HP trialed mandatory 15-minute support call wait times (2025)
HP reportedly experimented with a policy forcing all callers to its customer support line to wait at least 15 minutes before reaching an agent, even when call volumes were low, in order to push users toward online self-service tools. Commenters see this as emblematic of a broader shift in large companies toward deliberately degrading human support to cut costs, relying on misleading “high call volume” messages, offshore call centers, and disempowered agents. Many contrast this with HP’s past reputation for engineering excellence and argue that treating customers as a cost to be minimized ultimately erodes brand trust and drives competent users to competitors.
HP’s Mandatory Wait Policy & Intent
- HP trialed a system where callers were forced to wait ~15 minutes, while being told hold times were due to “high call volumes” and pushed toward digital self-help.
- Many commenters see the intent as deliberate call deflection to cut support costs and justify investments in chatbots/“digital” channels, not to improve service.
- A minority argues it’s rational: many support calls are trivial, and delays may encourage users to self-resolve.
Customer Experience, Ethics, and Impact on Agents
- Callers typically phone only after online options fail; a fixed 15‑minute delay is seen as punitive and disrespectful of customers’ time.
- Several note that long, obviously artificial delays make customers angrier, increasing handle time and abuse toward agents.
- Some view always-on “high call volume” messages as outright lying; one commenter says this should be considered fraud.
- Others point out a perverse effect: better support pushes competent customers away from bad vendors, leaving only high‑cost, low‑skill users.
Call-Center Operations and Metrics
- Multiple participants with call-center experience note that queue lengths and staffing needs are well-modeled (Erlang formulas); persistent long waits are therefore a management choice.
- KPI culture (Average Handle Time, first-line scripts, etc.) is criticized for encouraging deceptive or harmful practices and punishing real improvements (e.g., a faster internal tool leading to the creator being fired because it skewed metrics).
- Some describe how cost-cutting outsourcing led to slow, low-quality IT and support operations.
HP’s Reputation and Corporate Trajectory
- Many lament HP’s fall from a respected engineering company (test gear, workstations, robust printers) to an aggressively anti-consumer brand, especially around printers and now support.
- Historical splits (Agilent/Keysight, HP Inc vs HPE) are mentioned; some argue today’s HP bears little resemblance to the earlier company.
Broader Industry Patterns
- Commenters see HP as part of a wider trend: US firms treating support as a pure cost or legal shield, not a service—parallels drawn to ISPs, banks, airlines, Microsoft, etc.
- Some report choosing vendors (often Apple or niche hardware brands) primarily for responsive, empowered support, valuing time and low friction over lower hardware prices.