News - SCAN launches innovative component installation insurance

[how1]

Can't see the point in having insurance for a cable and not for an expensive CPU! Who thought that one up!?

[Stringent]

Etailer introduces optional insurance policy covering installation damage in order to encourage home PC builders.

Actually that is a wrong quote (plus its not mentioned in the actual review). Its NOT optional as its there by default. Who goes to say a Ford dealer to buy a new Focus and then goes to find out that all the 'optional' extras are ticked and have to go through and say no I don't want that. The sales person first ASKS you do you want these extras, or if there are any extras you like/want. So at the very least your option box should be both choices unmarked, unticked. By all means force people to make the choice if they leave it unticked and try to proceed further, thats like the sales person asking do you want diamond bright (or whatever it is) on the car.

Also what annoys me, when you go to sign up for something are the tick boxes which say tick here if you do not want to receive information. Sorry isn't my privacy and details first priority? Obviously not, then than proceed to randomise whether you tick or leave untick whether you want your information spread across third parties.

I stand by good idea, very bad implementation, and it seems its put a lot of people off shopping with you, which is sad because in general you are very good. I am glad Chris is still here trying to answer questions and queries with an angry mob. That shows dedication on Scans behalf and is to be commended on one level. But your senior staff really should listen to what the rest of the Hexites say.

[Funkstar]

[quote]The cable insurance was what I was mainly driving at there. What accidental damage can be caused by a cable that you would pay out for? Would you pay for a new graphics card or monitor if someone accidently rammed the cable in the wrong way up and damaged the item they were plugging it into?[/quoe]

Looking at it seriously, the claim is limited to the value of item(s) the policy covers for that transaction, as I understand it.

So if you ordered the graphics card and paid the relevant premium, then presumably you would indeed be reimbursed for the graphics card if you ruined it by plugging the cable in upside down ...... unless an exclusion clause covered it.

The way I read shaithis' post was: if you bought an insured cable, and only an insured cable, would you be covered for damaging your graphics card or yout monitor? The answer is obviously no, as the claim is limited to the value of that insured item. So you may have screwed your monitor or graphics card, you you'll get a nice new cable from Scan!

[peterb]

Comes back to what was pretty much said 10 or so pages ago - nice marketing idea, poorly implemented, and while the situation might have been turned round - the hole just gets deeper. Full marks to Chris P for trying to defend the product, but if Scan had just made it an opt in, instead of opt out, all this picking over the fine details and looking for loopholes that has appeared in the last 8 or 9 pages would not have happened.

Much to my own surprise I did find myself recommending it in another thread to someone who is uncertain about going home build, but as a PR exercise, this starts to look comparable to the Ratner's "who would buy this load of junk" gaff (refering to one of his products at a shareholders meeting) - one of the great PR backfires of all time. Ok maybe this won't cause Scan to go bust (as Ratner's did) but it is alientaing a number of previously loyal customers. And it would have been so easy to avoid (and still is easy to fix) - just make it opt in.

[how1]

Is thermal compound insurable? If so then what happens if i accidently damage an expensive CPU with it? lol

[tickedon]

Is thermal compound insurable? If so then what happens if i accidently damage an expensive CPU with it? lol

My understanding is that you would have needed to insure the part you break.

So I think if you broke a CPU with thermal compound, you'd need to have insured the CPU.

[Funkstar]

My understanding is that you would have needed to insure the part you break.

So I think if you broke a CPU with thermal compound, you'd need to have insured the CPU.

This is correct. Again, this falls into the cables senario above, products in a certain category that are between the £5 - £500 limits that make no sense being insurable.

Yes it's only a few pence, but if you add these to your basket with other more valuable items that you actually want insured you'll have to pay it on these items too. Regardless of the fact insurance on these is pointless.

[how1]

Well, some office bod in Scan must have come up with the idea at the last xmas party! Loads of Money for nowt!!

I can see every claim being rejected for this or that. Pointless insurance as far as i can see.

Senario: Guy rings up Scan and tells them he dropped his motherboard while installing it. Scan's answer "Sorry mate you are not covered as you weren't holding the motherboard at the right angle before it fell"

[Funkstar]

How1,

As critical of how this scheme has been implemented as I am, I do believe it is a genuine insurance policy and is useful for those that want it. If it wasn't then Scan, and all its directors would be in more trouble with the financial authorities than you can possibly imagine. Jail terms would be involved I believe.

There are exceptions to the insurance as there is with any policy, and it's all down to whether you are happy paying the price quoted for the level of cover it gives you. Yes there are examples that make the whole scheme seem rather silly, but if these were to be cleared up or taken care of (like dropping cables and thermal compound from the covered items) I believe the whole service would be a good bit more credible.

What you are alleging is, in my opinion, completely wrong. I have no doubt that a genuine claim will be honoured by Scan and their insurers.

[Chris P]

You would not imagine the work involved to make this service feasible....... and to suggest the insurance is "Pointlesss" is rediculous, that's all I'm going to say becuase I no longer have the inclination to waste my time responding to such rediculous comments.

Some comments in this thread I feel are just not genuine, or maybe just genuinly useless and I am sure that even more such comments will be made, and too all the poster's who have made such comments WE LOVE YOU ALL .........

