Open Letter to Klean Kanteen: Kan We Kall This Off?

Dear Klean Kanteen:

I thoroughly enjoy the whimsy of your K-laden name, and I appreciate that you had sufficient foresight to refrain from kalling yourself the Klean Kanteen Kompany.

On January 21, 2013, I ordered a series of spill-proof kaps from your website to retro-fit a series of bottles our toddlers drink from on a daily basis. Although the paint is peeling a little from a kouple of the bottles, they are sturdy, robust and aesthetically pleasing vessels - we appreciate them as objects of industrial design. I much prefer that our children drink from Klean Kanteens than from other unfortunately branded toddler kups, like Playtex. Although the Playtex kups seem to be reasonably functional and leak-free, I have difficulty in letting my toddler drink from a vessel named for a company that built its reputation in women's underwear and revolutionary feminine hygiene products. Surely Playtex kould have found a more appropriate name under which to market their drinking kups and soothers: perhaps "Tottex" or "PlayTot". As it turns out, Energizer Holdings actually owns Playtex Products LLC. I'd be much more inclined to have my guys drinking from Energizer kups than from Playtex ones. But as the world turns, we found Klean Kanteen and we haven't looked back.

We recently ordered new kaps through your website because we kould not find a Kanadian retailer who sold the new spill-proof kaps independently from the bottles - and we already had a supply of robust bottles. The shipping and handling on the kaps was a little steep at $23.25 when the total order was only $28.25, but the new kaps are soooo much better than your original caps that the kost was worth every nickel (we don't have Canadian pennies anymore).

Since our initial order in January, I have received no fewer than four emails per month advising of special deals on your Klean Kanteen kontainers. Thank you for your kontinuing efforts to keep me abreast of special deals on your various steel liquid kontainers. Please understand that our need for metal drinking kontainers is rather limited. I believe we have five of your Kid Kanteens, which are all fabulous, by-the-way, and I even treated myself to a large green bottle with a new sport top. So for now, I think we're good. We only transport so much liquid per day. And what with the promotional koffee kups and water bottles from various service providers and fun runs, our inventory of portable liquid kontainers is really quite saturated. Furthermore, most, if not all, the consumable liquids we have recently purchased from retailers have come pre-kontained in various forms of packaging that generally suffice. I have not accessed a bulk consumable liquid in a retail setting for some time, excepting for one particular situation which arises from time-to-time - which leads me to your steel Kup.

Although your steel pint kup for my favourite frosty on-tap beer is a novel endeavour, you are likely to find, if you spend some time in pubs, that most places will serve your beer with a reasonably klean glass drinking vessel, for free. Those glass kups are also re-usable and non-toxic, akin to your steel kup (although the toxicity of the contents will vary). The difference is that you won't have to carry around a filthy beer kup if you rely on the house kup. I just thought I'd raise the issue for your konsideration, as I worry about your kontinuing investment in the Kup.

And judging by the lasting quality of our kurrent Kanteens, I kan't foresee that we'll need replacements for a good seven to ten years, at which point we will probably just walk down to a local retailer in order to save your steep shipping and handling kosts. You really do make a quality product, and you have an exceptional retail presence. It was just your kaps that needed some improvement in design and distribution. And you nailed the design part.

Furthermore, I am unlikely to update my Klean Kanteen on-line profile so that you can "send (me) the most relevant info & discounts" respecting your Kanteens. Frankly, I'm a little perplexed at how you could narrow your info & discounts much further - you sell steel liquid kontainers. It seems that either I'm in your market or  I'm not. But then again, I have virtually no experience in steel drink kontainer sales or marketing. Anyway, I'm going to take the chance that I might be missing out on some extremely focussed and relevant info & discounts respecting your Kanteens. Thank you for offering though. I have also refrained from signing into your website, as I don't feel that I really need another user name and password to a website that I only intend to access once in seven to ten years.

