Carphone Warehouse You Have a Duty of Care With Customer’s Privacy!

Filling time whilst in a shopping centre with one’s family is a well learnt male skill. For those with more middle of the road interests it’s off to WH Smith’s for a browse of the car magazines, for those of us with more geek’fu it’s a trawl of the mobile shops to toy with the latest shiny goodies.

At the weekend I happened to be in Carphone Warehouse’s big open store at Bluewater for one such time wasting fondle session and happened upon a wall full of working phones ripe for a quick look see.  It is all too rare to find phone shops with a happy attitude towards breaking boxes and sticking real working phones out there for customers to try, sadly reverting to the stock compressed cardboard or hollow shell imitations. So given such choice it the  HTC Sensation was an obvious place to start, it is basically an updated version of my current Desire HD so a comparison seemed fair.

What didn’t seem right was that when the screen came to life it was showing someone’s Facebook wall.  Odd but not it’s not unheard of for a fellow fiddler to have used an instore demo device to have a sneaky poke and forget to log out.

I did the decent thing and left a “you muppet” type post on his wall and logged the phone out.  But when the homescreen came up it was obvious something far more worrisome was going on. 

The homescreen wasn’t a stock HTC Rosie layout with loads of widgets and apps being moved, there were update and email notifications in the status bar, their were matched contacts awaiting approval.

A quick and very discreet look around pointed to this phone having actually been setup from new by someone. Not setup as in just having a play in a shop, but setup by someone sitting around with enough time on their hands to get the phone how they wanted it.  This was obviously a customer returns phone that had been stuck back on display with no thought.

There were of course a number of things I could do. I could have notified one of the half a dozen bored looking staff chatting to each other in the middle of the store whilst customers stood around idle; but honestly if those same staff couldn’t have been bothered to check a returns phone what hope was there now.  I could have had a proper play with his “Scott’s” accounts or even hijacked a few of them. I didn’t, I took the kinder option and hit the magic half a dozen keys strokes to wipe the SD care and factory reset the phone.

The point of this is our smartphones contain a wealth of personal information from our intimate sharings with loved ones through to our TV preferences through to the keys to our email and bank accounts.   It’s all too easy nowadays to pick up a new phone, log into the cloud and for the handset to be automagically populated with our stuff.  BUT retailers have a duty of care when handling those devices, whether it’s for repair or return in ensuring that personal information goes no further.

What appears to have happened here is akin to giving your plumber with house keys to fix a leaky tap and them walking away leaving the front door wide open.

It’s not acceptable.

Anyone from Carphone Warehouse around because I’d love to hear your thoughts?

Is there value to be added to location data?

Last night I was involved in a brief Twitter conversation with the inimitable Tony Fish, author of “My Digital Footprint” about mobile operators adding value to location data.  Personally I don’t see any (intrinsic) value in location data, that horse bolted years back (totally disrupting Alcatel et al’s monopoly at the switch level for location data).  The value in location data come from what you do with the data.  Anyway…

Tony’s thinking raised the question over placing delay on location data as a privacy guard.  His blog post on the subject is over here.  I have taken the liberty of posting my response here and on his blog.

Hey Tony

I can totally see where you are coming from but a couple of points if I may;

The notion of applying a “false” location to things is of course technically feasible but to be caught deliberately falsifying one’s location would probably do one’s reputation more harm than any good it might achieve.  Far better to merely omit the location data in the first place than try to put people of the scent as it were.

I don’t want the operator to take control of my location.  Firstly if one lives in a low signal area or indeed a highly built up and populated (read cell overloaded) area then the operator’s true understanding of one’s location is actually pretty coarse.  Sure they could get all clever and pull timing data from each cell and trilaterate back at a central point BUT as you have already stated the API is silly expensive – it’s already been disrupted by the handset itself.

Secondly, and you’ve eluded to the privacy enhancing nature of such a service, even with a user-pays service provided by an operator I would have little faith that my location data would not be aggregated and mined for their own purposes.  Far better to leave the collection, aggregation and control with the user methinks.

So how would I approach this? Well…

Certainly the handset is the right place to gather the location information. Assisted GPS (aGPS) utilising any number of beacons from cell towers to wi-fi nodes to locate the phone is easily the most reliable method of getting an accurate location.  It’s what you do with it next that counts.

