The Economist Must Have all the Subscribers it Needs.

I'm having my own version of Jeff Jarvis's Dell Hellwith the bloody Economist magazine. I haven't received an issue since April. Ironically, it was the "Power at Last" issue at left which says the power of the Internet means "the consumer really is king." Online, maybe. But back here in the world of print and "service" reps, we're all apparently still nothing but a burden.

My subscription runs through Jan. '06. They have no record of me ever receiving the magazine even though I got it for a year and a half before it mysteriously stopped. The problem with their (and most) "customer service" reps is that they don't/can't/won't/aren't allowed to think for themselves. They get so wrapped up in their stock answers that they don't listen to you and they don't listen to themselves enough to realize the upsurdity of what they're saying. I'll paraphrase:

Me: So, uh, where are my issues?
Rep: We don't have any record of you in our system as ever having been a subscriber.
Me: I'll fax you a copy of the last issue with the mailing label to show you that I did, at one time, receive it.
Rep: That won't do any good.
Me: Why not?
Rep: Because if you'd received it, we'd have a record of it.

Then we did a little dance about the length of this "theoretical" subscription. I said it was for a year. "Well I don't know that," the Rep responded. "It could have been six months." Hmmm, says me, if you let me fax you this April issue with a Jan '06 expiration on the mailing label, then you can sit with it a while and figure out why that's not possible. But, still, she didn't think faxing the cover would accomplish anything.

I enjoy(ed) reading the magazine (or newspaper as it refers to itself), but not that much. So when this mess is finally resolved, it's buh bye!