Finally, I will not tweet your website, post it to Facebook, like your Facebook, Pin your site, or Instagram you. I really just wanted some replacement kaps. We are not friends, nor are we professional colleagues - we need not be Linked-in. I bought some stuff from you. That's where this relationship needs to end. You make a great product, you really do. And when my need arises for a steel drink kontainer, you're number one on my list. But I need you to move on now. I will be digging through the fine text of your wonderfully crafted e-flyer tonight to find the unsubscribe button. I'm sorry.

Your Karing Kustomer,

D. Dubois

A Strongly Worded Letter Re: Rogers Appreciates My Concern

This is another Strongly Worded Letter  from my archives. You see, my wife has an issue with phones - specifically keeping her phone safe from harm's way. If I recall correctly, her phone was somewhat damaged but still functional. She was getting close to the magical Canadian "handset upgrade" in her continuing contract of servitude to Rogers, the most sinister of Canadian telecom giants, so she was rightfully loathe to pay the entire purchase price of a new phone if a subsidized phone was on the horizon. I've never been a fan of Rogers, mostly because it has forsaken the bulk of Saskatchewan, serving only the richly populated domains of Regina and Saskatoon with any consistency. However, it was the only Canadian carrier with a GSM system when the iPhone came out (the necessary system for operating the original iPhone), and so my wife, in her urban Alberta glory, commenced her abusive relationship with Rogers, which continues to this day (mostly because of a subsequently melted iPhone, which I believe was addressed in my January 22, 2013 post).

Anyway, the sales staff at a Rogers outlet in the city advised her that she would be eligible for a new handset upgrade very shortly, and so she lumbered-on with her partially operational rig with the expectation that a shiny new handset would be delivered at a minimal cost in a few weeks. When replacement day came, she was told by staff at a Rogers outlet that they had "changed their policy" and she would not be eligible for an upgrade for another several months. Of course, she called Rogers customer service and they advised that she should go to the outlet from which she had just come. They advised that the appropriate manager who could deal with her was at a different outlet. That guy told her she needed to deal with Rogers customer service. And so went the Rogers Waltz. Everyone was powerless to do anything in the face of the omnipresent "policy". It was clearly time for everyone's favourite remedy, the Strongly Worded Letter.

I won't bore you with my initial letter, as it was simply an exhortation of the facts and frustrations my wife suffered in her attempt to exercise a reasonable request. However, the tripe that Rogers customer service replied with caused immediate rage in the deepest pit of my stomach. Below, I have pasted Rogers initial reply, my reply and then Rogers further response. As a disclaimer, I have no idea if any of the legal junk I cited has any application to the circumstance... but neither did they. It probably wasn't necessary given that their first response was so abysmal that it was laughable. Rogers "certainly appreciate(s) (my) concern". Although it's the ubiquitous first phrase in every customer service response, I'm not entirely sure how one actually "appreciates" someone's "concern". What is it about the concern that they appreciate? The length of the concern, the tone of the concern, or the way the concern was articulated? The phrase is on par with, "Don't take offence, but..."

If you are livid with your wireless provider, perhaps we should talk - I might be willing to run a test case on your behalf. Enjoy.

Subject: Re: Your Cellular General Inquiry  (KMM76614002I28642L0KM)

Dear Rogers Valued Subscriber,

Thank you for your email.

We can certainly appreciate your concern regarding this matter and apologize for any miscommunication that occured. At Rogers we value our existing customers as much as new customers. Please note that all policies are subject to change at any time; our hardware upgrade program received some changes recently which changed the eligibility to 30 months. Unfortunately we are unable to change this timeframe, therefore if you choose to upgrade before your 30 months eligibility date has elapsed you will be subject to an early upgrade fee.

If you have any further questions or concerns, we would as that you reply with your First and Last name.

This is to ensure that we protect your security and the confidentiality of your account.

Thank you for your use of our online customer service.

