Autopsy Round 5, 2021: St.Kilda v Richmond *MADDIE'S MATCH* *CARLISLE 150TH*

[stavro#4]

Highlight the rest of that sentence.

I’m saying wtf because what concern did they address?

 

[phantom13]

Joffas email wasn't personalized. Joffas email addressed concerns but not to the level he felt was adequate. So what is the issue in your opinion?

I don’t think it did addressed any concerns but I suppose that’s subjective.

That it was sent from the trainee receptionist makes it not just insulting but shows the club was no prepared for criticism of the performance.

 

[stavro#4]

I don’t think it did addressed any concerns but I suppose that’s subjective.

That it was sent from the trainee receptionist makes it not just insulting but shows the club was no prepared for criticism of the performance.

It’s not subjective at all.

it doesn’t address any concerns and how could it. It came from the ****ing trainee receptionist. It is laughable and embarrassing

 

[Sully111]

I'll say it again... having the email signed off with the title reception trainee is just plain dumb.

I just can't imagine a meeting inside any organisation where it's decided that that's the way to deal with disgruntled members.

Regardless of how busy they are etc, it's just a really stupid business practice. It's sloppy, and therefore paints the organisation in a bad light. Add to that how the club is going on the field, and it's just another thing that seems shambolic.

 

[George]

I don’t think it did addressed any concerns but I suppose that’s subjective.

That it was sent from the trainee receptionist makes it not just insulting but shows the club was no prepared for criticism of the performance.

He should be surprised he even received a reply given how challenging it is to manage the comms with an understaffed team.

They could've sent a message out to all members as a blanket email, but it means nothing. Apparently there was some serious discussions at the club two weeks ago and the players all challenged each other really strongly. It meant shit.

Nothing is going to placate a member more than their team winning on the weekends, everything else ultimately means nothing because if we go 2-20 nobody is going to renew their membership because the club better responded to emails.

I mean what did people actually expect. They would've been under the pump non stop getting into the office today. If all you want is bulk emails every time we lose then I'm sure it can be facilitated as it's a system thing and not a user thing. If not then lower expectations..

 

[plugger66]

You keep saying they will lose members.

As an example, I wouldn’t dump my membership now, I didn’t send an email, but reading Joffs email I’d consider if it’s worth my time when it’s renewal time.

Setting up a response wouldn’t take much time or effort and next to no money. So why not do it?

It’s not a fait accompli that people just dump their memberships and maybe you can’t win Joff back but when it costs nothing and takes no effort why not try.

Firstly we have no idea how much time and money it would take because we have no idea how many letters they got. I think it’s completely illogical to suggest it’s as simple as you say yet not do as you say. You can choose to have little confidence in the club. I choose not to.

and I don’t think you are reading what I’m saying. They have years of history on people who don’t renew. They know with that type of response they may lose members but their history that they can look at probably tells them the limited money they have is better spent elsewhere. As I said earlier I know what would piss more members off. Imagine if they sent an email to all members saying we are beefing up our membership department to deal with complaints but that money is coming out of the footy department. I may even write a letter in that case. Actually I wouldn’t but I reckon many would.

 

[LiterallyNobody]

You keep saying they will lose members.

As an example, I wouldn’t dump my membership now, I didn’t send an email, but reading Joffs email I’d consider if it’s worth my time when it’s renewal time.

Setting up a response wouldn’t take much time or effort and next to no money. So why not do it?

It’s not a fait accompli that people just dump their memberships and maybe you can’t win Joff back but when it costs nothing and takes no effort why not try.

I work for superannuation and one of my jobs is to speak to members that want to leave and convince them to stay. It’s actually one of my favourite campaigns because I get to try and save them and use techniques to get them to retain their account. Doesn’t work very often but that’s not the point. As a last resort we offer them service to help them roll out. Bottom line is: make the customer not feel like a campaigner for leaving.

So I guess what I’m saying is...why the **** am I working here? I should be answering millions of angry football club members every day with personalised responses.

step aside Trainee Receptionist I’m taking your job!

 

[plugger66]

He should be surprised he even received a reply given how challenging it is to manage the comms with an understaffed team.

They could've sent a message out to all members as a blanket email, but it means nothing. Apparently there was some serious discussions at the club two weeks ago and the players all challenged each other really strongly. It meant sh*t.

Nothing is going to placate a member more than their team winning on the weekends, everything else ultimately means nothing because if we go 2-20 nobody is going to renew their membership because the club better responded to emails.

