We are told by the phone service industry and their apologists that the purpose of 084/7 numbers is to provide special facilities to companies and organisations such as call queueing, forwarding, redirecting, call recording, call management statistics, (although all of these may be just as effectively provided whilst using a geographic number).    In practice  the main reason for using 084/7 is to present a non-geographic appearance.   These facilities are all of benefit to the company and not to the caller.    The caller may benefit indirectly, by ultimately receiving a better service, but the immediate benefit is directed towards the company, and it is only the company that may procure, modify and evaluate the service being provided.    The company is able to move to another phone service provider if it finds that it can obtain a better service or a better price from another provider.   The caller, the customer or client of the company, has no control or real influence over the service or the provider of the service and is not involved at all in the choice of provider, service or charge.    This means that the company, or organisation, is the buyer and the phone service company is the seller in common trading terms.   The caller is not involved in the contract between the buyer and the seller at all so should not be involved in paying for the service at all.

The big problem with 084/7 numbers, as I see it, is that the phone service industry has developed a situation where the caller must pay a premium each time one of these numbers is used and usually the company does not pay although it is the direct customer of the phone service provider.  

Even worse, because of the practice of “revenue sharing”, the company often pays less for the number and sometimes earns revenue over and above the costs of renting the number.   The amazing situation even arises where the company can get more revenue the worse the service, due to call queueing and waiting for which the caller must pay.   The company is thereby incentivised to use an expensive and inefficient service rather than a better one.  (I am not saying they actually do choose a bad service always, just that they are incentivised this way by the structure of the 084/7 concept).   The “revenue share” element is especially bad because this leads, usually (although there are certain exceptions such as with some BT tariffs) to a higher price being levied on the caller without the callers agreement.   This idea is fundamentally wrong.  The idea that a company and a service provider engage in a contract for which a third party pays is wrong.   It is contrary to the normal established way of doing business that has evolved over the centuries and therefore I conclude that the whole concept of 084/7 revenue sharing numbers is UNETHICAL.   They should be banned altogether.

The introduction of the 03 range with its strict rules about charging callers no more than for geographic calls is an acceptable way for companies and organisations to obtain non-geographic numbers.    So now 084/7 numbers can be banned.

I have offered this view as background before addressing the question raised by firemamba :---

“Is the Saynoto0871 site ethical?”
Firstly, he asks if the companies have the right to charge for these calls as they do.   Plainly I believe they do not, and they are acting unethically.   He then asks if it is right for him, and all of us, to “game” the system.   In effect he is asking if this site should exist at all.     In addressing this question I would firstly say that I concur with SCV's point in posting #3 :---
"... that it is ethical to measureone's own ethical standards by reference to one's perception of the ethical standards of of those whom one opposes; I say that it is not."
In other words, if the other guy is doing wrong then it is ok for me to do something else wrong in return.    That way lies anarchy and loss of civility if not civilisation.    If they behave unethically then it is all right for us to behave unethically.   I say this is not a justification for unethical behaviour.  

Limited by size.  Continued in next posting.

Well said loddon.   Two points I would make.  Firstly, re para 3 of posting 16, it is my experience that the decision of an organisation to adopt eg an 0845 number moving from a geo one coincides exactly with a rapid decline in the level of customer service, (I would cite particularly Nationwide BS who used to be an excellent organisation whom I would have and did recommend to people, their staff also had a complete understanding of the problems related to the use of NGNs and the extra costs to callers).  They then changed to 0845 - suddenly the staff have a "couldn't care less" attitude, both on the phone and in branch, their incompetence levels rocket through the roof and errors proliferate alarmingly.  To me this indicates that a management at the highest level which sees customers as a "milch cow" rather than those who provide their jobs and who are to be served properly is happy to rip off same customers with a high cost telephone system for a very low quality service.  I know that there are many customers on Nationwide who also use this forum and share this experience.  (Note we have recently moved our main account from Nationwide because the service in the branch was so poor and 0845s are a no no.)

Secondly, from the second part of loddon's post, I have noticed with a number of organisations that ringing the geo number reduces or avoids call queueing which I see as further evidence that NGNs are adopted by some companies purely as a means of exploiting customers by revenue share costs on call queueing.

I consider both the approaches by organisations to which I refer as unethical.

firemamba wrote on Jan 13^th, 2010 at 2:50pm:

The moral dilemma is well presented. Any attempt to live a moral life is continually fraught with dilemmas. In my opinion, that is a sign of success not failure in the objective. Wisdom is achieved from the battle to resolve them.

