[3g-g]

If you thought being an animal from Orange was bad, have a read at the way P4U categorise their customers, if there was ever more reason to stay away from that shop this is it...


You've heard of Soccer Mom and Mondeo Man. Millions are spent each year on research that segments us to into such convenient categories. But have you ever felt these vague and unimaginative descriptions leave you wanting more? If the marketeers are going to be so reductive, why not get creative and give us a 'Wolverhampton Tightwad', or a 'Carling Depressive'?

Help is at hand, courtesy of this top secret market segmentation guide. It's designed for sales teams at a leading UK mobile phone retailer. We won't say which one, but Phones4U staff should be able to recognise it instantly...

and the article continues...


...Flashing Blade is a bloke between 15 and 24 who enjoys "going to the gym" as well as "taking risks, drugs and the odd street fight". All good ways of staying fit.

Favoured places to get sloshed are Magaluf, favourite reads are the Sun and the Star. Flashing Blade may live with his parents however, and have a bad credit rating, which means he's a pre-pay customer.

Anyway, read the whole thing here at The Register. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/05/mobile_marketing_segments_pt1/)

[Hands0n]

I've always said that the only reason that I would ever walk across their doormat would be to wipe doggy doo doo's from the soles of my shoes.

The Reg article only adds to their [P4U's] already tarnished reputation for talking at the Customer rather than listening to what he or she actually wants/needs.

Buy from P4U? I'd rather use public transport!

[getti]

I hate Phones4U.

Especially when the idiots sell a contract on the basis the customer can downgrade after 6 months... then in 6 months when the customer cant downgrade they fob them off and send them down to us as we are the network so its our problem.

8 people in 2 days now they have sent down and we have had to say to them they were mis-sold from P4U.

That bugs me is P4U are not doing their job correctly. If a customer comes into us and says their maximum spend a month is £35 i know to offer them a contract which at most is £35 a month. The fact they can get from 6 months at only £17.50 is just a added bonus for them.

P4U sell a contract at £60 a month which is £30 for 6 months then tell the customer to downgrade. When they cant they are stuck on £60 a month, annoyed at P4U for selling it to them and annoyed at us because we cant do anything about it.

Muppets!

[solo12002]

" were mis-sold from P4U"

I agree with your views, but I think we are still missing the point, if a company is mis selling goods, in this case likely to be a three contract, surely three should stop the shop from selling its goods.

Surely these are cases where the network has to take some of the blame, I hope Im not being told that three is lilly white and has never never never had some one advise them of this firms practice.

Maybe all the networks can only see their profit and to hell with those have been miss sold something.

[3g-g]

" were mis-sold from P4U"

I agree with your views, but I think we are still missing the point, if a company is mis selling goods, in this case likely to be a three contract, surely three should stop the shop from selling its goods.

Surely these are cases where the network has to take some of the blame, I hope Im not being told that three is lilly white and has never never never had some one advise them of this firms practice.

Maybe all the networks can only see their profit and to hell with those have been miss sold something.

I've no doubt that all the networks see the $ signs before the feelings of the customer, that's the business they're in, making cash.

However, what I don't like about this particular gem of information is the derogatory way P4U class their customers, particularly the generalisation that 15-24 year olds like a street fight and some drugs... however, perhaps that's the only type of customer that shops with P4U, if so, they can keep 'em!

[E616Vboy123]

...particularly the generalisation that 15-24 year olds like a street fight and some drugs... however, perhaps that's the only type of customer that shops with P4U, if so, they can keep 'em!

You'd have to be on drugs to consider buying a contract from P$U. (yes I know its a dollar sign instead of a 4, which coincidently are the same key:rolleyes: )

[Ben]

I just thought I should drop in a little post saying that we lovingly welcome all Phones4U staff and customers here at the wonderful world of Talk3G :D

[miffed]

" were mis-sold from P4U"

I agree with your views, but I think we are still missing the point, if a company is mis selling goods, in this case likely to be a three contract, surely three should stop the shop from selling its goods.

Surely these are cases where the network has to take some of the blame, I hope Im not being told that three is lilly white and has never never never had some one advise them of this firms practice.

Maybe all the networks can only see their profit and to hell with those have been miss sold something.

This is very true ! innevitabley Three are responsible for their resellers I beleive - They are very aware of this problem , yet are STILL allowing P4U to go on doing this instead of putting their foot down - the result is ..(as usual with Three ) the CUSTOMER is the loser
Anyway , Three change their downgrade policy like the wind - Retailers can't possibly be expected to keep up :D

[maxspank]

^ The 3rd party retailers are briefed on changes, but their staff seem to ignore them in favour of commission.

working with Vodafone, a day didn't go by that I didn't have a complaint about P4U.

It is the networks fault for having their policies I suppose, but customers are issued with terms and conditions, which if they had read they'd be clued up. They get a good two weeks to read them as well. So the customer is not without fault.

[Hands0n]

Good point made there - how many actually read the Contracts? I do, but for the life of me I do not know a single person in my group of friends/associates/etcs that does. Not a single one!! None of them know about the 14 days either ....... :eek:

[solo12002]

None of them know about the 14 days either

So maybe clear easy to understand contracts written in plain english and checked for that would help?

Now I wonder what ofcom is doing! ops I forgot, they doing whatever the networks want.:eek:

[Hands0n]

There is no joined up thinking among our regulators in the UK. There is a law relating to readable contracts - the old days of completely indecipherable tomes are long gone. But the law was not effective enough - and companies hide behind truly small print. Its there if you can find it, or be bothered to squint and read it. However, because of the Disability Discrimination laws all companies have to be able to supply their written material in large type readable by the visually disabled. Try asking for one under the DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) - they have to comply, even if they have to run a special copy for you!

I do think that the headline substance of a contract should be in large letters on the front page. Anything that forms the obligation on the part of the Customer should be written large and up front.

OFCOM do not regulat this, it is the DTI if I recall correctly. The thing is, OFCOM could cite this to those it regulates, along the lines of "ensuring best business practise". But they are not interested in anything that is not in their remit - "Not my job, mate!" would be the cry if you asked them. We've a bit too much of that NMJ on the go of late .......