For future email correspondence with respect to this e-mail, please quote reference number 46888829

Regards,

Nicole L
Rogers Online Customer Support
http://www.rogers.com


Here's my reply:

Dear Nicole L.:

Reference # 46888829

Thank you for your prompt reply to my inquiry (reference 46888829). Although I appreciate your quick reply, I do not appreciate the hollow platitudes you delivered.  You provided no sense of actual appreciation of my "concern".  If you truly did "appreciate my concern", I anticipate you would have provided the contract information I requested in my correspondence. My sense is that you decidedly do not appreciate my "concern", judging by the off-hand manner in which it was dismissed. And I would not characterize my inquiry as a "concern" as much as a "request".  Entitling my request as a "concern" implies I carry a measure of anxiety and unhappiness that requires placating.  I was not seeking your appreciation of my concern. I was actually requesting that someone with appropriate decision making authority reviews my request, provides the information requested and issues a meaningful reply. In fact, I feel the rehearsed, hollow response you provided has actually caused me some concern. Although I anticipate you will probably want to appreciate my fresh concern, I would prefer if you could refrain from appreciating it and simply attend to, or have someone with appropriate authority attend to, my requests.

I am not convinced you value existing customers as much as new ones. If you did, you would provide the same opportunities to current customers as you do to new ones, and you would honour the representations and warranties made by your sales staff. Secondly, Rogers IS, in fact, able to alter the timeframe for a hardware upgrade -it CHOOSES not to do so. There is a substantial difference between the two, and you have implied that there is some anonymous, overbearing force which prevents Rogers from adjusting its policies.  Might I suggest the overbearing force preventing Rogers from accommodating me 

is.... Rogers?  You asked me to "note" that Rogers' policies are subject to change at any time - I have noted such.  Please note that I am asking for a change in the application of the policy in my circumstance.

It is not "unfortunate" that Rogers is outright refusing my request: fortune has little to do with this matter. My circumstance results from Rogers' intentional, flippant change in its policy, and the application of it. Suggesting the circumstance is "unfortunate" implies that a remedy is beyond the control of Rogers. I think it is unreasonable and unhelpful, but it is not unfortunate. The current climate of faceless, rehearsed customer service in North America is, indeed, quite unfortunate.

Although you have implied that this is a matter of "miscommunication", your sales staff represented that I would be eligible for a hardware upgrade two years into my contract, and I relied on that representation to enter into the contract.  Their communication was entirely clear. I furthered maintained my service with Rogers based on representations made by your sales staff that I would be eligible for an upgrade to an iPhone 4 two years into my contract.  Again, there was no miscommunication.  In accordance with Saskatchewan's Consumer Protection Act, specifically sections 6(g), (i), (j), (q) and (r), I suspect Rogers' failure to honour the representations made by your sales staff constitutes an Unfair Practice as defined by the Act. Despite the clauses in your written Terms & Conditions, my understanding is that oral representations that are not reflected in a written agreement are potentially enforceable under Consumer Protection legislation (see section 37 of the Act).  Furthermore, I view the sudden change in the Rogers "policy" respecting hardware upgrades as a change in the Terms of my contract, as warranted by your sales staff, of which I received no notice.  I also anticipate that the transaction between myself and Rogers, wherein the phone was purchased conditionally on a 3-year contract, may be subject to section 18 of The Limitation of  Civil Rights Act in Saskatchewan, in which case I may be entitled to simply return my current phone to Rogers and cease any further payments.

Could you please provide me with the following:

1)      copies of the 2009 Terms & Conditions and the 2009 Service Agreement that govern my relationship with Rogers;

2)      the date on which my current Service Agreement expires;

3)      the price of the Early Upgrade Fee referenced in your correspondence; and

4)      the current fees that Rogers would charge to terminate my contract, and an indication of the appropriate clause(s) in the 2009 Terms & Conditions, or 2009 Service Agreement as I have requested above.

I would like to further consider my options respecting my current circumstance with Rogers so that I might proceed in the most efficient fashion possible.  I am still open to accepting an upgrade to an iPhone 4 at a current promotional rate, because that is a reasonable resolution to this issue.  However, I am not prepared to accept Rogers' initial response to my inquiry and I intend to pursue a satisfactory resolution to the matter in the appropriate forum if Rogers is un willing to provide one. If you are unable to provide the information I have requested, please advise me promptly and forward my request to someone with appropriate authority to do address my request.  While Rogers attends to my request, I will seek someone in my immediate geography to help appreciate my concerns over a hot cup of tea. 