Exactly

 

[phantom13]

Firstly we have no idea how much time and money it would take because we have no idea how many letters they got. I think it’s completely illogical to suggest it’s as simple as you say yet not do as you say. You can choose to have little confidence in the club. I choose not to.

and I don’t think you are reading what I’m saying. They have years of history on people who don’t renew. They know with that type of response they may lose members but their history that they can look at probably tells them the limited money they have is better spent elsewhere. As I said earlier I know what would piss more members off. Imagine if they sent an email to all members saying we are beefing up our membership department to deal with complaints but that money is coming out of the footy department. I may even write a letter in that case. Actually I wouldn’t but I reckon many would.

No I’m reading it, but you’re just talking crap.

They have a Comms and membership team that could draft a letter, it’s reviewed, signed and set ready to go. It’s literally one departments job.

And again, for the sake of doing their literal job potentially saving memberships why not do it?

 

[phantom13]

He should be surprised he even received a reply given how challenging it is to manage the comms with an understaffed team.

They could've sent a message out to all members as a blanket email, but it means nothing. Apparently there was some serious discussions at the club two weeks ago and the players all challenged each other really strongly. It meant sh*t.

Nothing is going to placate a member more than their team winning on the weekends, everything else ultimately means nothing because if we go 2-20 nobody is going to renew their membership because the club better responded to emails.

I mean what did people actually expect. They would've been under the pump non stop getting into the office today. If all you want is bulk emails every time we lose then I'm sure it can be facilitated as it's a system thing and not a user thing. If not then lower expectations..

I don’t agree at all. He shouldn’t be suprised to get a reply, he’s a paying member that clearly doesn’t mean much to some here.

 

[George]

I don’t agree at all. He shouldn’t be suprised to get a reply, he’s a paying member that clearly doesn’t mean much to some here.

It's not about the years of membership or how much you pay. It's the actual task of having to respond adequately to hundreds of emails manually. That is the issue. If they had 50 staff sure expect a response but I doubt there's even 5 people managing the inbox. It's just not something you should expect. Again it's got nothing to do with the club not caring or turning a blind eye to supporters. It's just impractical.

Again they could send a blanket email to all members via the system generating it but that's no better either because any specific concerns that members want addressed most likely won't be addressed.

 

[plugger66]

No I’m reading it, but you’re just talking crap.

They have a Comms and membership team that could draft a letter, it’s reviewed, signed and set ready to go. It’s literally one departments job.

And again, for the sake of doing their literal job potentially saving memberships why not do it?

Again you are failing to acknowledge I’ve already said the person signing off was the wrong person as from where it came from. That’s all they did wrong imo. They obviously sent a letter out that was computer generated. It obviously wasn’t an individual reply and I think that tells us they just don’t have the time and money to do that. Pretty easy to understand and I have already about 5 times why I think to choose that way to reply. How many times can I answer your last question. They have the history. They know where money is best spent. At least I’m not trying to guess they have enough time and money to do as you say. And if it’s as simple as you say I’m sure the club would do individual reply’s. Not hard to guess it isn’t that simple.

 

[George]

I work for superannuation and one of my jobs is to speak to members that want to leave and convince them to stay. It’s actually one of my favourite campaigns because I get to try and save them and use techniques to get them to retain their account. Doesn’t work very often but that’s not the point. As a last resort we offer them service to help them roll out. Bottom line is: make the customer not feel like a campaigner for leaving.

So I guess what I’m saying is...why the fu** am I working here? I should be answering millions of angry football club members every day with personalised responses.

step aside Trainee Receptionist I’m taking your job!

Worked in retention for 10 years myself know it all too well lol.

 

[Sully111]

It's not about the years of membership or how much you pay. It's the actual task of having to respond adequately to hundreds of emails manually.

But they did respond... poorly.

Do it better, or don't do it at all.

 

[phantom13]

It's not about the years of membership or how much you pay. It's the actual task of having to respond adequately to hundreds of emails manually. That is the issue. If they had 50 staff sure expect a response but I doubt there's even 5 people managing the inbox. It's just not something you should expect. Again it's got nothing to do with the club not caring or turning a blind eye to supporters. It's just impractical.

Again they could send a blanket email to all members via the system generating it but that's no better either because any specific concerns that members want addressed most likely won't be addressed.

This is getting pretty tiresome but I’m not saying they need to send an email to ALL.

They should have been aware that there would be an angry response, they should have had comms drafted and approved to respond to members who emailed like Joffa.

They could then have responses accordingly from a suitably senior person.

We all agree they read the emails, so file them accordingly then respond with the message from the senior member issued from the membership team.

People suggesting why bother are missing that this is literally the clubs job, people suggesting he shouldn’t have even gotten a reply are missing that members are entitled to a response.

Don’t forget that.

