BoloMKXXVIII wrote:

That is considered slander in some places. I realize you want to vent your frustration, but there are better ways.

Bolo, slander is defined as a malicious statement. You may want to re-read my words, but I asked a question and made a hypothesis. I'm simply trying to get some discussion around the causes of these problems.

The evidence I have is that there are numerous individuals to whom Roku owes money from RMA's, cancelled orders, or negotiated agreements. If Roku owes you any money, that makes you a creditor. Frequently, when a business runs out of money, they stop paying their creditors. Therefore, I proposed this as one plausible explanation of these troubles. If you think there's another explanation, you can share it if you want. This is just a place to specualte. You may not know any better than I, but I find it to be a useful exercise to discuss the possibilities.

You mislabeled my words as slander, but maybe you can help me put a label on the act of taking money from someone and not delivering any product or services in exchange?

Its noble of you and a few others to come to Roku's defense, but the reality is that the actions of this company are perilously close to being fraudulent.

As for better ways to vent my frustration, you may be right. Would you care to suggest 5 that I could consider trying?

KennyJ wrote:

I think he was trying to be helpful. I've directed people there too -- because some people seem to miss it.

Maybe, but the first posts I read on this thread were Phil antagonizing folks for complaining that they were getting ripped off by Roku, and in my OP, I included a message to Phil that I was already following the instruction to contact RokuJames.

Phil may just not like to read about people complaining - fair enough. If that's the case, I suggest that someone open another thread for Phil or anyone else to go complain about people complaining.

My purpose in this thread is to keep the discussion lively so it stays high in the stack. Potential customers need to be warned about the difficulties Roku is having right now.

bradpr,

For the record, I love the Roku device and I count myself lucky (very lucky) that I've never had to call tech support or deal with Roku CS because of what I've read here. I have no doubts that there is something terribly broken in their CS, tech support, and returns departments.

But I have dealt with RokuJames quite a bit, because I've done beta testing and James has usually been the Roku rep we deal with. He seems like he really cares and is trying to (and succeeding) in addressing these issues.

KennyJ wrote:

bradpr,

For the record, I love the Roku device and I count myself lucky (very lucky) that I've never had to call tech support or deal with Roku CS because of what I've read here. I have no doubts that there is something terribly broken in their CS, tech support, and returns departments.

But I have dealt with RokuJames quite a bit, because I've done beta testing and James has usually been the Roku rep we deal with. He seems like he really cares and is trying to (and succeeding) in addressing these issues.

Kenny - I totally agree. James is going far above and beyond to clean up his company's screw up. If Roku goes in the tank, I'd want to hire James in a second. He's a remarkable individual.

However, that doesn't make up for the abysmal service Roku's provided through their traditional customer service outlet, and more specifically, it doesn't make up for the fact that Roku is holding numerous customers' money without any right.

That's why potential customers should think twice about doing business with Roku - at least until Roku gets this mess stabilized.

bradpr wrote:

Kenny - I totally agree. James is going far above and beyond to clean up his company's screw up. If Roku goes in the tank, I'd want to hire James in a second. He's a remarkable individual.

Then maybe you could quit all the bellyaching, and post something a little more positive. My posts in this thread have been appropriate responses to generally whiney posts, that were attacks, rather than requests for help. It doesn't surprise me a bit that such things elude you. You want help? Ask for help. You want to make attacks? then Cowboy up and take what results from those attacks.

People who have had HORRIBLE CS experiences are allowed to vent about it, Phil.. If a user's entire experience with Roku has been negative (IE DOA or broken soon after receiving it), they have every right to be pissed off.

Just because your experience has been 120% rosy, doesn't mean everyone's has, and they have the right to vent if it gets results.

jeffrok wrote:

People who have had HORRIBLE CS experiences are allowed to vent about it, Phil.. If a user's entire experience with Roku has been negative (IE DOA or broken soon after receiving it), they have every right to be pissed off.

And I have the right to respond to snotty posts Jeff... Honey and vinegar.

bradpr wrote:

BoloMKXXVIII wrote:

That is considered slander in some places. I realize you want to vent your frustration, but there are better ways.