We appreciate all the "intelligent", "constructive" and useful feedback we have had. We HAVE been listening to all the feedback even though we have chosen not to make certain changes wanted.

I think this thread has really run it's course now but if anyone does have anything constructive to give that has not already been discussed please make it or PM me.

Have a great weekened and fantastic Bank Holiday

Best Regards

[how1]

Well, i think that, looking at this thread, i can see Scan putting up walls / obstacles or to put it another way, having a counter-answer to claims. Just hope you are right.

Pity as all this fuss about Scansure wouldn't be here if they only changed the option as to wether to buy the insurance or not easier! Let the customer put the tick in the box Scan!! What harm can that do? Will save you losing customers etc!

I think this thread has really run it's course now but if anyone does have anything constructive to give that has not already been discussed please make it or PM me.

Best Regards

Lol! Too hot in the kitchen then!!

Blimey, you changed your user name back!!

[Saracen]

Well, some office bod in Scan must have come up with the idea at the last xmas party! Loads of Money for nowt!!

I can see every claim being rejected for this or that. Pointless insurance as far as i can see.

Senario: Guy rings up Scan and tells them he dropped his motherboard while installing it. Scan's answer "Sorry mate you are not covered as you weren't holding the motherboard at the right angle before it fell"

I agree with Funkstar - this is not a 'back of fag packet" scheme - it's a genuine insurance policy developed by an FSA regulated insurer and underwritten by a Lloyds group.

As as with Funkstar, I've said several times that it's a valid policy that will suit some types of customer.

And NO insurance policy gives unlimited cover for all situations. They all have exclusions and limits, whether it be motor policies, general household, medical, pet, travel, or whatever. And in all cases, premiums will be set to reflect a mix of the risk of a claim, and the value of the claim if it occurs. If you want better cover with less limitations or higher values, the price goes up.

So anyone buying ANY insurance really needs to look at what cover they get, what they don't get and whether the premium they pay represents good value or not. So it's not realistic to expect to pay a few pence for cover on an item costing a tenner, and expect a £500 monitor to be replaced if you mess up plugging in a cable.

The same sort of logic applies to a motor policy. If you want expensive, specialised audio gear covered, you'd better arrange either separate cover, or to increase the limit on your car policy, because there will undoubtedly be a limit on cover. And there'll be exclusions or conditions to the level of cover of other items in the car, like phones or camera gear. The same applies to household insurance. If you want to cover special items, be it an expensive single items, all-risk cover for expensive camera gear or even more than minimal cover on a bike, you need to check what the policy covers and doesn't cover. For instance, my camera gear is covered if it's nicked from the house, but I need an all-risk extension to be covered outside the home, and individual items over a specified value needs to be itemised or it's not covered. Some jewellery is covered, but only if I have recent written valuations and photos of the items.

This is, in my opinion, a perfectly legitimate policy covering a valid need that will appeal to SOME customers .... but not all. And that is fair enough. I just intensely dislike the way it's being sold, most notably, that it's opt-out. That Scan made that decision, and refuse to amend it, is within their right, but has certainly changed the way I think of Scan. They're within their rights to sell it that way, and I'm within my rights to regard it as an obnoxious way to do business.

[how1]

Fair enough. I agree but i also think, like you and others that the opt-out way of selling the insurance is the worst way they could have implemented it! Be a good idea if we could add a poll or make a new thread with a Poll to see what percentage of hexus users agree or disagree with the Scansure opt-out procedure!

[Saracen]

Fair enough. I agree but i also think, like you and others that the opt-out way of selling the insurance is the worst way they could have implemented it! Be a good idea if we could add a poll or make a new thread with a Poll to see what percentage of hexus users agree or disagree with the Scansure opt-out procedure!

I'm not so sure a poll would be useful. Given the distinctly adverse nature of the reaction to and comments on this being opt-out, it would be perverse for senior management to stick with that decision without having what they regard as good reason. So whatever we might speculate on that reason being, presumably, there is one, and it's good enough to take whatever hit they take over it.

Even if a poll here ended up with a hundred or two hundred votes, it's a still a drop in the ocean compared to the customer base of a large retailer, and there's no way to know whether the proportion voting here would represent the views of that proportion of customers generally.

Scan know there's a number of us here really don't like it, and are evidently quite prepared to live with that, even if it costs them some customers. I doubt that a poll clarifying that number a bit is going to make any difference to their decision.

[peterb]

The problem is that selling this as an opt-out smacks of sharp practice, if not unethical, and that may raise a question about Scan's operation in other areas.

I have no reason to doubt Scan - I have always had good CS from them, which is why is seems a pity that they are willing to allow that reputation to be tainted by this decision. But at the end of the day, it's their call, and customers (or potential customers) can react accordingly. If like for like sales increase with the opt-in, then we were wrong about it and Scan were right - but I guess we won't know unless Scan reverse the policy in a few months, when we might infer that it had an advwerse effect! (and the opt-out might have been a condition imposed by the underwriters to generate sufficient sales to make the risk worth underwriting - insurance works on the basis of a small number of claims from a large number of premium paying policyholders)

[Funkstar]

(and the opt-out might have been a condition imposed by the underwriters to generate sufficient sales to make the risk worth underwriting - insurance works on the basis of a small number of claims from a large number of premium paying policyholders)

Thats a very good point Peter, something I hadn't considered to be honest.