News - SCAN launches innovative component installation insurance

[Saracen]

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

But even if that is the reason, the inference is that if they had made it opt-in, a lot less people would have opted-in, otherwise it would have made no difference.

I mean, assume a perfect world, where every single customer fully understands the benefits, and makes a rational decision to buy or not buy based on those benefits and the cost of the item you're buying. IN that scenario, everyone that ordered would see what was on offer, fully understand it and if they wanted it, opt-in and if they didn't, opt-out.

So a system where you are neither opted-in or opt-out out, but are forced to make a decision one way or the other before you can proceed, would force every single customer to choose.

But no. Instead we have a system where people are opted in by default. Which begs the question of why they are.

So, if it is as Peterb suggested (and I've no idea if it is) and that it was an underwriter's (or insurance company condition) to generate enough sales to make the policy workable, then the clear inference is that by making that condition, the insurance company don't feel they'll get as many, or enough, sales if the decision is left to the consumer to make.

And if that's true, then it's precisely why I, and I suspect a number of others, object to the opt-out - because it is relying on customer inertia to sell something the customer might not or wouldn't choose to buy given if they had to make a decision to buy or not buy themselves.

There is a difference in the psychology. Many people don't like making decisions. If you force them to make one, they may not make the one you want. But using an opt-in, you force someone to decide they want it, and not having it is a non-decision because you can just click-through. Even not having a default pre-selected forces people to make a decision one way or the other.

But the opt-out means that buying is a non-decision. The decision to buy has been made for you, and to override it, you're forced to make a conscious decision to reverse that choice. In other words, changing the default requires making a decision whereas accepting the status quo doesn't, and in a world where many people are decision-averse or even decision-afraid, forcing people to decide results in a percentage of people declining to decide at all. There have been plenty of cases studied where people will decline even something clearly in their own best interest if they have to make a decision to get it because, often, of fear of the decision, fear of that they might be missing, etc. For instance, ever seen the footage of people standing in a busy place (shopping centre, railway station, etc ) trying to give away free money? A good percentage of people walk past, refusing the free money, convinced that there has to be a catch. They can't even take the decision to accept a free tenner when it's waived under their nose.

In my opinion, using an opt-out is a piece of cheap psychological manipulation of customers .... and is a well-known marketing technique. It uses this risk-aversion factor to sell something to people when it's likely a good percentage would decline if they were forced to decide themselves whether to buy or not buy. I certainly covered it in my marketing courses at Uni, some 30 years ago.

So whether it's a decision Scan made, or one that the insurer forced on them, it remains the fact that Scan are the ones presenting this to their customers, not the insurers, so the criticism from me gets levelled firmly at Scan. And I'm disappointed to see such a disgraceful piece of cheap psychological manipulation being used, relying on decision-aversion and inertia of the status quo to sell.

[Funkstar]

Yup, I agree with you there Saracen.

Peters point was a new angle that I hadn't considered, but ultimately does not make it OK in my mind.

In fact, if you were to look at it cynically, if the insurers are insisting on having it opt-in due to volumes, then even they are not convinced at the value of this service. Before anyone jumps in, I personally am definitely not saying this, just that this could be how a very cynical person (honest, not me, really) could look at it

[Gordy]

So whether it's a decision Scan made, or one that the insurer forced on them, it remains the fact that Scan are the ones presenting this to their customers, not the insurers, so the criticism from me gets levelled firmly at Scan. And I'm disappointed to see such a disgraceful piece of cheap psychological manipulation being used, relying on decision-aversion and inertia of the status quo to sell.

I couldn't agree more. Or have put it better.

The fact that it's not only an opt out but a two stage opt makes me very annoyed. I will be trying to reduce or eliminate scan from my orders in the foreseeable future as this leaves a very large stain on their reputation.

It's almost identical to pcworlds practice of including norton in the basket when you add a computer to the basket. If I want something I'll add it thank you. It's a very cheap and nasty marketing trick. To pretend otherwise is insulting out intelligence.

Compounding the issue is the fact it's non refundable if you do fail to realise your error.

[peterb]

Agree completely Saracen - whether or not it was a condition by the underwriters, it is still a shabby bit of marketing, and as I said, smacks of sharp practice, and (IMHO) is ethically questionable.

[how1]

Probably the only way that Scan are going to reverse the awful opt-out money making scheme is when customers start letting them know how they feel about it by voting with thier debit / credit cards!