 

[phantom13]

Again you are failing to acknowledge I’ve already said the person signing off was the wrong person as from where it came from. That’s all they did wrong imo. They obviously sent a letter out that was computer generated. It obviously wasn’t an individual reply and I think that tells us they just don’t have the time and money to do that. Pretty easy to understand and I have already about 5 times why I think to choose that way to reply. How many times can I answer your last question. They have the history. They know where money is best spent. At least I’m not trying to guess they have enough time and money to do as you say. And if it’s as simple as you say I’m sure the club would do individual reply’s. Not hard to guess it isn’t that simple.

How many times can you fail to miss that the bit your saying doesn’t matter (membership retention) is actually one departments job and the bit they stuffed up (comms) is another departments job.

It doesn’t cost us any more money than we are already spending.

 

[George]

But they did respond... poorly.

Do it better, or don't do it at all.

Agreed! I wouldn't respond at all.

 

[plugger66]

This is getting pretty tiresome but I’m not saying they need to send an email to ALL.

They should have been aware that there would be an angry response, they should have had comms drafted and approved to respond to members who emailed like Joffa.

They could then have responses accordingly from a suitably senior person.

We all agree they read the emails, so file them accordingly then respond with the message from the senior member issued from the membership team.

People suggesting why bother are missing that this is literally the clubs job, people suggesting he shouldn’t have even gotten a reply are missing that members are entitled to a response.

Don’t forget that.

When does the entitlement stop. Obviously jb letter was fine but not everyone would be so polite but are they entitled?

 

[phantom13]

When does the entitlement stop. Obviously jb letter was fine but not everyone would be so polite but are they entitled?

If they pay their membership and don’t breach any rules or laws then yes, absolutely they are.

 

[BrutThough]

Again you are failing to acknowledge I’ve already said the person signing off was the wrong person as from where it came from. That’s all they did wrong imo. They obviously sent a letter out that was computer generated. It obviously wasn’t an individual reply and I think that tells us they just don’t have the time and money to do that. Pretty easy to understand and I have already about 5 times why I think to choose that way to reply. How many times can I answer your last question. They have the history. They know where money is best spent. At least I’m not trying to guess they have enough time and money to do as you say. And if it’s as simple as you say I’m sure the club would do individual reply’s. Not hard to guess it isn’t that simple.

Add onto this, they would have got thousands of these emails with people threatening to cancel or not renew their memberships for years. They would also know how many of those people actually follow through, and that would be very little whether they responded with a simple, templated response or a long, detailed response.

 

[George]

This is getting pretty tiresome but I’m not saying they need to send an email to ALL.

They should have been aware that there would be an angry response, they should have had comms drafted and approved to respond to members who emailed like Joffa.

They could then have responses accordingly from a suitably senior person.

We all agree they read the emails, so file them accordingly then respond with the message from the senior member issued from the membership team.

People suggesting why bother are missing that this is literally the clubs job, people suggesting he shouldn’t have even gotten a reply are missing that members are entitled to a response.

Don’t forget that.

Well that's what I've suggested. A bulk email to members or at least a template. Because actually responding to every email just isn't doable.

 

[plugger66]

How many times can you fail to miss that the bit your saying doesn’t matter (membership retention) is actually one departments job and the bit they stuffed up (comms) is another departments job.

It doesn’t cost us any more money than we are already spending.

How do you actually know this. That is completely made up. And how do you know how many letters they got to respond to. If they did it individually and had one person doing it plus normal work they not respond for weeks. How much whinging and laughter would there be then. The problem with what you say is if it’s that simple why wouldn’t the club do it. You obviously have no confidence in the club staff. I do and I think it’s no where near as simple as you say.

 

[Joffaboy]

Thanks for that response. It proves exactly what I thought. Not surprised at all. Not hilarious though. Pretty sad

Answer the question. What is your experience working for a membership organisation?
Don't run away from the question, stop embarrassing yourself and answer it.

We can then compare. C'mon P66, don't be shy, don't dodge the question.

Look forward to hearing your expertise in my field.

Waiting......

 

[phantom13]

How do you actually know this. That is completely made up. And how do you know how many letters they got to respond to. If they did it individually and had one person doing it plus normal work they not respond for weeks. How much whinging and laughter would there be then. The problem with what you say is if it’s that simple why wouldn’t the club do it. You obviously have no confidence in the club staff. I do and I think it’s no where near as simple as you say.

Read it again. They don’t have to respond individually to every email. I’ve said that 30 times.

And it is that simple cause it’s the same thing every comms team does, again, literally their job.

 

[plugger66]

Add onto this, they would have got thousands of these emails with people threatening to cancel or not renew their memberships for years. They would also know how many of those people actually follow through, and that would be very little whether they responded with a simple, templated response or a long, detailed response.

Exactly. Said it about 5 times. They have the history. They know where the money is better spent. Others just brush over that. It doesn’t suit them.