Yours truly,

Rogers Reply:

Subject: Re: Your Cellular General Inquiry  (KMM76654909I28642L0KM)

Ms. Dubois,

You have reached the Rogers Online Management Support Team.

First, I would like to apologize if your concerns have not been completely answered to your satisfaction so far and if the previous Customer Service representative’s email correspondence seemed somewhat disconcerting.  I am certain such was not the intent.

In answer to your inquiries, we can first confirm that we do not hold copies of wireless service agreements. However, such documentation can be found at the Rogers Plus outlet responsible for activating your wireless service on June 20th, 2009 under a 36-month wireless service agreement which is set to expire on June 20th, 2012.  Should a cancellation take place before the expiry date, $20 multiplied by the number of months remaining would be charged on a final statement of account following the cancellation of the account.  As of June 23rd, 2011, this amount would represent a total of $200 (plus taxes) based on 10 months remaining.

Finally, in light of the circumstances that bring us in communicating with each other, Rogers is willing to offer you an iPhone 4 (16 or 32 GB internal memory capacity) under the terms of a new 36-month wireless service agreement which would begin at the start of your account’s next billing cycle (July 21st). The subsidized pricing offered for this specific wireless device is as follows;

• iPhone 4 (16 GB) :    $159.00 plus $35 administration fees and
applicable taxes
• iPhone 4 (32 GB)    $269.00 plus $35 administration fees and applicable
taxes

Again, Ms. Dubois, I apologize for any inconvenience this issue may have caused and await your decision in response to this offer before moving forward on the account.

For future email correspondence with respect to this e-mail, please quote reference number 46888829.

Best regards,

Stéphane B.
Rogers On-line Management Support Team
http://www.rogers.com

A Strongly Worded Letter Re: Toddler on Potty

In an ongoing effort to advance the art of complaint, I have decided to post some of the Strongly Worded Letters that I have crafted in response to personal matters that have arisen. To be clear, NONE of the letters posted were in relation to my day-job as a sometimes-civil-litigator.

On May 30th of this year, my wife had an incident wherein she had our toddler out and about in Saskatoon's Broadway region on a day that she was attempting to potty train him. In her wisdom, she had taken the potty with her in case he had to go. And he did - on a sidewalk at the back of a Starbucks. Some canny observer snapped a photo of him sitting on his potty on the sidewalk and, in a gesture that signals the civil rot of our times, promptly forwarded the photo to local C95 radio host DJ Tanner (yes - that's actually the name with which he has anointed himself... presumably Uncle Jesse will have a sister show on Rawlco's 102 this fall), a catalyst in the civic rot, promptly posted the photo to the C95 Facebook page. The hits and comments began to rack up, and it was only brought to our attention by someone who texted my sister-in-law a half-hour after it had been posted asking if that was our guy and my wife in the photo. Indeed.

Our eldest toddler is an interesting fellow, and there is certainly some comic effect in a toddler sitting on a potty on a sunny sidewalk, reading a book (he likes to read). At some level I chuckled to myself. I also recognize there is some room to debate my wife's actions - should a toddler be going to the potty on a public sidewalk outside a coffee shop? Perhaps not, although the comment string under the photo appeared to condone her actions for the most part. Frankly, I suspect the number of adults urinating directly on the ground and buildings in the Broadway area on any given Friday night far eclipses the minor discord a singular toddler on a potty might cause to the region. I promptly sent an email to C95 and the photo disappeared as quickly as it was posted.

Of this whole affair, what perplexed and surprised me the most was the shear number of people following the C95 Facebook page - how did this photo rack-up hundreds of comments in a mere 30 minutes? That's what people are doing with their time? They're just waiting for something juicy to pop-up on C95? This was a week day, in the middle of the morning - aren't people doing work stuff? If people followed some legit journalistic sources as fervently as they follow C95, perhaps we'd be living in a more civil, informed society. To have the Saskatoon public weighing-in on my child's bathroom habits seems like disappointing waste of resources.