[Saracen]

Probably the only way that Scan are going to reverse the awful opt-out money making scheme is when customers start letting them know how they feel about it by voting with thier debit / credit cards!

Maybe, but psychology comes in there too, and it's that same "inertia" factor.

We do know that some people intensely dislike the opt-out method, and one reason is that some have said so here. What we don't know is :-

- how many, or rather, what proportion, don't like it?
- of them, what proportion will change their buying decision because of it?

And there's unknowns in both directions.

The number of people seriously objecting here is pretty small. If they were the only objectors, it'd count for little or nothing, I'd guess. But if a customer gets a bad meal in a restaurant, what proportion complain, and what proportion opt for an easy life, say nothing, and just pay their bill, leave quietly and never go back. ...... and warn all their friends off too?

Psychology and history suggests that it would be a serious underestimate to assume that only those that complain are unhappy. But psychology and history would also suggest that not everyone that complains, or feels aggrieved but doesn't complain, will change their buying practices on that basis, because I'd suspect that a percentage will moan loudly, and then carry on buying.

Personally, if I get annoyed enough with a company, I would just stop using them. Years ago, BT pestered me with marketing calls to me home phone. I asked them, repeatedly, to stop, and they didn't. I wrote and asked them to stop, and they didn't. I even wrote to their CEO and didn't even get the courtesy of a response either from his secretary or their customer relations department. So I cancelled ALL dealings with BT, both home and business, both landline and cellular, and haven't spent a penny with them since. That was about 15 years ago. And it was over an obnoxious marketing practice, which was to completely disregard my repeated requests to not pester me at home with phone calls. Even after all this time, I will not do business of any sort with BT, unless there remains no other practical choice, and so far, there's always been a choice.

[Rebel]

Hmmmm, Am I missing something here? a few days ago I read on this very thread (Post 111) LINK)
Chris P saying

Senior Management has confirmed Scansure will continue as an Opt out option, it is prominently advertised and easy to Opt out.

If a customer chooses to opt out, then their choice should be remembered when placing their next order, so a customer does not have to Opt out every time they order or on the other hand they can opt back in if they wish to take Scansure insurance.

In addition the Scansure policy will stay is per basket policy basis with no options created to select individual components to be insured.

Regards

Today I have read in the Scan forum this is NOT the case and NEVER HAS BEEN! again I quote from the following thread in case it accidentally gets deleted.

http://forums.hexus.net/scan-care-he...ml#post1695194

To clarify it was suggested that when a customer opted out of Scansure then their choice would be remembered for future order's. Today we confirmed that this is not the case (Also has not been a feature at any point). A customer that does not wish to continue with the Scansure insurance would have to Opt out every time they order and their choice will not be remembered.

I would have questioned it in the Scan section except the thread has been closed (I can only assume to save having to explain why customers have been so blatantly misled) so I was unable to do so.

What to me is even worse is the fact we were all led to believe the option once made would be remembered so it WOULD have been very easy to simply believe Chris P when he told everyone this would be remembered and just ticked through the relevant form (as we all do on a regular basis) had we done so we would have been misled into wasting money!

Note I have carefully avoided saying defrauded as I am sure that was not the intention but the misleading comes about because we were foolish enough to believe the Retail Sales Manager

Now maybe it is just me but the more I read the less I like about this whole sorry episode I was told Scan were a reputable company who (Unlike some other nameless internet retailers) were not in the business of misleading their customers or misrepresenting their methods of business, HOWEVER the first quote is inaccurate either accidentally or otherwise and represents exactly the opposite of a "reputable business practice".

I have only purchased from Scan on one occasion and having seen and read so much in their "support section" I decided not to bother returning a hard drive which developed bad sectors within a matter of weeks. Some might say I should have given them the opportunity to rectify the problem I chose to recover as much data as possible and live with it, I can do without the hassles other people seem to get when they have problems with items bought from Scan. I have since bought 2 more drives from Ebuyer and am using them instead.

@Dave Ross: Sorry if my post causes you any embarrassment however I'm sure you can understand my concerns as this certainly casts some doubts regarding business integrity and that's something I haven't had any issues with since I was at the site where we first met quite a few years ago.

[GoNz0]

i know m8, you have to be carefull airing your views in the scan section as they cant stand it when you post negatives, yet again my post was edited by chris when i point out the facts, it only makes matters worst for them.

all i said was its a scam how they are doing this as they rely on those that dont double check before purchase and con them out of money thats none refundable for insurance they dont want.

oh well they lost another sale i was due to put through today.

yet again they cover up the facts, well at least they cant edit this. im sure in the long run they will lose more than they stand to make.

