Originally Posted by Suntory_Times
This I actually do not agree with you fully on. Anyone who has worked in customer service knows no matter what happens you will get complaints. Some people have genuine complaints, others do not (a large number of complaints are in fact people just wanting to vent steam at someone for something unrelated, which is not acceptable, and in which case you don't have to be a bigger man/women, you just end dealings with said person). The trick is to be able to quickly analyze what has happened, see if there is a genuine complaint and respond accordingly (generally if needed asking for more details, providing explanations if there is one, etc).
Not all complaints are valid is basically what I am saying. However in this case the complaints look valid and thus should be treat as such, the con should be ashamed by there response and I hope it does come back and bite them as I can't see them learning any other way.
That's a very insightful way of looking at it. Despite the potentiality of coming off a hypocrite I do certainly agree with you in that instance.
They did state prior that there had been some name-calling, which had been pitched around. And whiles I understand consumer frustration-- angrily venting at someone and calling them inappropriate things hardly makes a resolution come quicker. [It was not my intent to say that an angry customer should be encouraged to act out unnecessarily as some of them had.] Having worked with angry customers myself I understand this as well. Not all complaints are well meaning or justified. Focusing on the context of the argument between convention officials and their clients however I feel they were very out of line. If they had receive complaints early by a large audience and the number was beginning to stack significantly the right thing to do would be to issue an apology, or at least write that they had taken all criticism's into account and will deal with them as fairly as they can. For them to state that people simply did not appreciate their hard work however and making unfair assumptions should have been dealt with differently.
To be fair, their response seemed very well meaning and informative until they got to the middle of their post. Then it turned into a rant. Which is unfortunate. If they want to scrap AA that's up to them. But to blatantly blame the artists because they were placed in poor conditions and expecting them not to complain about it just... it baffles me.