If one looks at the Fire Eagle service from Yahoo! (one of the first true identity information brokerage services IMO)  it allows one to post and update an accurate location from any number of applications.  Then the user is able to decide to which location gobbling services that location is shared and more importantly to which degree of accuracy is exposed.  In fact Google Latitude does this fine:coarse sharing but to a far lesser degree.

From a single metre accurate location update to Fire Eagle it would be possible to see one location service getting your locale (as opposed to location) being at a City level when another service gets it down to the street.

That then brings me on to the notion of time-shifting or delayed location.  It would be entirely possible to build a service that sits as a layer on top of Fire Eagle (with permissions for fine grained access probably) and allows one to add delay (or even decay) to the outgoing location sharing.

However to me it would seem a feature so valuable (not in monetary terms but in usability) that it would be far better baked straight in to Fire Eagle.

I’m certain this conversation has been had before however it seems to have sunk back into the murky waters of location based services as they all vie for superiority and control of the user’s data.  To that end I tip my hat and thank you for bringing it up again.

“Putting a Price on Data” or “Do Marketing People Get It?”

Here is my rapidly put together (and therefore apologies for it not necessarily being totally thought through) response to Ian Hitt’s post over on Reputation Online about “Putting a Price on Data.”

Many marketing professionals think that client data is something they own, have a right to or an ability to sell. Most data professionals will know they’re wrong.  Good data is indeed a corporate “asset” and if utilised appropriately have a high monetary value but…

The thing about client data is that most people in the marketing profession just don’t really understand “data” – sure they can get all righteous about lifeblood, insight and segmentation but actually data itself is not that simple; data is not a database.

Let’s break it “client data” down and see if we can’t get some clarity.

“Client” who’s client?

cli·ent  n.

1. The party for which professional services are rendered, as by an attorney.

2. A customer or patron: clients of the hotel.

3. A person using the services of a social services agency.

4. One that depends on the protection of another.

So from a marketing database perspective there are two clients; the first being the paying customer of the agency (ala point 1) and arguably the data subject, the end user about which data is collected (ala point 4).

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or a data professional) to work out that actually when marketing companies talk about a “client database” what they are actually referring to is the later; a database of stuff about any number of individual people, often collected overtime under various pretences and situations.

In this context the client (albeit often unwittingly) is an individual for whom they rely upon the protection of data about them by the database “owner” – or data controller.

“Data” who’s data?

da·ta  pl.n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)

1. Factual information, especially information organised for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.

2. Computer Science Numerical or other information represented in a form suitable for processing by computer.

3. Values derived from scientific experiments.

4. Plural of datum.

The key part here is point 1; data is factual information organised for analysis or decision making and is surely the cornerstone of marketing?

And so to my thoughts on Ian’s post.

A business does not “optimise the value of its database” it seeks to gain value from the quality of the analysis of the data held within that database.

Looking at a couple of Ian’s individual points;

“Volume is important but data quality is paramount. Every record has a value and the whole list needs to be viewed as part of the corporate asset.”

Quality of data is indeed paramount but the very traditional process of acquiring, storing and analysing personal data undertaken by the marketing industry is counter-productive to achieving high levels of data quality.   Why?  As an example think of some of the simplest personal data held by marketing databases; contact information.  My email address, telephone number, even my physical address are not concrete – they change in time.  It doesn’t matter how rigid one’s checking for a valid postcode or email address may be when gathering personal data is, if the data you are gathering naturally decays then you’ve failed.

Several marketing insight groups are starting to see the light here.  Why pay to acquire and store stuff that is by its very nature junk.  Far better to ask for the information as and when needed, never to store it (for anything more than easing end-user experience) and to just accept that 100% cleansed data is a myth – it can’t be done.

As for being a “corporate asset” well not really.  Firstly as with the example above, it is patently a liability to pay cold hard cash to gather, store, analyse upon and market to data that is incorrect.  Secondly a corporate doesn’t “own” the data per se.  I won’t get in to the philosophical arguments over whether data is in fact even “ownable” here but the asset lies not in the data but rather the relationship with the data subject and their willingness to maintain that relationship.

“Customer relevance is key, and marketers need to understand consumers in order to appropriately segment them and track their behaviour over time, so that they receive market information which is relevant to them.”

There is, in my opinion, value in trying to understand consumers over time – especially where the level of financial risk (normally through long product lead-times) is high.  However this is becoming harder and harder to do.  Aside from regulatory restriction the simple fact is that consumers are spreading their attention more thinly across an ever increasing number of online and offline properties.  To capture a picture of that consumer through any single database is likely to become less and less accurate.