Bolo, slander is defined as a malicious statement. You may want to re-read my words, but I asked a question and made a hypothesis. I'm simply trying to get some discussion around the causes of these problems.

The evidence I have is that there are numerous individuals to whom Roku owes money from RMA's, cancelled orders, or negotiated agreements. If Roku owes you any money, that makes you a creditor. Frequently, when a business runs out of money, they stop paying their creditors. Therefore, I proposed this as one plausible explanation of these troubles. If you think there's another explanation, you can share it if you want. This is just a place to specualte. You may not know any better than I, but I find it to be a useful exercise to discuss the possibilities.

You mislabeled my words as slander, but maybe you can help me put a label on the act of taking money from someone and not delivering any product or services in exchange?

Its noble of you and a few others to come to Roku's defense, but the reality is that the actions of this company are perilously close to being fraudulent.

As for better ways to vent my frustration, you may be right. Would you care to suggest 5 that I could consider trying?

Wikipedia: In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation. Many hoaxes are fraudulent, although those not made for personal gain are not technically frauds. Defrauding people of money is presumably the most common type of fraud, but there have also been many fraudulent "discoveries" in art, archaeology, and science.

So you think Roku intentionally has bad customer service?

BoloMKXXVIII wrote:

So you think Roku intentionally has bad customer service?

Of course. You get what you pay for. As regards CS Roku's management obviously was not prepared to pay for quality. The same applies to their power supply units, their support for SoundBridge customers, their maintenance of Radio Roku, etc. etc.

Greetings
dupondt

philsoft wrote:

bradpr wrote:

Kenny - I totally agree. James is going far above and beyond to clean up his company's screw up. If Roku goes in the tank, I'd want to hire James in a second. He's a remarkable individual.

Then maybe you could quit all the bellyaching, and post something a little more positive. My posts in this thread have been appropriate responses to generally whiney posts, that were attacks, rather than requests for help. It doesn't surprise me a bit that such things elude you. You want help? Ask for help. You want to make attacks? then Cowboy up and take what results from those attacks.

Phil, thanks for keeping with your tolling activities. The more you post, the more this thread stays on the top of the stack.

Yippeekayay motherf....I mean, Phil.

BoloMKXXVIII wrote:

So you think Roku intentionally has bad customer service?

I don't know. I can't discern intentions, but that would certainly be one explanation for all the testimonials in the past months about Roku cust svc reps and managers who PROMISED to resolve issues, make refunds, call customers back, etc.. with no follow through. If I commit to doing something for someone and then don't do it, I'd say I deceived them.

If I promised you something in order to get your business, then put that promise in writing, then you gave me your business, but I didn't honor my commitment that was in writing, would you consider that deception?

I think Roku still takes the blame because it's their vendor, but I believe all of Roku's customer service and tech support is outsourced.

If the problem is widespread (hard to judge by 100 or so comments on a forum), then I think it's likely incompetence on the part of their CS vendor.

KennyJ wrote:

I think Roku still takes the blame because it's their vendor, but I believe all of Roku's customer service and tech support is outsourced.

If the problem is widespread (hard to judge by 100 or so comments on a forum), then I think it's likely incompetence on the part of their CS vendor.

Fair enough, but if I run a restaurant and hire a server who insults my customers. My customers will hardly cut me or my restaurant a break based on the argument that someone who I hired insulted them.

When you're a business, anyone who acts as an agent for your business is acting on behalf of your business.

If you hire an accountant who cooks your books and the IRS busts you, you're not going to get away by saying you outsourced your accounting to a 3rd party and therefore aren't responsible for their actions. Sarbanes Oxley was written specifically to address that.

Clearly, the Indian call center that Roku hired is deficient in integrity, ill-educated on Roku's business, inept in customer service, and generally an awful mistake by Roku. Whoever made the decision to outsource and to outsource to that Indian firm should lose their job.

James should be made the new head of Roku's contact center/support.

I said they deserve the blame despite where they might originate. I was simply trying to provide some context.

KennyJ wrote:

I said they deserve the blame despite where they might originate. I was simply trying to provide some context.

OK....context provided