It may be helpful to consider the effect of the "gaming" activity.

If you gain quicker or cheaper access to services than others, then you may want to feel that you are doing something to help them as well. Some users of alternative numbers feel that they are exerting effective "market pressure" that will lead to the eventual abandonment of the revenue sharing number - I have my doubts as to whether this effect is real or just imagined so as to relieve any sense of guilt or unfairness.

If the alternative number is perhaps answered by someone not ready to deal with the call, as if it had been made to the number being avoided, then moral issues are raised. If you politely ask for assistance, expressing gratitude if it is offered and politely withdrawing if not, then there cannot be any problem. I would differ with those who suggest that your view of the moral failing by the organisation being called gives licence for whatever, otherwise unacceptable, behaviour you may wish to engage in. There may be cases where a little "harmless" deception may smooth the way, however this may test your moral code.

On the broader point that is raised, there are difficulties in deciding whether ethics and morality can be truly applied to a corporate entity. If we try to personalise a moral and ethical duty, then where does this sit - a particular executive officer who made a decision, the executive officer currently in post who could make the necessary change, the principal executive officer of the body, all members or the chairman of the main board, those who elect or appoint the board (be they shareholders or public officers). One could also apply the duty to whoever one thinks could perhaps be in a position to effect the necessary change, wherever they may happen to sit. Anybody within the Political party in government, Ofcom, a particular telephone company or the whole telecoms industry, business or the public sector in general, those able to influence the ethical and moral standards of society (e.g. teachers and broadcasters) or whoever we happen to dislike or disagree with (I always blame Thatcher) are readily used in this type of situation.

My personal view is that corporate bodies should be regarded as amoral with a duty only to operate within whatever the terms of their own constitution may be, and the law. Those who are members of professional and trade bodies may well have signed up to operate having regard to particular ethical standards, however judgement of what is necessary for adherence rests with those bodies, as compliance with the law is a matter for the courts.

I would offer two thoughts of caution. I believe that it is dangerous to assume motive from an observed beneficial effect. Whilst it may, in some ways, benefit an organisation to have long queues of people waiting to be answered whilst paying for a call to a revenue sharing number, it does not necessarily follow that this is being done deliberately in all cases, even if some are known to exploit this as a matter of routine. Secondly, I would always be very cautious of any perceived experience that may reinforce an otherwise irrational view that I may hold. It is perfectly natural to note and recall experiences that support our view of the world, that is how we remain sane. We must however be careful in assuming that such opinions have any objective merit. If I held the view that service operations that are supported by financial subsidy from callers were bound to offer a lower quality of service than those without this benefit, and I reluctantly called their number with that expectation (as well as a measure of resentment) in my mind, it would perhaps be unsurprising to find that my view was reinforced by the experience.

Those who may be confused by a somewhat philosophical discourse may wish to consider what should be expected in a thread with a title such as that given to this.

Oh yes, sherbert, oh yes we are!!!   Have I wandered into a very pedantic philosophy evening class?

Barbara wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 10:05am:

If this posting is made in the hope of having the ethical issues raised by the example discussed in a thread aimed at such discussion, I am happy to oblige. Apologies to those who may regard such discussion as "Off-topic".

If the telephone conversation with the provider of the DVDs leads to an acknowledgment of error on the part of the provider, then the customer is entitled to full reimbursement of all costs reasonably incurred from the point of placing the order. This would include the full cost of the telephone call at whatever rate applied, as well as the cost of returning the faulty items.

The problem arises in this case, as in many others, because the provider offers to refund the purchase price in the event of dissatisfaction through no fault on their part. This means that the administrative cost of dealing with people who simply change their mind is factored into the prices paid by all. Some would say that it is not unreasonable for a little of this cost to be recovered through use of a revenue sharing number, as those availing themselves of this offer incur the cost of the return postage.

The ethics get confused because many people (in my view, falsely) believe that one has the right to change one's mind about a purchase and obtain a full refund. For this reason there is a common procedure for dealing with two quite different situations. This can help in avoiding silly squabbles about who is to blame for an item not being found satisfactory. The issue of incidental costs, such as that of the telephone call and the postage for the return of the goods does however separate the two and must be resolved in this case.

