Starting a subscription is one click. Leaving requires a call, a survey, and a retention pitch. Even when agents are polite, the workflow itself creates friction that feels avoidable at every step. I already tried the official support route, documented the issue clearly, and followed every requested step, but the outcome did not materially improve. The practical impact is lost time, repeated context switching, and lower trust that the system will behave predictably when it matters. If teams measured resolution quality and user effort together, this pattern would become visible and easier to correct.
I provide device data at intake, then each new agent asks for the same details again. The process resets every time. What makes this exhausting is not one bad interaction, it is the repeated loop where context is lost and the customer starts from zero. I already tried the official support route, documented the issue clearly, and followed every requested step, but the outcome did not materially improve. The practical impact is lost time, repeated context switching, and lower trust that the system will behave predictably when it matters. If teams measured resolution quality and user effort together, this pattern would become visible and easier to correct.
The label says priority, but response speed and quality are the same as the standard channel. The process is optimized for internal routing metrics, not for resolution quality, so customer effort keeps increasing over time. I escalated through the documented channel with evidence and timestamps, yet each handoff restarted the process instead of moving it forward. Over weeks this compounds into avoidable overhead, especially for people with fixed schedules and little room for administrative delays. The platform does not need a full redesign to improve this, it needs reliable basics that remain stable over time.
Le dossier devrait suivre la conversation, pas repartir de zero a chaque transfert. Even when agents are polite, the workflow itself creates friction that feels avoidable at every step. I compared this with similar services and expected at least baseline consistency, but the same failure mode keeps recurring here. At this point the issue feels structural, because individual fixes keep expiring while the root workflow remains unchanged. A realistic fix would be one clear owner, one visible status timeline, and fewer forced restarts of the same information. Le vrai probleme semble structurel: avec un responsable clair et un suivi visible, cette friction baisserait nettement.
