Hi,

Surely if a company wants to charge for a service it is in its right to do so? Am I not free to not use that service if I disagree with its way of doing business.
Is it OK to "game" the system this way?
I find this site useful but I am wondering if this is the right thing to do?
Supposing that companies were wrong to charge for these calls(although I suppose it is in their right) does that in turn give me the right to turn around and "game" the system?
Any comments appreciated!

I am completely baffled by your post on this site.  Put your question another way, is it right for organisations, whether public sector or private companies, to exploit and rip off customers/potential customers/clients?   Examples - my bank makes an error, why should I have to pay a premium to contact them to rectify THEIR mistake?  - my local county council fails in its duty to me as a resident - why should it cost me a premium to contact them to rectify the matter? -  as a member of the public, I am entitled to eg certain benefits, how ilogical that it should cost me to contact the relevant government department to either claim the benefit or, more usually, correct their errors?  In all these cases, I have already paid for the privsion of the service and should not be charged again for using it.

Other examples, I buy eg an electrical item, it malfunctions, why should I have to pay a premium to contact the company to rectify/repair their faulty goods?

The ONLY examples of reasonable use of any kind of premium rate number, in my view, relate to some of those who use 09 numbers, for example competition lines or dodgy adult lines where, if the caller is stupid enough to use them, they deserve to be exploited.

So, in answer to your question yes, it IS totally ethical to make any and every attempt within one's power to avoid being the victim of exploitation and, in some cases, virtual robbery, by cynical, underhand organisations.  Indeed, I would argue further that those of us who are able to find ways of avoiding these numbers have an actual public duty to find alternatives and publish them as widely as possible for the benefit of those who are less able to fight for themselves.

Barbara, I was going to comment on the OP's post but as you have done so rather eloquently I feel there is nothing for me to add, except to say I agree with your comments 100% [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Me thinks firemamba must be using one of these numbers himself and providing him with a good lifestyle ;D

The post is perfectly reasonable, not in the least baffling.

The most commonly stated point is that the charge levied by an organisation using a revenue sharing number is generally not advised. Because it is collected through a third party, who may add to or subtract from it, there is no clear visibility whatsoever. That is deemed by many to be unethical. [I share this view.]

The point raised by the OP however relates not to the ethical status of the misuser of a revenue sharing number, but that of those who seek to publish alternative numbers so that those who are willing and able to access this site may avoid paying the premium, whilst others incur it. [I see the database and the campaigning element of this site to be quite different, and sometimes at odds]

I would seriously question two positions. Firstly, that it is ethical to measure one's own ethical standards by reference to one's perception of the ethical standards of those whom one opposes; I say that it is not. Secondly, I have a severe problem with the idea that those who are stupid enough to participate in any form of lottery or to seek sexual gratification by telephone are somehow less worthy of concern than those who are intelligent and eloquent enough to complain about any injustice which they feel they may have suffered; if anything, I would tilt the balance of my concern in the opposite direction. The power that is held by the self-righteous complainer is one of the unhappy effects of our consumer society, not least by the way in which organisations are forced to adapt to accommodate it.

Where an alternative number offered is a direct alternative, giving precisely the same access, the only ethical issue is the additional cost burden that this places on other customers and users of the service. [This would be an issue for those who have a very (perhaps over-)strong sense of social equity. Mine is very strong, but does not pass that point.]

In many cases the published alternatives provide an alternative route to the desired service, or to an alternative service. This raises ethical issues in respect of the caller and the organisation called. Some callers take great joy in putting themselves and others to considerable trouble in order to score a victory that is worth far more to them than the money that is saved (if any). Those who fail to recognise that some numbers are not fully accepted alternatives may suffer. Those who answer calls to ill-chosen alternatives may be subjected to unwarranted abuse by callers who attempt to redefine their job function and responsibilities or attempt to hold them personally responsible for all manner of ills practiced by their employer or commissioning organisation. It is arguable as to whether the web site encourages or sanctions such behaviour. [I see those who demand that someone answering an inappropriate alternative number deals with their call as abusing that person, the organisation and the saynoto0870 database.]

A common ethical defence for the publication of alternative numbers is the suggestion that if enough people use the alternatives then the revenue sharing number will inevitably be taken out of use and that the loss of subsidy will inflict deserved punishment on those responsible for the misuse. I have yet to be convinced that these arguments are more than the familiar consumerist fallacy. The theory sounds great. I am however not aware of a single example of aggregated "consumer pressure" causing a revenue sharing number to be removed in favour of a published alternative. I would also think it unlikely that a tiny proportionate increase in the unit cost of handling some incoming telephone calls would have any significant bearing on the remuneration of the person responsible for the decision to use a revenue sharing number. [Many “consumer” campaigns against those seen to be acting badly, notably boycotts, make the participants feel good but do not actually have any real effect. There are exceptions, so I am keen to know where use of alternative numbers has ever been seen to have forced a change in policy.]