Loyalty schemes are a good example of this failing.  Not your local coffee shop and their paper based card but the big ones, the Nectar cards of the industry.  To the consumer they offer a perception of value exchange based on their loyalty to certain brands, in reality they are price discriminators trying to force consumer choice into any single outlet within a vertical market – that’s why you only ever get a single supermarket, garage chain or clothing outlet per scheme.

But the reality of life is that average consumers don’t just use a single supermarket.  Take me for example.  I use our local Co-Op on a day to day basis, but they don’t sell a particular brand of cereal that #1 son likes, so we do a weekly shop in Waitrose or Sainsbury.  Of course if we are over the river in Thurrock we might pop in to the Tesco superstore or if at Bluewater we might hit up the local ASDA.  We are kind of loyal to Co-Op but situation matters.

So our share-of-wallet spending in Sainsbury (on the Nectar scheme) is not actually representative of our food spend.

And the same goes for any insight gathering activity.

The “simple” answer actually lies in flipping the model to where the consumer requests stuff from the marketing agency.  It’s a wonderful utopian idea, but one which I’m sufficiently pragmatic to accept is unlikely – at least anytime soon.

For me the mid-term solution lays in a third party providing aggregation for consumer behaviour at the bequest and under the control of the data subject, the consumer themselves.

This intermediary, a broker, would offer a service where the consumer can easily record, augment and share their data with businesses they want to.

This doesn’t mean the end of marketing insight – but it would spell the end of marketing databases.  The playing field would be levelled with marketing agencies competing on their ability to analyse the data to which they are given privileged access rather than who can build the biggest database.

“Emails and resulting data should be collected as a matter of course. There are numerous opportunities to collect emails from customers and it’s surprising how many companies don’t prioritise this activity. Emails should always be as personal as possible. It doesn’t take much effort to have one-to-one communications with thousands, or even millions of customers.”

The enlightened have long since realised that email based marketing really isn’t the way forward.  Sure if you send out a million emails for £1 and get a handful of responses it seems like great R.O.I – but honestly I don’t want to get into this, you all know there are better, smarter, more elegant solutions out there.

“Ensure compliancy.  It sounds obvious but ensuring your email collection policy is compliant with data law is even more important when you remember that the ICO has the power to fine you up to £500,000.”

For anyone that knows me, or even hears me speak on this issue, I apologise you already know what’s coming.

Why is it that whilst many CEOs “think that client data arrives on its own, costs nothing to source and has little or no value” that many Marketing Professional’s think that data compliance is;

• only worthy of a fourth place mention in a list of deriving value from data,
• a purely legal issue,
• and in the event of failure only going to cost £500,000?

Compliancy is at a minimum two part.  Sure remaining within the legal framework set out by the ICO matters – A LOT.  But don’t forget that actually any business holding personal data in the EU is also beholden to the higher and more punitive powers of the EU.

The second part to compliancy is the real sting though, and the one which is often (as here) forgotten.  Breaching data protection legislation may result in fines or restriction BUT it will most assuredly have a greater effect on a business’ reputation.

Consumer trust in businesses holding personal data is already under great scrutiny, breaching that trust could very well cost an awful lot more than £500,000.  Just ask Phorm.

Ads in My Twitter Stream – What Happened to Informed Consent Hootsuite?

A couple of days back I chose to follow my normal course of behaviour and play with any new Twitter clients for my much loved HTC Hero.  As yet there has been nothing on par with the truly awesome Gravity client on Nokia’s Series 60 by @janole so anything new gets a fair go.

I’d seen reviews of Hootsuite’s new client and after throwing a nice shiny baked ROM at the Hero I was able to download and install Hootsuite Lite.  There is a paid for version ($1.99 at time of writing) but as the only additional benefit I could see was the ability to handle more than 3 Twitter accounts (and I use but 1) there was little point in spending the cash just to see if it works.

Setup was simple enough, even though the you get hassled a couple of times to create a new Hootsuite account before being offered a connection to your Twitter account.

Now I’m not going to review the application other than to say it’s very usable, has some decent thinking around navigation and handles a Twitter account admirably – at least on par with the current leader Seesmic in my opinion.  But something odd happened after a feed refresh sometime on Saturday.

I was out and about, hit refresh and a curious new message appeared in my stream from someone I don’t follow.  This in itself given Twitter’s problems of last weeks with random tweets appearing was nothing too odd but this tweet had a different coloured background and the format of the message was odd.

