Baz
(continuing from my previous posting)
derrick wrote on Aug 15
th, 2009 at 10:32am:
... Consumer Protection Act 1987 (partIII), Misleading Price Indications ... Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 ... I will report you to the relevant authorities! ... Why are you continuing to mislead people?
Derrick has offered very good advice, referring to some of the regulations that any trader has to keep in mind when promoting his services. I suggest some relevant compliance issues that you may face.
- Offering only business numbers and not those from the general number database, any reference to the service being an alternative to the 118 services could be perceived as misleading.
- Given the existence of equivalent “free” services, claims about relative cost must be made with care.
- When claiming that competitors engage in “rip-offs”, one must ensure that any claim of not being engaged in similar activities is true and sustainable.
- Callers would expect to be aware of the priority given to clients when there are a number of providers of the same service. (One wonders how this very difficult area will be addressed.) A claim that every local provider is bound to offer better prices and a better service than every national chain may not be easy to prove.
- There will be great difficulties experienced in getting the service off the ground, when one needs clients in order to sell the service to callers and callers in order to sell the service to clients and sponsors. There is a severe danger of exaggerated or plainly false claims having to be made.
- Because you anticipate the service becoming a source of annoyance and perhaps serious threat to established providers of similar services then you must look at this from their point of view. Consider the compliance costs that they suffer, as their first point of attack is likely to be on any that you may be evading.
- I would suggest looking into the history of how other attempts to break into this market may have faltered through failure to adhere to regulations, so as to avoid repeating the mistakes of others.
derrick wrote on Aug 15
th, 2009 at 10:32am:
For gods sake, STOP calling them LO-CALL
I would advise against use of the term “lo-call” for another reason – it means PREMIUM RATE.
Revenue sharing calls operate on a number of levels in respect of the amount of revenue obtained and the consequent cost to the caller. The 084 ranges offer the
LOwest amounts of revenue when compared with 087, 09, 118 etc. and therefore are generally charged at the
LOwest premium rates.
The, now broken, historic link between 0845 and “
LOcal rate” is used to create a term that is accurate to some degree, but essentially wholly misleading. The “
LOw” is only with reference to other premium rates, not to rates in general, and the number ranges to which is applies have
never had any valid connection whatsoever with locality, indeed quite the opposite.
Dave wrote on Aug 15
th, 2009 at 2:03pm:
The charge rate cannot be changed by a third party mid-call. Thus, the call will be billed to the caller as per a 0345 number, regardless of where the RingLocal operator forwards it to.
It has been suggested that once BT ceases to block implementation of the necessary technology, this long-awaited capability will be made available. This could be very exciting for RingLocal, as it would be able to offer varying degrees of discount, or even perhaps cashback, according to the degree of willingness of clients to receive calls. (One assumes that it would never wish to use the potential for imposing variable surcharges).
Please forgive my cynicism and any rudeness when I state that I hope you know what you are doing and are not simply wasting our time with a pipe-dream, as opposed to discussing a business that is all set to launch in the near future. I post my comments in the hope that they will be of general interest as well as of potential value to a commercial operation. In truth, I focus more on the former, as they would not be offered free of charge if I seriously believed the latter.
There are plenty of good sources of business advice and forums for the discussion of business ideas. I suspect that the issues have only been raised here in the hope of endorsement from this website and “the campaign”.
Commercial arrangements regarding advertising on the website must be discussed with the site admin. I hope that other campaigners share my view that (sometimes with regret) we should refuse to offer any form of endorsement to any commercial offering, as to do so would risk undermining the integrity of our wide-ranging campaigning activities.
Alignment with one or more worthy commercial sponsors who underwrote certain campaign expenses, with their names attached openly to the campaign and being known to have subscribed to all of its declared objectives, would be another matter. That is however not where we are at present.
May I suggest to the moderators that this thread should be re-located within the “Call Providers” section of the Forum. It is dedicated to discussing a particular service provider, even though wider issues are being covered.