LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI'm pretty sure my home contents insurance covers accidental damage of computer components as standard (even though it cost extra to cover laptops).
I'm pretty sure my home contents insurance covers accidental damage of computer components as standard (even though it cost extra to cover laptops).
It is possible to use Adblock Plus + Element Hiding Helper on Firefox to remove that part of the page, which is what I've done since I hate the needless clutter.Originally Posted by PeterStoba
Clearly sensationalised?....
Saracen some of your points are clearly sensationalised one of which is "hunt the fine print" in a PDF, and even if you are a supporter of SCAN its a rediculous comment based on the exclusions are clearly visible and NOT in fine print, so i'll ignore these kind of comments and would really expect more from you. Your constructive feedback is still greatly appreciated.
.....
I will see what can be done about putting some examples up to hopefully clarify the exclusions..
Well, let's look at that.
The explanatory page inclusdes a FAQ. Does the FAQ mention the exclusions, does it alert people to what the policy doesn't cover? No, it doesn't. Does it even suggest the type of thing that might be commonplace that'll preclude cover? No.
If customer do want to find out exactly what they getting for their money, what do they have to do? Well first, download a PDF. THen, they have to rummage through it. And they'll find a bit in it headed "Significant and Unusual Exclusions or Limitations." Aha, they think, tells me what I need to know.
But does it? Nope.
If you compare what's in that to the exclusions in the actual policy documentation, you find it doesn't mention, for example, that failing to follow manufacturers instructions will be cause to deny a claim, but it isn't mentioned in the Key Facts. Nor is the limitation about anything that invalidates a manufacturer's warranty, and things that do that can be wide and varied, including in some situations, overclocking or changing HSF.
If the customer wants to find out when they actually are or are not covered, they have to go to the policy document. Half way page page two of your three page download, in the left-hand column of a two column document, they find the actual list, in the policy fine print. It's sufficiently small that on the laptop I'm using, I've got to use 200% magnification in Acrobat to be able to read the small print without squinting, and if I do, I:m having to use the scroll bars left to right to read the rest of the document.
So not only do you make NO mention of the type of thing excluded on your website, but even the Key Facts section doesn't mention some pretty signification exclusions. For the customer to find what they are and aren't actually getting when they buy, they have to work down to the actual small text in the policy document.
So, other thanwhat the hell would you call it? Because you do, indeed, literally have to do that to find out the kind of information customers need to get the information they need to make an informed purchase."hunt the fine print" in a PDF I have to download
Your website says, for instance, that "bending pins" is one of the tings that might happen that this policy covers you for. But how do you bend pins? One way is to try plugging the wrong cable into a connector4, or the wrong way round. Another is to put older processors into slots orientated the wrong way round. But in order to do that, you either haven't read most manufacturer's instructions, or didn't follow them carefully enough. So the website suggests you're covered, but the fine print suggests you aren't, or certainly might not be, depending on HOW you bent those pins.
You're free to ignore any of my comments you wish to, as how Scan market stuff is their choice, (with the obvious limitation of doing it legally). But I'm not sensationalising anything. You say you'd "expect more" from me. Well frankly, that's exactly how I feel about Scan and the way this policy has been presented which, in my opinion, is frankly disgraceful. You opt people in by default. You do it on a policy which clearly states (in the policy fine print) is non-refundable once bought, so if people don't notice you've added it on for them, they're stuck with having bought it regardless of whether they wanted it or not. And people have to read the legalese to find out exactly what they're getting.
As for XFX, well again, respond or not as you wish. I didn't expect you to. But whether you do or not doesn't stop other people raising it, especially in forums like this one which are outside the Scan support area. But whether you respond or not, it HAS cost customers, not just for XFX but for Scan too, and it isn't just a brand-switching exercise. It's a supplier-switching exercise. Whether it's enough of an effect to show in your aggregat5e sales figures I have no idea but obviously, take your word for it if you say it doesn't. I wouldn't have thought it would be big enough to be evident at that level. But I know several people personally that have told me they won't be using Scan again, at all, over exactly that issue. For them, it doesn't matter whether you respond on XFX or not, or whatever gets sorted out with XFX about how to handle things. These are people I'd managed to persuade to use Scan because of how I'd seen customer servie handled over a long period, but they've seen the threads about delays and so on, and decided to go back to eBuyer, etc. Their decision has already been made. Now that might be only the handful of people I know that have made that decision, despite everything I've tried to explain to change their minds. But it seems to be pushing the bounds of probability that if several of the people I know have decided that in the last couple of months, they're the only ones that have. That information is provided for you to do with as you wish, not as a debating point in here. If you wish to ignore it, that's up to you. But it HAS damaged Scan's sales and customer base, even if only in a fairly small way.
The Exclusions aren't in fine print, you said they were...
We are not ignoring anything, we are here replying, responding and listening but I'm not listening to invalid comment(s), and in addition it's clearly headed as "Exclusions", no "rumaging" required, again you are sensationalising your words, which is tiresome now.