I quickly sent out a tweet to the crowd asking if anyone else had seen these “ads” but everyone who responded hadn’t. Was this the first inkling of the much talked about Twitter advertising model.  If so it was pretty well exactly what I had expected it might be but had no knowledge of it having yet been enabled.

Of course being out and about research was a little hard to do.

So yesterday I sat down for half an hour and did some digging.  It turns out that Hootsuite have partnered with a third party Twitter advertising agency called 140Proof who’s model is to sell advertising messages injected directly into one’s stream by the client application.  They look and feel like tweets but they aren’t – they are put there ONLY in the application stream.

They are inoffensive and not at all obtrusive, as I said they pretty well looked and felt how I would expect a Twitter ad to be BUT I hadn’t asked for them and more importantly I couldn’t recall ever being informed that I was going to get them.  There were no signup T&C’s with the mobile app, no details easily found on Hootsuite’s web page, nothing.

A little more digging and it turns out that, according to this article on Techcrunch that,

Twitter clients pass 140 Proof a user ID list (with no names) and the public information contained in a Twitter users profile, and on the advertiser side, advertisers bid on ads to be directed toward users based on keywords in tweets, followers, as well as device, location and platform. 140 Proof’s algorithms calculates Twitterer’s “persona” based on public tweets and who they follow and serves ads to users based on this data.

YOU WHAT?  So without my permission Hootsuite passes my PI and graph to a third party who then does their thing with it, sells that bundle (anonymously granted) and throws back a targeted advert!

Now sure my stream is public and viewable by all but that doesn’t make it acceptable for a business to utilise that information for their own gain without at least first asking for permission.  What happens if you have a private non-publicly viewable Twitter stream?  Does Hootsuite not work or do they just blindly continue to pass that data on to 140 Proof?

I don’t mind the ads, they make sense, they (in theory and assuming I pay them attention) pay for Hootsuite to offer up their client for “free” (read no money there) but informed consent is required.

For the record NOT one of the adverts I  have seen over the last couple of days has been even vaguely “relevant” nor have I clicked through on any.

I’ll be having a chat with some people over just what consent they should have obtained as surely there must be a requirement in the EU but it’ll be more interesting to see just what sort of lifespan the 140 Proof model will have once Twitter actually do get their advertising live.

UPDATE: I am interested to hear from anyone who has knowledge of the BT/Phorm case being brought by the CPA;  specifically the abuse of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).

If Hootsuite are intercepting my profile and tweet stream and shipping it off (hashed or not) to 140Proof for analysis and spam would this constitute a breach also?

Don’t get me wrong I don’t want Hootsuite punished I just wonder if this is/were the case what would be their knowledge of the issue and how would the choose to address it.

Spotify Premium Now HALF-PRICE!

UPDATE 15 June 2010: The logs show this is still one of the most read posts on my site despite having been originally posted last October.  The half price offer was short lived BUT it transpired it was also only an introductory offer.  After six months Spotify just cut me off, no warning, no offer of renewing, nothing.  One morning (same day as their “social” features went live actually) it all stopped working.

I still think £9.99 a month is too high a price point for the service and so have not resubscribed.   Sorry but there are NO half price (or any other) offers coming out of Spotify right now.

Only a couple of weeks ago I posed the question on Twitter “would Spotify double uptake if they halved the price?” To which, of course the answer was no, and it was pointed out quite clearly.

Last week we had confirmation from 3UK that they would be releasing the HTC Hero with Spotify Premium baked in next month and hey guess what I’ve just had in my inbox…

Now I am really really tempted.  Having bought 5 or 6 albums in the last month alone at £4.99 a month with offline cache the Spotify model is starting to look attractive.

UPDATE (17:50):  Having just dry run the offer it looks like it is a one-time-use discount code so it is entirely possible the offer is only being made to i) existing Spotify users and ii) even that group may be in some way limited.  Let me know if you had the offer.

Was Vodafone’s PAYG Outage in Bad Faith?

Not being a VF UK user I was a little late to hear that apparently their PAYG topup mechanisms were out for the weekend – probably the busiest period of the week for PAYG users.

Mobile operators are not known for being the nicest of fairest of companies to deal with I know but given the ubiquity and essentialness of their service in modern life it does seem a little poor on VF’s part to not allow normally willing paying customers just to utilise the network whilst VF fanny around with their billing systems.

3UK – Resolution Reached

Okay I promise to try to keep this short(ish) but felt it only fair to actually post a note to say that a resolution has been reached over my protracted escaping from the clutches of the black-hole of customer service that is the mobile network 3.