There is a strong argument in favour of those who offer a level of service beyond that demanded by the law and common ethics offering this through a channel  that is distinct from that used to deal with assured complaints about faulty goods. Common misunderstanding about alleged "rights" under the principles of consumerism sadly mean that the distinction is commonly blurred, leading to those who should incur no cost being treated in the same way as those for whom it is not unreasonable. In this case the provisions of the Distance Selling Regulations (which are founded on pragmatic consumerism, rather than ethical principles) add a further layer of confusion.

I hope that it would be possible to make the necessary point about the need for full reimbursement of costs without abusing anyone. To do so, it will however be necessary to establish beyond doubt that the fault lies with the provider, or cause this to be accepted. (I trust that this is not the familiar problem with DVD Region encoding.) Many would shy away from the effort needed, and fall back on the "no quibble" option of a refund only of the purchase price as being sufficient. (This danger will always exist whilst that option is in place. Consumerist ethicists would perhaps argue that the purchase price should include covering the cost of a cost-free no quibble return for all customers, on the basis that the customer's assessment that the product is unsatisfactory is all that is needed. I would disagree.)

On a broader ethical point, I see it as unacceptable that a 0844 number is advised without any indication that use of this revenue sharing number amounts to the imposition of a service fee. I do not myself see it as unethical that such a fee may be imposed, given that a) it is advised in an appropriate manner, and b) that it, along with the base cost of the telephone call and any other expenses reasonably incurred, is reimbursed in any case where goods are found to be faulty.

Do any other philosophy students have points they would wish to make, or shall we adjourn the class and continue our pedantic discussion over at the pub (where it perhaps belongs).

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 12:43pm:



So, SCV on that basis I assume you will be wanting cutomers who 'simply change their mind' when taking their purchases back to the customer service desk in the store from where they purchased them to be paying an an adminsitration fee to the person behind the counter to  supplement their wages?

Surley that is the difference between gross profits and net profits. Gross profits include all admin costs including packaging, wages, telephone calls etc etc.

By your posts from what I can understand, (although most of them do not make a lot of sense to me and others who send me PMs)is that  you seem to be advocaating that only doctors and NHS 08xxx numbers should have alternatives.

Why should customers be forced to pay to make an enquiry for what ever reason when enquiring about a service or a product?

I think the general consenus of members on this site is that there should be a geographical number alternative for for doctors, hospitals, and all companies who want our business. That is why there are numerous requests for them here and that is why Dave spends so much of his time compiling, editing and maintaining the database.

To be fair, I actually do not mind making a call to a 08xxx number if the call is answered promptly and the query is dealt with efficiently. What I object to and think most others object to, is making the call and to be kept waiting for ages and ages before the call is answered and you have racked up a huge bill before you have even started. Most of us think this is a good scam to rip off  customers

So, what I am saying is that people answering the telephones at the customer service centres are no different to those at the customer service desk at the shop and you would be a bit miffed if they charged you a service charge just for talking to them.

Dave wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 2:35pm:
As an aside, it is not uncommon for retailers here to charge what is known as a 'restocking fee' on returned goods that are not defective, for example where the consumer has simply changed his/her mind. It commonly applies to electronic items, and is typically between 10% and 20% of the purchase price.

As far as I am aware, restocking fees are absent in the UK.


Examples (data from 2006 - Circuit City no longer exists in a retail store capacity - store policies in bold)

Amazon.com      15% on any opened laptop or desktop computer.      N/A

Best Buy      15% for open-box returns of notebook computers, projectors, camcorders, digital cameras, radar detectors, GPS/navigation and in-car video systems.

25% restocking fee on special order products, including appliances.      Same as online.

Circuit City      15% for open-box returns of digital cameras, camcorders, desktop and notebook PCs, printers, scanners, projectors, PDAs, mobile video, GPS and radar detectors.      Same as online.

Home Depot      No restocking fees.      No restocking fees.

Overstock.com      Restocking fee of $4.95 per item (other rates apply for items from select categories below).

15% for items from the "Bulk Buys & Business Supplies" category, as well as electronics and computers.

25% for oversized items such as televisions and furniture.      N/A

Target      15% for camcorders, digital cameras, portable DVD players, portable electronics, framed art, gas-powered scooters and hot tubs.      Same as online.

Wal-Mart      No restocking fees.      No restocking fees.

Source: Taking Stock of Restocking Fees at SmartMoney.com http://www.smartmoney.com/spending/deals/taking-stock-of-restocking-fees-20014/