Regardless, I promptly put on my angry parent hat and sent the following letter to the General Manager of C95. She did call to apologize afterward, and she assured me that posting toddlers-on-potty's was contrary to the policies of Rawlco Radio, God bless 'em. However, she did not offer us any free concert tickets, which was unfortunate. If you think we deserve free concert tickets, at least some Dora the Explorer Musical tickets or something for our little guy who generated so much Facebook traffic for C95, please send an email on our behalf to the General Manager: kwerner@rawlco.com.

Here is the Strongly Worded Letter:

Dear Ms. Werner:

The world is often a whimsical place. I count myself among those who take some measure of joy in the unexpected oddities the world displays, and I suspect my colleagues would concur that I have a relatively deep sense of humour respecting most things in life. I have attached a photo of my child, a curious and odd two-year-old, that was recently posted by your host DJ Tanner to the C95 Facebook page. The attached is a PDF printout of the photo and some comments.

At first glance, I concur that there is something mildly comical about a toddler sitting on a potty on a sidewalk – you don’t expect to see that every day. If I came upon that scene myself, I suppose I might find it mildly amusing, and I might relay the odd occurrence to others in conversation. However, the photo was taken of my wife and child, without their knowledge or consent, and further posted to the publicly accessible, nigh, publicly promoted Facebook page of your sizable local media outlet.

To give you some pause for consideration, the back end of this story is that I have an able and dedicated wife, who was trying to get some exercise with her two small children, while assisting a reticent and timid two-year-old to learn to use the potty in a relatively discrete fashion. Whether my wife should have had my son on a potty on a sidewalk is, I suppose, open to question. But I’m not sure that a public figure posting a photo of my vulnerable two-year-old going to the bathroom on C95’s Facebook page is the appropriate way to incite debate over such an important public issue as toddlers on potties in public (the old TPP debate, which is truly of significant public importance). If DJ Tanner had an issue with my wife’s conduct, he could have taken the reasonable and civilized course of action and advised my wife he had concerns respecting her conduct. Instead, he approached the situation with the tact and acumen of a daft weasel, snapping a surreptitious photo to immediately display to the world for comment. Nice work DJ Tanner – you are truly a bastion of quality journalism. We generally try our best not to pursue humour through the public humiliation of a toddler in a vulnerable circumstance. Would he also like a photo of me urinating on the roadside during a long car trip, as I’d be pleased to provide it for immediate posting? Does he have a collection of child-on-potty photo’s he’d like to share?

To refrain from posting photos of children going to the bathroom on a major media website seems like a pretty easy standard to meet. Certainly, we did not find the public humiliation of our son to be terribly amusing.

I recognize that, in all likelihood, little damage resulted from what transpired because it appears the photo was removed about an hour after it was posted. However, my wife and I continue to feel a sense of outrage that our son, in a vulnerable state, was posted for the amusement of C95 followers. Secondly, I have concerns that your host, DJ Tanner, who has access to, apparently, several very public forums for giving birth to his grand ideas and concerns, saw fit to post a photo of a child going to the bathroom on your Facebook page. The fact that you removed the photo promptly (whether it was at my request, or of your own accord) suggests that you concur with our assessment of the circumstance. Perhaps C95 should consider whether DJ Tanner should have such ready access to C95’s electronic media.

I am uncertain as to what broadcast, telecommunication or other regulations or general laws such a post might violate, but on civilized standards, it was in poor taste. We kindly ask that you explain to us why DJ Tanner posted the photo, what his intentions were in doing so, and why the photo was removed. Secondly, we would appreciate some assurance that it is contrary to C95’s policy to post photos of children going to the bathroom (it sounds odd to even inquire of such a thing, as I suspect that posting public photos of children going to the bathroom might actually be illegal… nonetheless, some assurance would be nice) and that you will take measures to ensure it does not happen in the future. Frankly, it’s toilet humour that’s fit for the potty.

Angry Father and Concerned Citizen,