Quick back-story for those not wanting to read the 2 part monster posts (here & here); I had cancelled, tried to leave, was prevented from doing so and then charged for the privilege of remaining an unwilling Customer.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – I am a very lucky person.  Lucky in that I have the great privilege of having met and maintained contact with plenty of really cool (and useful) people in the mobile industry.

I made a phone call to a senior 3 PR manager (who was on holiday), recounted the story and by the opening of play the following day the mythical 3 Executive Office was calling me to discuss.

Long story, cut short they were very apologetic, ensured the correct cancellations and credits were applied and sent me on my merry way.  Job done.

So to that lovely 3 pr manager, thank you.

To the delightful chap from 3 Executive, I thank you also.

To the senior 3 director who rang me afterwards to discuss the sneaky, underhand and downright dirty tactics of the UK’s mobile industry as a whole over the number portability – a huge thanks.

As a note: the limp and ineffective Ofcom are releasing their draft paper on number fast-portability in August, which will make for interesting reading.

So Long (3UK) and Thanks for all the Frustration – Part 2

Unilaterally moving the contract goalposts is not on when the Customer loses out, and especially not on when that same power is not offered up to the Customer – have you ever tried to break a mobile contract early, they normally demand your firstborn as an “Early Termination Fee” irrespective of the reasoning?

I Took the Out.

Well documented on the various mobile forums were tales of horrendously long calls, multiple hoops to jump and pathetic retention attempts by 3.  But being one for a challenge and having seen the text message from 3 that made it quite clear one was at right to terminate should one wish I leapt in.

And all the forum messages were right.

3UK: “As a goodwill gesture 3 would like to offer you £20 for the inconvenience”

Me: “No thanks. I want to cancel the contract as allowed for in clause 10(?) of the agreement”

3UK: “Have you used the 3 Like Home Service?  The new pricing is in line with the EU recommendations.”

Me: “Just NO.  I want to terminate my previously acceptable chaining to 3 for another 10 months (or so) as I no longer trust 3 won’t move those goal posts again.”

It took a number of conversations over a good 50 minutes BUT eventually I was given the terminations group and offered up a PAC for porting my number over to another network.  They even unlocked my phone for a fee, which I had to haggle down from £90 odd on the grounds that the move was initiated by 3’s actions.

And so I went my merry way.

Time for a New Service

Now I’d  like to be clear here – I like 3 as a brand; they are fresh, truly innovative (not just the usual mobile operators trick of pseudo-innovation by releasing a new pricing plan), have some great plans, lead the market with their mobile data offerings.  Hell they even offer up a few decent phones (where’s that Android handset?).

I like 3 to the point that in the following couple of weeks I even took notice of several of their newly announced shorter 30-day commitment plans.  Hell they offered EVERYTHING I had/used prior on contract for about half the price.

I visited a 3 Store and asked “Can I transfer my out of contract 3 mobile number to another 3 account, say a Pay As You Go or another contract?” which was of course met with an affirmative response – after all why wouldn’t 3 want to let me retain myself as a Customer

So last week, a good 8 odd days before the PAC expired I rang 3’s direct sales team on their 0800 number, explained what I was trying to do and ordered up a 30 day SIM.

“Just ring Customer Services once the SIM arrives and they’ll sort the number transfer”

Number Porting Pitfall 1

The SIM arrived on 29th June (the day before that PAC ran expired) so dutifully I rang through to 3 Customer Services only to be told, in no uncertain terms, that there was no way in the system my existing 3 number could be ported to this new 30 day SIM, however moving the number to a PAYG was easily done.

When I queried why I had even been sold the thing by 3 the silence was deafening.

A quick transfer to another department saw a mercifully short cancellation of said SIM and another call to Customer Service.

Number Porting Pitfall 2

The second Customer Service call was met with a similar response, it appeared that 3 was completely unable to transfer my number to ANY other product.

When I re-queried this the response was once again a true shocker;

3UK: “What I’d suggest Mr er….. Craggs is that you could use your PAC number as it has another day to go before expiring to transfer your number to another network, and then in 30 days transfer back to the 3 account you want.”

Me: “Seriously?  You are suggesting that I actually leave the 3 network to come back in a month?”

Now I love the self-belief that what ever experience I have with A.N.Other network for those 30 days will be so bad that I’ll forget all this crap and come back to 3, cap in hand begging for a deal.  But it’s hardly a sustainable retention plan is it?

