He wasn't answering the question over and over; he was refusing to answer the question.
Which is, of course, his right. And maybe it would turn out that the rep would refuse to recognize his answer. And there is some social value in there occasionally being a crank who refuses to play by the rules just to expose them for the silliness there is.
But realize he wasn't trying to get through this call easily. He was trying to make a point.
I don't think that's fair to the caller. He was polite, and was clear in what he wanted. Had the Comcast agent said "Okay, I understand that you don't want to tell me that, let's move on" the call would have moved on and not ended up on the internet. He wanted his service cancelled, and did not want to engage in a conversation about it. How else could the caller have possibly handled it?
Also, the caller was not a "crank who refuses to play by the rules." There is no rule that says customers have to fill out a survey upon canceling service. It was clear to me that the Comcast agent was also not asking those questions honestly. He was using them as a rhetorical trick to get the customer to eventually say, "Fine, don't cancel my service."
How else could the caller have possibly handled it?
This is obvious: by answering the question. I'll repeat that he was under no obligation to answer that question.
My mother-in-law does the same thing this guy does: stands her ground and refuses to answer any questions. It's completely her right to engage in that manner, but she neither asks for nor gets any sympathy for how long she has to stay on the phone with people.
Maximally demanding all your rights all the time is usually not coincident with smooth interactions with other human beings.
If you had read the article properly, you would have seen that he did answer that question. The call went for 18 minutes, he answered the question at the start if the call: he states this.
I think my answer (after being asked so many times) would be:
"I've had horrible customer support from a Comcast rep, and I don't want to continue to patronize a company that would hire someone who acts that way."
(The next logical step is to ask for the offending rep's name, to which he could respond "what was your name again?")
What's the retention angle from that point? Is it "I promise if you stay with us, I'll go right to my boss and have him fire me"?
Yes, but answering the first question would lead to a million other questions since the rep obviously set his mind on something from the start. He said he's moving to a different service, then the rep says why are you moving, don't you want the #1 internet & tv, etc.
He did answer the question, multiple times, just not in a way that the Comcast agent could use. Again, it was not an honest question. It was a rhetorical trick.
Maybe. But he says he started recording 10 minutes into the call, and that he and his wife (who started the call) were answering the rep's questions, but not getting anywhere.
This is a great example for how setting goals can do more harm than good. If you start measuring people, they'll optimize for what you are measuring.
The preamble text was pretty clear, this was 10 minutes into the call and after he had already answered these questions. They have a scripted response to every possible answer and none of them lead to "OK, we'll disconnect you" except for moving to an area they don't serve.
Just because they ask it doesn't mean you have to answer; I'd just say "I'm not continuing this conversation until you inform me you've canceled the service", then put the phone on speaker and do something else until he came around.