[MadduckUK]

i know m8, you have to be carefull airing your views in the scan section as they cant stand it when you post negatives, yet again my post was edited by chris when i point out the facts, it only makes matters worst for them.

all i said was its a scam how they are doing this as they rely on those that dont double check before purchase and con them out of money thats none refundable for insurance they dont want.

oh well they lost another sale i was due to put through today.

yet again they cover up the facts, well at least they cant edit this. im sure in the long run they will lose more than they stand to make.

did you see when your post was edited to

"final warning

ban tomorrow" ?

[moogle]

did you see when edited your post to

"final warning

ban tomorrow" ?

Banned from the Scan subforums maybe?

[MadduckUK]

Banned from the Scan subforums maybe?

i would think so, why they would say that was happening i dont know

[Rebel]

i know m8, you have to be carefull airing your views in the scan section as they cant stand it when you post negatives, yet again my post was edited by chris when i point out the facts, it only makes matters worst for them.

all i said was its a scam how they are doing this as they rely on those that dont double check before purchase and con them out of money thats none refundable for insurance they dont want.

oh well they lost another sale i was due to put through today.

yet again they cover up the facts, well at least they cant edit this. im sure in the long run they will lose more than they stand to make.

Thanks for the heads up however I am being as careful as I can to ensure I am completely accurate in my posts and keeping personal opinions out of my posts.

If DR would rather I didn't post over here then I don't have a problem with that, we have known one another for a lot of years and I appreciate he has a business to look after and must put the welfare of Hexus first in the same way I put the welfare of my own forums in front of any personal considerations.

I would ask if you have been threatened with a ban whether you have contacted the forum administration though? As I understand it Scan don't control Hexus or tell Hexus what to do unless I am BADLY mistaken?

[Chris P]

Yes Gonzo I edited your post because your post was not factual calling this service what you did, you don't have views you are only here for one purpose, which isnt to give constructive feedback.

Scansure is a regulated service legally approved and to add you have already been warned by DR about your such actions in this very thread.

[Chris P]

I apologies for he confusion my earlier post may have caused, it was certainly not intentional and I always try to be as honest and transparent with my replies, in this case I can see how this particular post could be confusing - Again I can assure everyone this was unintentional.

My bad! and I will take this slight error completely on the chin, the wording could have been better I admit and everyone makes mistakes, we are all human after all.

As confirmed the "should be" was later confirmed as purely an Opt out service.

Regaring "accidental" deleting of posts are can confirm there have been no accidents, some posts were intentionally delete becuase of there inacuracy of a false statement , coupled with a prior warning not from SCAN for the very same stament.

Again apologies for any confusion caused.

Regards

[Agent]

I would ask if you have been threatened with a ban whether you have contacted the forum administration though? As I understand it Scan don't control Hexus or tell Hexus what to do unless I am BADLY mistaken?

You are correct. Scan staff can request to have a user removed from their section, and this has happened in the past where we feel it has been appropriate. When this has happened the user has had multiple warnings from Scan staff, Hexus mods / admins, and in some cases David himself has stepped in before it has happened. In all the years Scan has been here, I only know of this happening twice and I give you my word that they both had considerable requests to stop what they were doing over the period of a few months.

Peoples access to any section on here is not removed lightly, and please keep in mind that with anything of this nature, there are two sides to every story (and quite often an accompanying history to boot!)

Scan have to right to moderate posts as they see fit in their section. This does not extend to any other area of the forum however, and Scan staff can not ban people from the forums as a whole. They can of course flag up things which they would like us to look at, and if we feel they deserve a ban, we'll give one out. This would be considered in the same way by the mods / admins as if a normal forum member had highlighted it.

I assure you Rebel that there is no 'hidden' moderation between Hexus and Scan. When people lose their access to a section, they will have been given multiple warnings and a fair chance to resolve the issue. People don't just log in to find their access has been removed because of opinions they have expressed - If this was the case, I certainly wouldn't Admin here.

Sadly what a few small number of people haven't figured out yet is that conduct and opinion can ,in fact, go hand in hand.

[peterb]

I am curious about the process if you buy in the store at Scan. Is Scansure added automatically to the bill, and the customer has to ask the salesman to remove it, or is the customer asked at the time if they want it?