I have already told you that we will try to clarify the exclusions with examples, which you know already so I'm not sure why your again making your point again that we want clarification.
People say things publicly and privately and I sincerely hope that it doesnt cause people to shop elsewhere, as with any new service improvements will be made and feedback listened to, re-iterating your points is pointless when I have said they will be addressed and clarification given.
The fact is for Customer who have placed order's, we have NOT seen any negative feedback about this new service.
I've no inclination to keep re-iterating my points to you any longer as I have had to do previously. Don't sensationalise your comments or exagerate them, I didnt expect you to agree with this fact but it's not helpful to anyone.
Regards
Last edited by Chris P; 18-04-2009 at 10:03 PM.
Not yet you haven't no but after reading this thread i guess this will change!! This thread has brought home facts that are only now coming to light about the new service.
I can't see how you can accuse Saracen of sensationalising his comments or exagerating them! His comments, as usual, are very well said and informative. He has alerted everyone to the 'facts'. As far as i am concerned he has been very helpful in trying to make things a bit clearer from a customers perspective.
Just checked the font size used in the exclusions section of that PDF and it's 10pt. Have to admit I thought it was smaller. To be fair, it's no worse than most of the other policy documents I've read.
Saracen
I thanked you for the constructive input but simply the comment I mentioned as exagerated was that it was said by you the Exclusions are in fine print and this is my issue becuase clearly they are not and also saying that they have to be hunted for, they don't.
I have no personal issue here or with anyone...... but I'm not going to let ANYONE tell me that the Exclusions are in fine print or try to imply that we are hiding anything, no matter at what level the user may be at!
At the end of the day you click your mouse once to opt out, which is a clear service addition, shown on the basket stage. If we reduce the font size and added the charge in an obscure placed and made it difficult to opt out I would agree but we don't do we.
We just want to move forward now, alleviate any concerns there may be and clarify everyone's points.. If any customer has an issue strong enough to stop you from ordering from SCAN then please tell me / us directly and we will listen as always and try to alleviate your concerns.
My PM box is open as always...
Regards
This is the bit that peevs most people off! Why not have it so that customers have an option to 'OPT IN'
This would be much better or is that if that happens you will miss out on extra dosh!
how1
As previously posted I will put forward the option of having an option added to the "My Account" > "Profiles" section.
The markup is so low on this service, we're really not making a massive margin on this service.
Ok. Lets see what happens then. Ta
That was my point, it's not about making you a profit, it's about you covering costs. By turning this on by default basically you're charging your customer base directly for all the ham fisted idiots who order things without having a clue how to fit them.
As I said, it's a price rise clevely packaged as a "customer incentive".
Personally, I understand why a business such as yours needs this, and I can understand why you'd want to hide a charge at the end of the checkout process so people surfing comparison sites still see a competative price. My main objection is that it's been made "opt in". You should have either had the balls to simply put your prices up or made this a "value added" sale that people can opt into.
(\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/)
(='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=)
(")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(")
This is bunny and friends. He is fed up waiting for everyone to help him out, and decided to help himself instead!
Are the exclusions listed on the explanatory page on your website? No. They're in a document you have to download.
Are they in the FAQ on your website, which by the way would be a good place for them? No. You have to download the document.
Are they even in the Key Facts section of that document? Not all of them, no, including the ones I used as examples. You have to read the policy itself. i.e. the fine print, because neither the main website nor the Key Facts section list all the key facts.
And you didn't say my comments were “exaggerated” (which they aren't), you said they were “ridiculous” and “clearly sensationalised”.
Don't tell me my remarks are ridiculous and sensationalised, and just expect me to led that ride, because it simply isn't going to happen.
Can't you see the irony in that? You're not ignoring anything, but you're not listening to invalid comments. You managed to flat contradict yourself in a single sentence.
Chris, you can listen to or not listen to anything you like. But you're getting feedback on how this is perceived by some people in this thread, and seem to be doing a good job of ignoring how it's being perceived, at least by some customers, apparently because you don't like it. And it's not just me, even that is commenting to that effect.
Oh, and the reason I said you were ignoring was because that's what you said you were doing. Again, post 44 ...
Look at what was said, Chris. I said you were free to ignore my comments if you wanted, precisely because you told me you were going to ignore them. Then you say your not ignoring anything as if I'd accused you of it. It was only what you told me you were doing.
I made a series of points, which were genuine feedback, including that a number of people like me don't like having services added on by default. You chose to tell me I was being sensationalist and ridiculous, so I explained those points in some more detail, in case you didn't see what I was getting at. Now you tell me not to keep re-iterating points because it's "tiresome", and that you've "no inclination" to keep re-iterating your points to me. Well, if you don't want to comment, don't comment. Nobody is forcing you.