We have addressed the question of how far an organisation can truly possess a "moral personality", beyond the subjective perception of those who deal with it, and the extent to which this can be determined by the use of revenue sharing telephone numbers, elsewhere in this forum. [I address this point again below]

(Points added after initial posting are all shown in blue)

Mmmm, I think I have just about worked out what SilentCallsVictim means,   :-/  However  I still agree with Barbara  :)

Thanks, sherbert, I am still trying to comprehend SCV's post as it seems he is, as so often, looking through the opposite end of the telescope from the rest of us.   I frequently wonder at his link with this forum when he seems to differ so greatly with the aims of the majority of regular users.  I feel that my ethics/morals/principles have been insulted but cannot be certain......  I felt the OP was being either disingenuous or atempting a little mischief!

One further point to SCV: if, for example, when faced with the choice of a toll road or taking a different route which is free, am I unethical to avoid the toll and choose the free route (and, perhaps, publish it for the benefit of others)?   Indeed, whenever one is faced with the choice of having to pay extra (which is what we are talking about here) for something or choosing an option which does not cost extra how on earth can any reasonable person consider that unethical to take the no extra cost option??  If he feels yes, then I fear we have no common ground, if no, then what is his problem with avoiding additional charges on phone calls?

I have modified my earlier posting (in blue) to clarify my personal position, which sadly seems to be of more concern than the issues themselves.

For further clarification, I will confirm that for the private sector I see use of revenue sharing numbers as little more than an issue of price labelling. The fact that users of revenue sharing numbers do not themselves determine the actual level of the premium cost that is incurred provides them with a get-out.

I hope that Ofcom addresses this matter in the coming review, to set a maximum for the premium, over the cost of a geographic call, for each type of revenue sharing (and PRS) range. It can now impose such requirements on all providers. This would enable the phrase “calls cost up to x more than the cost of a chargeable geographic call” to be used in all cases and with confidence. If the requirements of the “NTS condition” are removed from BT as part of the recognition of it no longer holding SMP status, then that would disqualify any right to use BT rates as if typical.

I see the issue for the public sector as being quite different. Whilst the cost saving achieved by use of revenue sharing numbers in the private sector keeps other prices low, in the public sector this benefit is seen in levels of taxation (or public debt, i.e. future taxation). Apart from those cases where public services are delivered at a charge that can be declared, use of revenue sharing numbers, to subsidise the cost to taxpayers, is simply unacceptable.

I sometimes despair of the fact that contributors to this forum are invariably measured as being on one side or another of some great moral divide. Some project this same view onto the world in general. How can the Department for Transport be seen to have totally changed its nature and moral standing because it has now abandoned revenue sharing numbers in favour of 03xx? As with all other organisations, this was one relatively tiny decision in the midst of very many others. It was probably made by people who had no part in the original decision, but had been defending the status quo up to the day when it changed.

Can we turn our attention to the interesting topic of the ethical position of saynoto0870, rather than that of members who post and organisations that make mistakes, or maybe this position must be regarded as being beyond reproach in its own threads.

SCV, re the final paragraph of your most recent post here, I thought that is what we had been doing in confirming that we see the site as totally ethical, you (and the OP) seem to be the only ones with a problem here.

Re your comments about the private sector, there are two issues here, one regarding the dishonesty of making unspecified and undeclared additional charges or, as you term it, price labelling, the second relates to charging in a deceitful manner for those aspects of a service which should be included.  I think most of us on this forum find both aspects totally unacceptable.   I see after sales and enquiries as no different whether accessed by telephone or walking through a shop door and, so far, no one has tried to charge for the latter even though it probably costs more than a telephone system!!  As to how you can possibly say that to call a number that might differ from that selected by the company and make enquiry of the customer service operative answering is abuse ....well, words fail me.

As I believe others have said before, your sole interest with this site seems to relate to certain aspects of covert NHS charges whereas it has a much wider remit.    I wonder why you seek to undermine the efforts of those working so hard on behalf of others, I certainly appreciate their efforts.  

Let us clear up one point. Any private sector organisation that fails to fully reimburse ALL out of pocket expenses, or compensate for them in some way, when a customer has been the victim of an unsatisfactory product or service is failing in its ethical duty. If part of that expense is a premium charge for a telephone call then that should be included in the settlement. Use of revenue sharing numbers for booking, enquiry or after-sales service lines should be subject to proper price declaration, as fees may be deemed appropriate for these services.

Because we all own public sector bodies, we should not be in the same consumerist situation - the relationship is (or rather it should be) totally different. Where a fee has been charged for a public service, then its partial or total refund should be considered in the event of a service failure. Most public services should not be subject to usage fees anyway, and that includes those levied by means of a revenue sharing telephone number.