Number Porting Pitfall 3

So with all haste I head over to O2’s website, check out some of their comparative plans, find myself not at all disgusted by the offerings and give them a quick call to check on that whole PAC thing.

Turns out that the 30 days expiry for a PAC isn’t 30 days to use the PAC, rather the whole process HAS to be completed within that timeframe.  Sure would have been nice to have known this previously.

Best go back to 3 and ask for another.

Number Porting Pitfall 4

Yup you read that right, a process put in place to try to make the whole porting of numbers between operators more Consumer friendly has failed me a fourth time.  It’s not entirely far to blame the porting system I know, it is at least if not more so 3’s failing but my patience is beginning to wane by now.

So back on the phone to the inevitably droll and awkward Customer Service for another session.

This time something a little different, which whilst a change was not a welcome one.

3UK: “I see you have another 9 months to go on your account.”

Me: “Really, someone hasn’t updated your system, I cancelled the contract 30 days ago and got a PAC”

3UK: “But you haven’t used that PAC and it has expired.”

Me: “No it hasn’t it expires today, but more to the point I’d like another PAC so that I can actually complete the number porting to another network as suggested by you yesterday.”

3UK: “Sure, but as the ability to cancel your contract based on the removal of the 3 Like Home service ended yesterday and you have another 9 months to go we’ll have to charge you an ETF and….”

Me: “Errr NO!  I’ve tried for over a week now to remain a 3 Customer via two attempts to port that number to a new account so the ONLY reason I need a new PAC is because 3 has effectively stalled me.”

3UK: “I understand but I’m sorry there is nothing we can do.”

Me: “Please escalate this to someone who can help or transfer me to the Glasgow team so they can help.”

3UK: “I’m sorry we have no number for Glasgow and no one here can further help.”

Me: “I know you do have a number for Glasgow and this really isn’t good enough.  3 have created the problem, 3 have mis-sold, mis-led and mis-informed me and now I want 3 to fix it.  Please give me another PAC.”

3UK: “I will go and talk to my manager who probably won’t be able to help [what’s the point of them then? bc]”…. after a couple of minutes.. “thank you for holding Mr er… Craggs, as a one off gesture we will waive the ETF and issue a new PAC.”

Rather obviously at this point I assume a win.  Now I know as a professional that one is never supposed to assume anythng but really this does look a lot like I am getting just what I have asked for, no?

No.

3UK: “Can you please just tell me again why you want to cancel your account?”

BC: “I can, but I have already cancelled it, 30 days ago but for clarity’s sake…” and I recount the whole saga AGAIN.

3UK: “Now there are just a couple of things I need to make you aware of with regards the PAC.”

Me: “Okay, no one told me anything about it last time but carry on.”

3UK: “You must use it within 30 days and we will send you out a final bill for the next 30 days.”

Me: “WHAT?!>?”!?  Er… you want to charge me a whole months fees for a service I neither want or can use once the transfer takes place, a service which I had cancelled, a service which I have tried to replace and have been held up by 3’s failings.  No.  I’m willing to pay pro rata for the month whilst the PAC takes effect for the transfer but nothing more.”

3UK: “I’m sorry but we can’t do that you will be charged for the whole 30 days.”

Me: “Right then, let’s have that PAC, I’ll cancel the direct debit and I’ll take the billing issue up with someone who CAN help.”

And that my patient and attentive friends is where we are at so far.  I have activated the porting process and by Friday should be a fully signed up O2 Customer.  Not because I wanted to change network, not because 3’s reception problems annoyed me and not because 3 didn’t offer exceptional value for money.

I’ve moved on because that value for money was delivered by cutting corners on the single most important function of any business; it’s customer service.

I’ve moved on because Customer Services, a single lone department, had destroyed my trust in the brand.

In this day and age businesses live and die by their after-sales service.

But What About That Final Bill?

Well right now it is unresolved but I am in a privilidged position.  I have contacts, I have friends – and a great many of them are working within the mobile industry.  I can (and have) made direct contact with 3 executives over this issue.

They will converse on my troubles and probably provide the that resolution.

Hopefully they will learn and change, saving all those other poor sods, without my priviledge, the trauma and pain of navigating the disaster that is 3 UK’s Customer Service.

(Oh) Dear 3UK – Part 1

For those of you game enough to have read any of my previous posts you’ll be aware that I do like a good rant, and none more so than about the generally contemptible excuse for Customer Service that so many UK based companies inflict upon their paying Customers.