Chris, I did not say or imply that you are trying to hide anything. If you were doing that, Scan would be committing a criminal offence by "hiding" material facts about a commercial practice. And that applies not only to Scan as a corporate body, but to company officers, including managers, who would then be subject to prosecution, fines and even imprisonment if they were involved in that "hiding". Personally.
The links to the exclusions are on the website. Nothing is hidden ..... unlike that insurance broker I mentioned who added optional "services" on without me asking for them, wanting them or even knowing about them. I made the point, a couple of time at least, that Scan weren't doing that. What I said, a couple of times at least, is that the way things were done you run the risk of some people perceiving it like that.
My point is not that you're hiding anything, but that for a product customers are opted into by default, the only place I've found the exclusions covered comprehensively enough to show people where they might not be getting the cover they think they're getting is if they download and read the actual policy. I've already given an example, that being the "bent pins" comment on the website. That implies that you're covered if you bend pins on installation, yet the exclusions clearly suggest that whether you're covered or not will depend on how you bent the pins. If, as I said before, many people don't read the full detail in the policy document, they won't see that they aren't necessarily as well covered as they thought they were, and they may well have accepted the coverage and bought, on a non-refundable policy, before they find that out. You made the point that the level 5 emails explain the cover, but by the time people receive that, they've ordered a non-refundable policy!
In my opinion, and it IS an opinion, if you're going to use an example like bent pins on the main page, you could at least clarify when bent pins won't be covered on the same page.
I've been browsing the Scan site tonight, and while I think the idea is good (certainly for new system builders!) the way it's been implimented isn't.
Firstly, a service like this shouldn't ever be default. From a customers point of view it feels like it's being pushed on me, regardless of this was the intention or not.
This is the same approach that places like PC world take when bundling Norton and £15 USB cables, just because in Scan's opinion it is a more useful product, it does not change this.
Secondly the way of removing the added service leaves a lot to be desired. A simple ratio box is enough, there is no need for the big red button once I have already changed the option to No - It is well over the top.
I am not a very regular poster on this forum and I dont know who you are Saracen, but you, as an admin are not a very good diplomat - its not always about proving who is wrong and who is right - a good forum is about helping eachover and your last posts in this thread dont add anything new or helpful to whatever has been said - give the guys a break eh? its a new service and the constructive criticism has been provided - the management is watching, so lets see what will happen - will it be taken on board or not.
Now in regards to your comments about criminal offence, maybe you meant to say civil offence?...
Even is Scan were to be negligent and not show the insurance terms and conditions on their website, this would be matter for civil courts.
This is pretty much how I feel too.
No you're not trying to hide it, but you are to be frank presenting the information badly.
T&Cs, Policy Details, etc. are collectively refered to as 'the fine print' or 'small print' irrespective of whether the print is or isn't fine, so if you have the exclusions - which in the eyes of the customer are the most important part of the insurance - only in those documents (as they are now) then you could be accused of hiding the information in the fine print even if you aren't actively obscuring them(see Saracen's posts). I'd expect as this thread has already shown, that the number of cases you'd have to clarify for some could increase greatly as time goes on (I've got one for you at the end of this if you want), so you should probably make some sort of living document to deal with major/common situations as they arise. All that should probably go in the policy document too, as people will want the clarifications next to the actual legal wording.
Then there's another issue that's been raised(by Saracen)...your policy document is fine print...I decided to have a look at the policy documents of some major insurance companies and they all use a larger font size! You may argue that most/all will read the document with software with zoom features, but it should all be readable at 100% zoom. Why? Because it's a digital sheet of paper, and that's how big it would be if you printed it out and held it in front of you. That and you shouldn't be making somebody have to play around to read it when you could easily make it so they wouldn't. I could've made this entire post like this, then you'd have to squint or scale the text to read it comfortably, and this is also how small your policy document's text is compared to other insurer's - not nice is it?
You can also tell from a glance that your perfectly-laid-out policy document has been carefully crafted to fit a single A4 sheet (I take it you ship an A4 certificate with an order, with the policy information on the back?), when it should be crafted to present the information in a clear manner. Use some formatting and break it up into chunks that are easier on the eye - as a customer I don't care about a document fitting onto one page, I want to be able to read and understand it easily. (Saracen said something about sifting through documents too?)
Lastly, I'm greatly surprised that the document lacks any kind of styling that links it to scan. It feels like an orphan. How'd it get out without even a single logo?
These are all complaints about the presentation of information where I can go and see it done much better by other insurers.
Example situation:
Most graphics cards these days have a recommended minimum power supply wattage to cover the manufacturer against crap models. Shuttle and other SFF systems have PSUs that are rated at lower wattages than these specs (somtimes lower than half) but will cope with a lot of the cards anyway. If you get a failure is this situation a case of not following the manufacturer's instructions by installing a card in a system with a PSU below the recommended wattage?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
SCAN.care@HEXUS
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
My only concern is should I hide my true identity? A costume maybe?
