There are many things in modern life that serve to frustrate, annoy, and even exasperate.
One that regularly features in people's complaints is 'Call Centres'. In fact, to be more specific, the frustrating electronic bureaucracy one has to battle through whenever trying to sort something out on the phone.
As you might imagine (given that I am writing about it!) I have an example ready to hand.
Today I rang the company (for politeness they shall remain nameless) with which my daughter has a mobile phone contract. Now that she is earning she wants to take over the account.
I duly retrieved the paperwork from my filing cabinet. I then phoned. After what seemed an eternity of navigating through endless "if you want this, dial this" type options (Oh, for the days of a switchboard reply with a human being immediately at the other end!) I finally got to speak to a member of staff.
I confirmed the phone number. I gave my address. He asked for my previous address. Now, the paperwork WHICH I HAD IN FRONT OF ME clearly stated my present address. As a matter of random interest, it actually listed my two previous addresses (I moved twice in a couple of years). This means SOMEONE HAD, AT SOME POINT, TAKEN DOWN MY DETAILS CORRECTLY.
Yet, the unhelpful individual on the other end insisted that the address he had on the system didn't match. I pointed out the information on my paperwork was correct and that, therefore, the problem/fault was his ... or, rather, not his personally, but that of someone 'at his end'.
Banging my head against a brick wall would have seemed rewarding and worthwhile compared with the usefulness of this frustrating, time-consuming conversation. I am not blaming him personally, and I'm sure someone will point out that people like him have to endure the ire of grumpy people like me on the other end. He doesn't deserve that, but that's not the point.
In this case the problem was theirs, not mine - and yet, I now have to sort it out by going down to a local telephone centre and presenting two items of personal identification. I still don't know how easy it will then be to have the account transferred to my daughter. I am dreading more frustration.
We've lost an awful lot in this technological age.
Tuesday 21 January 2014
Friday 3 January 2014
There's nothing on!
"Christmas wouldn't be Christmas without the double-edition Radio Times!" How often have I said that in the past, or had others say it to me?
It has certainly been part of my Christmas traditions, for as long as I can remember, to buy the special Christmas edition as soon as it hits the news-stands. (For those of us who can remember further back, there was a time when you had to buy the Radio Times and the TV Times, as the former only published BBC TV and radio programmes; the latter covered ITV)
So it was, in the usual spirit of Christmas tradition, that I bought this year's edition.
But, I have to say, it was probably the worst investment of £3.20 I made this past festive season.
To borrow from Terry Wogan: "Is it me?" It just seems that Christmas TV isn't what it used to be. Perhaps the growth in quantity (of channels, that is) is directly proportional to the decline in quality. Perhaps the DVD/catch-up-TV-on-the-internet age has just dulled the excitement of a special film or Christmas TV special.
In the past part of the fun of buying the double-edition was glancing through and spotting well in advance the programmes or films you wanted to watch (or to record on VHS if you knew you wouldn't be in to see it). I recall my mum used to circle those things she most wanted to see.
Now each day takes up three double pages: terrestrial TV, then the freeview channels, and then the satellite channels. Even though I have no need for the third section (not having satellite) wading through everything else now becomes a major exercise. In some cases there is precious little detail because of the lack of space.
I'm not a Luddite: I watch DVDs, I watch stuff on the freeview channels (especially the excellent ITV3) and I occasionally watch stuff on the internet.
All the same, I can't help feeling we have lost something of the sparkle of TV at Christmas.
It has certainly been part of my Christmas traditions, for as long as I can remember, to buy the special Christmas edition as soon as it hits the news-stands. (For those of us who can remember further back, there was a time when you had to buy the Radio Times and the TV Times, as the former only published BBC TV and radio programmes; the latter covered ITV)
So it was, in the usual spirit of Christmas tradition, that I bought this year's edition.
But, I have to say, it was probably the worst investment of £3.20 I made this past festive season.
To borrow from Terry Wogan: "Is it me?" It just seems that Christmas TV isn't what it used to be. Perhaps the growth in quantity (of channels, that is) is directly proportional to the decline in quality. Perhaps the DVD/catch-up-TV-on-the-internet age has just dulled the excitement of a special film or Christmas TV special.
In the past part of the fun of buying the double-edition was glancing through and spotting well in advance the programmes or films you wanted to watch (or to record on VHS if you knew you wouldn't be in to see it). I recall my mum used to circle those things she most wanted to see.
Now each day takes up three double pages: terrestrial TV, then the freeview channels, and then the satellite channels. Even though I have no need for the third section (not having satellite) wading through everything else now becomes a major exercise. In some cases there is precious little detail because of the lack of space.
I'm not a Luddite: I watch DVDs, I watch stuff on the freeview channels (especially the excellent ITV3) and I occasionally watch stuff on the internet.
All the same, I can't help feeling we have lost something of the sparkle of TV at Christmas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)