I received a response, and from management-level support, no less. I was initially incredulous. This is what management-level support rep Darren said:
You have reached Management Support via email.
I do want to take the time to apologize for any inconvenience that has been caused by receiving mailings from Rogers.
When you remove your name from the Marketing Opt-Out list this would stop all mailings coming to you in your name only. This will not stop any bulk mailings from being sent or to generic mailings being sent such as the one you recently received addressed to “Resident”. As this is generic mailings this would not be a violation of privacy.
So I get two messages from this note. First, we’re sorry that you don’t like our mailings. Second, we’re allowed to send them and we intend to continue doing so.
You know that rule about e‑mail correspondence that says you should not respond right away? Yea, I didn’t follow that rule. Here is my reply:
Okay fair enough, but shouldn’t your membership in the Canadian Marketing Association give you access to their “Do Not Contact” list and cover this situation?
The CMA site states, “If you wish to have your name and address removed from marketing lists held by our members, please follow the registration instructions.”
I did enter my address and it seems that you, a member of the CMA, have not removed my address from your list.
Or is this also a case where simply removing my name and replacing it with ‘Resident’ makes it okay?
In thinking about this afterward, I realize that I made a mistake. I went all adversarial far too early and it became about bring right. This is not about being right. I simply do not want their ad material and I asked them to stop. They told me they would and didn’t keep their word. It went wrong at that point. I should’ve written to tell them saying that the ads are still coming and the solution they promised seems to have failed … and then let them talk.
Yes, I made a mistake, but I’m amazed that a management-level support rep went along, instead of defusing the situation. It’s pretty obvious to me that if I’m right, we both win. They stop sending ads and we part ways with their having done as I asked, leaving a positive impression. Someday perhaps, I might just go back to them. We forget over time, and even if we don’t, things don’t seem so severe after time passes. This is really the best Rogers can hope for with me.
On the other hand, if he wins, he loses. Let’s say they refuse to stop sending ads to me and despite my best efforts, there’s nothing I can do to stop them. What’s the result? They continue to pay money to piss me off. Every time I receive an ad, I’m reminded of how Rogers can’t honour a simple request. First they promise and fail to deliver, then they take perverse pleasure in proving they’re right, ignoring my request. If they can’t manage such a simple request, I certainly can’t trust them to deliver a more substantial service worth paying for. So they’re paying to periodically send me a reminder to not do business with them.
It seems Rogers has entirely abandoned any value in their brand. They’ve decided to rely on being one of the two re-broadcasters in my area. What a spectacular failure of imagination. Competing with Bell, they could wipe the floor with them with the smallest amount of genuine customer service and attention. It wouldn’t take much, but it seems even this is beyond their grasp.