The failure to write about the possible abuse caused by ringing a different number and demanding the same service may be matched by a failure to read precisely what I had to say on the subject.

My concern about this issue is indeed focused on the public service, with the NHS at the head of the queue. This priority is set for a number of good reasons, not the least of which is "Surgery Line", although the "free at the point of need" mantra is another useful tool for campaigning. In almost every area of public service, use of revenue sharing numbers is wholly unacceptable. This is for reasons that are must broader than the shallow consumerist argument put forward to suggest their unacceptability in some limited areas of the private sector.

I do not believe that it is fair to describe my interest in these matters as "narrow". I think that this accusation would be more fairly levelled at saynoto0870 and forum members, if we are getting down to exchanges of this sort. I am very closely engaged with the way that Ofcom is dealing with the broader aspects of the issue, as referred to in my postings. I am surprised that nobody has commented on this, as I see it as paramount in the context of the way forward for the broader issues. I fear that many members are content to take the narrower view, expecting that nothing can be achieved, so that they can remain fixed in their opinions, with their prejudices reconfirmed.

I wonder if Dave, Daniel, other members on the admin team and NGMsGhost agree with SilentCallsVictim or is it only Barbara and I think that he has lost the plot.

Whilst I appreciate that SilentCallsVictim  does a lot of work doing the rounds in the television and radio studios and on his blogs and web sites and here, I have to say, l thought to consider myself quite bright, some of his post I find incomprehensible. ;D


 I thought the whole idea was to try and outlaw the use of these numbers, or am I missing something? :-/

The database of alternative numbers can be likened to going into a shop and saying that you don't want to pay the price shown for a particular item. With a telephone call this may be ringing a sales number because it's freephone, and requesting to be put through to customer services, for example. It's certainly wrong to abuse staff in a shop if they won't give you a discount.

I'm totally with sherbert on this 100% but is anyone else?

As for Dave's post, no one has suggested abusing those who answer telephones on whatever no, SCV seems to be suggesting (see sherbert's confusion which mirrors mine) that merely to call an alternative number and ask the person answering to deal with the matter or transfer one is in itself an abuse, this is, of course, arrant nonsense.   On that basis, one should only complain then to the person who made the decision to use an NGN, usually an unobtainable director.  When I complain generally, I always prefix my comments with the statement that I understand the person I am addressing is not responsible for the problem but they are the only contact I can make so can they either deal or transfer me up the chain to someone who can deal with it, there is then no excuse for rudeness on their part.   Of course, there are times, as for example with Barclaycard who automatically hang up on people when a very blunt manner from the caller is perfectly justified (without actual insults, of course!)  Also, with regard to Dave's analogy, if I don't like the price in one shop I can seek the item cheaper elsewhere (not the case with customer services etc) - compare with John Lewis's "never knowlingly undersold"! (OK, I know their online service has an 0845 number but this can be cirumvented via their shops - oh dear, there I am being abusive again!!)

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 9^th, 2010 at 1:47pm:

The failure to write about the possible abuse caused by ringing a different number and demanding the same service may be matched by a failure to read precisely what I had to say on the subject.

As the misunderstanding appears to continue, I will try to explain my point further. I quote the relevant paragraph as published, with some key words highlighted.


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 8^th, 2010 at 4:25pm:

In many cases the published alternatives provide an alternative route to the desired service, or to an alternative service. This raises ethical issues in respect of the caller and the organisation called. Some callers take great joy in putting themselves and others to considerable trouble in order to score a victory that is worth far more to them than the money that is saved (if any). Those who fail to recognise that some numbers are not fully accepted alternatives may suffer. Those who answer calls to ill-chosen alternatives may be subjected to unwarranted abuse by callers who attempt to redefine their job function and responsibilities or attempt to hold them personally responsible for all manner of ills practiced by their employer or commissioning organisation. It is arguable as to whether the web site encourages or sanctions such behaviour. [I see those who demand that someone answering an inappropriate alternative number deals with their call as abusing that person, the organisation and the saynoto0870 database.]

The highlights show the qualification of my comments that some appear to have been unable to read or understand. I will be happy to go into the meaning and relevance of each of these words and phrases, if requested.

I am unlikely to acquire any depth of shared understanding with those who subscribe (in significant measure) to the consumerist myths that competition is the answer to all of life’s ills and that the only way of securing the change we seek is by engaging in a formal complaints procedure.

I totally reject the former, and do all I can to avoid the latter when campaigning. I would be delighted to join in debate with those who seek to address the points that I actually make,  and am ready to offer clarification in response to a genuinely expressed desire to understand.