Well not wanting to disappoint my mate Carl Martin, who even publicly recognises my need to vent, this is a tale of a true love/hate relationship, filled with joy, success and deep deep despair at just how lamentable my UK experience with the mobile network operator 3 has progressed.  And it’s a long one so to spare the impatient / ADHD / bored / uncaring I will split it into most probably 2 parts….

In the Beginning

Those of you who know me, or how have hung around here for a while also know that when my family moved back to the UK in Sep 08 we crowd sourced a mobile network service and ended up with 3 – they offered great deals, decent phones and were full of promise.

BUT no sooner was I signed up to an 18 month contract it all went downhill fast.

Issues of Goodwill

Only 3 weeks after signing up, 3 decided to drop the cost of the plan I was on by £5 a month but when asked refused to apply this reduction to my contract as it was already in play.  When I pointed out this seemed a little unfair the response I received was shocking;

“Whilst we cannot apply this new pricing to an existing plan please be assured that when it comes to your renewal date in 17 or so months we will offer you a far better deal than we ever would a new Customer.”

Now I know churn is a massive pain for MNOs and that they have whole departments dedicated to retention but honest, simple and transparent treatment of ALL Customers would surely make for a better model long term.

Note: in a similar situation with T-Mobile and the G1 price plans had seen those Customers having their plans reduced.

A Deliberate Mistruth

There was an issue with a referral payment from 3 not being paid; simply they pay an existing 3 subscriber a referral fee for new signups.  After a couple of months I queried the payment only to be told by the 3 referral team (in Maidenhead I believe) that “No such referral application was made” even though I clearly made a note of it when joining up.  Peeved I dropped the subject only to discover two separate referrals were also made, one via Quidco and another via a friend’s website, which had been refused on the grounds of an existing referral already being processed.

In other words I had been lied to by 3 about the issue, I can’t really see another way of putting it.

Needless to say a subsequent phone call quoting these pieces of evidence saw the referral rapidly paid.

99.5% Population Coverage?

And of course the usual coverage stick had to waved at 3 after a few weeks of missed and dropped calls, along with super-flaky 3G service (and 3 don’t provide GPRS fall back coverage any more).  Thankfully the lovely Whatleydude came to my immediate rescue with the Spinvox service meaning that at least I got those messages via email.

Now whilst EVERYONE has problems with coverage, and yes every MNO spends inordinate amounts throwing new cells up I’m not convinced anyone has had the response from their operator that I received when questioning 3, and I paraphrase;

3UK: “from where did you purchase your account?”

Me: “It’s on my account details but I bought it online whilst talking to a customer services rep via online chat who pointed me to your website which clearly shows full HSDPA coverage for our address, in fact it’s the same map they had in the 3 shop at Bluewater when I visited.”

3UK: “Ah”

Me: “Ah?”

3UK: “Well if you had bought the account whilst talking to our telephone sales team they would not have sold you an account, or at least have advised you that because you are in a marginal at best reception area.”

Me: “What?  But your map says…”

3UK: “Sure I understand but we have more accurate maps here and we wouldn’t have sold you the account.”

Me: “So 3 sold me an account that they should have known at the time I can’t use?”

3UK: “Well, err..”

Could I break the contract, no.  Was I mis-sold, maybe, probably.

Note: when I raised the question of those coverage maps with senior 3 UK managers at a meetup in Holborn they openly admit that there are a number in circulation (including at the time their website) which perhaps were not the best.

Data, Data Everywhere Nowhere & Filtering

An off shoot of the coverage reared it’s head during Q1 of 2009 when mysteriously 3G signals disappeared in the most curious of places.  Gerrymoth reported outages in the North, Freshplastic to the West of London and for me a train journey through S.E London saw vast areas without so much as a sniff at data.

Furthermore certain data utilising applications just didn’t work over 3’s network, from Nokia’s FriendView to Nimbuzz.  And despite much complaining 3 vehemently denied at first knowledge of the problem then responsibility or any suggestion that they might be filtering out services, preferring the old “it’s their fault” response.

No one has every actually admitted where in their network the fault laid BUT fix it they did – eventually.

As for the 3G data coverage, that kind of resolved itself for some but for Gerrymoth it was too much and he publicly ditched 3’s services.  Freshplastic I feel is probably not far behind.

