lost subs.

    E REALLY needs to give their employees the authority to make unhappy customers satisfied.
  8. Guest

    Well, $7 is not low for a CSR. At the company were I work, the scale range is from around $6 an hour to $25 an hour. And that is all based on the level of support they provide to the customers. Yes, churn here is very high also -- but, mainly at the lower end of the pay scale. Those types have almost zero authority. They only answer calls, take notes, and transfer calls. The next step above them can only answer the questions that the knowledge base on their PC gives them the answers to. Again, essentially no authority.

    When it's necessary to escalate a situation, it goes to one of the people with the authority to make things happen, issue a credit, etc. I want to emphasize that these two categories cover greater than 90% of the calls. It's that small leftover percentage that get escalated and have to be handled in a different manner.

    Those at the higher end of the pay scale have toughed it out long enough to survive and move on through the ranks. The cellular company that you suggested paying $12 an hour is for someone with prior experience or training. I guarantee that with the complexity of troubleshooting a cellular network, there are some pre-requisites to employment.

    Yes, training is a problem. Mainly because the calls don't stop coming in while everyone spends a day or two or five in training. Couple that with the already high churn rate and you can see where training is a never ending process.

    From my experience, I'd say that the pay is not primarily the issue. In fact, I'd say that dealing with customers on the phone for 8 or 10 hours straight every day of the week makes the job much more difficult to handle. In some groups it's literally non-stop from the time you sit down in the morning until you finally get to leave whenever that might be. All it takes is one or two pissed off customers first thing in the morning and the stress level for that entire day will be off the chart. No, it's not usually very rewarding work -- but then again, you can get in the door without even holding a high school diploma.
  9. Guest

    ...you're exactly the problem with companies today. You so easily write-off someone as "not being right for the position" or "colateral damage". You have completely ignored most of what I've said just so you can find a way to write it off.

    I had no problems with my work - in fact, I was the best at what I did in my department - easily. People always came to me with questions because they knew I knew the answers (even my new bosses came to me a lot because they had no clue what they were doing). Problem is the come out and say "we want to hear your ideas", yet when you do, you are condemned for it. This has nothing to do with me not being a fit for my job at all - I assure you.

    As for the "whining" about Charlie adding so many locals - yes, that is an external business tactic. That was a separate addendum to why I thought Charlie shouldn't be Buinessnan of the Year. And why is it "whining"? I guess everyone in here and everywhere else that registrs a complaint about ANYTHING is whining, huh?

    Jeff, you are exactly the kind of person that causes people to leave their jobs. You are so intolerable or willing to listen to what someone says - you just jump and essentially say "quit whining". It's a shame that people like you are everywhere in corporate America. No wonder so many employees are incompetent.
  10. Guest

    You have got me all wrong. Perhaps I appear that way to you because I disagree categorically with what you have to say.

    All I am saying is three things:

    A) Don't classify an individual who turned a small-time BUD business into a multi-billion dollar company based on your personal employment experience

    Asshole or not, poor boss or not, he has accomplished much and overcame alot of adversity along the way. That, ALONE, is why I think he is deserving for this consideration -- as a BUSINESSMAN, nothing else.

    B) Don't classify an individual based on how others perceive that corporation

    Though it may appear that you aren't the only one who is bad-mouthing him, how he treat's his customer, or what it's like to be one of his employees, it still does not represent everyone's opinion on said matters. I assure you that there people who know him who think he's a great guy, employees who love working there, and customers who are happy with the service that DiSH provides. Generalization proves absolutely nothing.

    C) Not every person is fit to do every job.

    Perhaps you are very good at what you do; I'm not questioning that about you. But, you obviously weren't the perfect fit for that organization or you would still be there and thriving. If you are as good as you state, then I'm certain you will be successful somewhere else.

    C'mon, if even half the things you said about working at DiSH were true, of course I don't agree with such practices. But, there are individuals who do thrive in such sorroundings -- and with 6 million-plus customers, I guess they are doing something correct.

    If you want to define the boundaries of good businessmen versus bad businessmen as only those who are integritous, then you'd be eliminating nearly all of the upper management in America (not to mention some of the clergy). As far as businessmen go, Charlie has been pretty successful.

    Let's face it, you were simply not cut out for working in the type of corporate environment that DiSH propagates (good or bad in your opinion). But, posting your personal experiences as if they were the gospel all over the internet really proves nothing except that your personal observations were not as positive as others, now does it?
  11. Guest

    Firstly, I respect your opinion on point A as to why you think Charlie is deserving. I disagree, but I respect it as a point with info to back it up.

    I do disagree with your B and C - as it relates to what I've been saying.

    B. I never said my opinion was that of the majority in that company. As I explained before, many of the employees that work there couldn't tell you there head form there ass. There so oblivius to the fact they can't properly do their job that there happy with it. I'm sure you know people like that where you work. I have not made any generalizations regarding other people's points of view. Any generalizations I have made are fact based on the work I did and what I know about how things work there.

    C. You're looking at the "not every person is the right fit for their job" thing backwards. The problem was that I was perfect for what I did. I knew everything (and more) that I needed to for my job; I went above and beyind what I was asked or expected to do; based on performance reviews, was the best at my job in my department; and was known for having "all the answers" (in a general sense). The people around me were the ones that weren't the right fits as they had no clue what they were doing half the time and it became my job to clean it up. Unfortunately, there were more of "them" than there were of me, so it's easy for people to gang up on you when you become a target. Anyone that's almost "overly good" at there job easily becomes a target (or "hated") by everyone else because the good ones make the bad ones look even worse. That's employment in America. If THAT'S what you mean by me not being a fit for my job, then I guess you'd be right - although I see it as just the opposite.

    I also don't see myself as "posting my personal experiences as if they were the gospel all over the internet". This is the only place (and thread) I've expressed anything, and it was in direct relation to the topic. My personal experiences have been labelled as such. I've stressed things as fact that I know to be true. What have I done wrong? I haven't spoken on behalf of anyone that hasn't personally told me things about their experiences with Dish (other employees from there I've mentioned). So your last comment isn't really a fair one.

    We can agree to disagree. After all - you don't know me or what I did there. I'd LOVE to tell you what I did there and why I left if I thought you'd believe me anymore when I say what I do. But I specifically stated my thoughts in regard to the topic at hand. But my whole point coming in here was not just to bitch and moan for the sake of it - I could've done that in any thread if I wanted to.

Share This Page