Detrimental Changes to Contract Terms

And then, sometime in May, 3 went the extra mile to annoy me and every other travelling Customer by mucking around with their “3 Like Home” service and removing it from play just when i) the EU brought in legislation to regulate calls and text messaging costs across the region and ii) Vodafone launched their roaming charge removal for the summer.

A truly incredible piece of poor timing if you ask me.

They had changed the service offering in such a way to have a detrimental affect on it’s value to me and under the terms of the contract that meant I was allowed to terminate the contract without any penalty.

After all the crap I’d been through, 3 had opened the door and offered up was an out, an escape, a get our jail free from a contract not half way through.

And so this story of woe now begins, yup begins because what happened next really cemented just why 3UK achieved the lowest consumer rating in 2009 for a mobile network operator’s Customer Service.

Next time: So long (3UK) and thanks for all the fish, frustration.

Is Nokia Setting Itself Up for Failure with OVI Store?

 

Today (Monday 30th March) has been an interesting one with the release of Gravity by Jan Ole Suhr, sparking a lot of conversation on Twitter about pricing, distribution channels and adoption.

What has interested me about the conversations today was the thinking that as the S60 platform is so widespread that scale should allow the cost of apps to be less and that it was really only the lack of an Apple appstore type model for the S60 platform that prevented such adoption and therefore lower pricing.

Of course Nokia have had a directory of apps available on many of the S60 phones and are ramping up OVI to provide a full scale application store more akin to Apple’s offering but I think there may be something nasty lurking.  Something that may just derail Nokia’s efforts to build a centralised store from within.

The Groundworks

For many years Nokia users have grown accustomed to finding applications from developers on the web or via a number of well known stores such as Handango.  Those users were used to buying through a range of ecommerce providers, downloading and installing them themselves.  Those users were also, importantly, used taking responsibility for two key things;

1. ensuring that they only ran as many apps as their phone was capable of supporting at any one time or accepting the crashing from memory issues, and
2. not running applications concurrently that conflicted with resource requirements. 

In other words Nokia Smartphone users were anything but Normobs.  Nokia offered up devices that were designed to be pushed, to be played  with to be tweaked.  The Nokians responded by taking full advantage of this and the Normobs, well they used the phone pretty well out of the box as it did a lot very well indeed.

Another Paradigm Arises

Along came Apple with the iPhone which challenged and changed so many things in the mobile industry, not least of which was the attitude of Normobs to augment and extend their phone with a range of easily discoverable and affordable applications.

The app store was/is superbly simple to use. You find, you click, you play.  And because Apple had taken the decision early on not to allow such potential pitfalls as background tasks to occur, users could be fairly well assured that nothing they installed was likely to interfere with the core functionality of the phone itself.

Setting Up for a Fall

The landscape of users now pretty well falls into those who just use the device as intended (Normobs), those who will install and use apps in a managed environment (iPhoners) and those users who take on a whole pile of effort and responsibility to play with their devices (Nokians).  One could argue that G1 users are most alike to the Nokians in this model.

What Nokia’s OVI application store will do for users is afford Normobs the ability to discover, purchase and install applications in a more iPhoner way.

There is a problem I foresee.  S60 applications are far more complicated in nature that iPhone apps.  It’s C++ to HTML.  S60 apps are allowed and encouraged to utilise phone resources whilst in the background whereas iPhone apps are still awaiting the long promised polling from Apple.

I’m not arguing over which approach is the right one here.

But when OVI allows for applications to be easily installed onto S60 devices where those applications can compete for resource the stability of the device and in turn the user experience are in for a bashing.

How so?

Well if you install AppA & AppB on the iPhone, use and switch between them each closes down neatly leaving the path clear for the other.  The theory is the user never has to worry about the phone  not working as a phone or applications stalling core functionality.  The experience is always simple, easy and clean.

Switching between those same to apps on S60 no such rules are enforced and should there be a conflict, a memory leak or crash the user sees a fail. 

The issue for Nokia will be, I suspect, that users will blame OVI for the issue in much the same way Apple copped flak for such clashes.

Can the Fall be averted?

With so many people embedded into the iPod/iPhone mentallity of click and play sadly I suspect Nokia has left it far too late in the day to avert a PR disaster without spending truly huge sums of money on re-educating the public that apps bought through OVI just can’t be guaranteed to not create havoc in the same way that Apple can. 

Sure they could undertake an application testing/verification process but that would stiffle development and actually make things more expensive.

I have high hopes for OVI but after recent OVI experiences they are tempered with only moderate expectations.