I believe that this is the proper purpose of a “discussion forum”, and find all of this presentation, challenge and defence of personal positions to be unhelpful to the cause that we are seeking to promote, as well as that of good debate. I believe that it matters little what I and other members think or do, furthermore I see little purpose in attempting an assessment of the moral character of organisations that use revenue sharing telephone numbers. We post here, using nicknames (rather than having to provide our full identity), so that we can discuss issues, not personalities.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 8^th, 2010 at 4:25pm:

In many cases the published alternatives provide an alternative route to the desired service, or to an alternative service. This raises ethical issues in respect of the caller and the organisation called. Some callers take great joy in putting themselves and others to considerable trouble in order to score a victory that is worth far more to them than the money that is saved (if any). Those who fail to recognise that some numbers are not fully accepted alternatives may suffer. Those who answer calls to ill-chosen alternatives may be subjected to unwarranted abuse by callers who attempt to redefine their job function and responsibilities or attempt to hold them personally responsible for all manner of ills practiced by their employer or commissioning organisation. It is arguable as to whether the web site encourages or sanctions such behaviour. [I see those who demand that someone answering an inappropriate alternative number deals with their call as abusing that person, the organisation and the saynoto0870 database.]

In friendship, SCV, may I say that in my experience of using the Sayno... database, in the vast majority of cases the alternative number is answered by the company or organisation welcome message and then I am through to the normal menu system.     In fact I cannot recall a single example, and I have used the Sayno.... database several times a week for several years, where I have found myself put through to "the wrong person" or directly to an office or extension that is not set up to answer large volumes of calls.    In other words, the Sayno... database usually holds the the correct underlying geographic numbers and using it does not cause any inconvenience or difficulty to the organisation called, in my experience..

I think, SCV, that where you refer to "an alternative route" or "an alternative service" you are actually referring the the very small minority of cases where a contributor has put an incorrect number on the database which may not go through to the correct "call centre" or have the usual company menu system.    Whilst I accept that this may cause some incovenience to the organisation let us not devote too much of our debate to this minority issue.   The fact is, in my experience, that the Sayno.... database provides mostly correct and legitimate alternative numbers and does not give rise to any problems for the receiving company or organisation.

I am often surprised to find that the alternative number on the database is an 0800 and I wonder why the organisation retains these numbers, at some expense to themselves, but never quote them on correspondence or literature.   They always seem to quote their 084/7 numbers and never mention the fact that they do have alternatives.

I do not think that "Some callers take great joy in putting themselves and others to considerable trouble in order to score a victory": I don't know of anyone who does that and I would have thought that it would be a fruitless and very time-consuming way to spend their time and they would soon give it up.    Judging by the bulk of the postings on this Forum I would say that most people are not troublemakers at all but simply want to contact organisations by phone at normal prices and want to avoid being ripped-off.  

I am very surprised that you think that this website may "encourage unwarranted abuse" when calling alternative numbers that turn out to not be the correct route.    I have seen no such suggestions from the officers of the site or indeed from any Forum contributors.   In fact I am constantly delighted and heartened by the generally high standard of discussion, politeness and even comradeship within this Forum and I would say that the majority hint or reveal in their postings that they are mature, responsible and reasonable people.   Several have said that when they have got through to the "wrong" department a polite request to be transferred often achieves the desired result without any abuse or ill feeling.   And this is the approach that I would advocate and I believe is used by most contributors around here.

There are other issues which have been raised on this thread as well as the main question about the ethical standing of this whole site.   I will comment on this in another posting as this one is already long enough.

In response to reply #14, I can only say that the ethical issues to which I referred do not arise where the conduct of those who contribute to and use the database is as described. I do recall hints of an alternative approach being mentioned in the forum, but I am not going to bother to cite examples as I am reluctant to get into detailed argument about particular cases when addressing a point of ethical principle.

I hope the point has been made and understood. I hope that we are discussing an interesting topic, not trying to reach a clear determination of an answer to the question posed by the OP.

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.

Continued from previous posting.


Secondly, we must ask the underlying and more fundamental question --- “is the existence and purpose of this site ethical?”    Ethics is a philosophical matter of moral standards and determining right from wrong.    So is this site wrong in collecting together geographical alternative numbers and making them available?    

As I understand it the vast majority of the geo numbers on this site are already published or publicly available and all that is being done is to obtain them legitimately and collect them together on an accessible database.   This is information sharing by members of the public in a responsible and harmless way.  I don't think there is anything wrong with doing that.    
There may be a few numbers obtained by some sort of deception but I think we must consider the majority and not the few exceptions.  

Some companies or organisations may say that making these numbers more widely available may damage their ability to operate their phone system and may damage their business as indeed NHS Direct did during our recent Freedom of Information” dispute with them.   I believe their claim was invalid in that case and would be invalid in most other possible cases.   This is shown in practice because almost always, and always in my experience, the geo number provided by this site gives normal access to the company call reception and menu procedures and the ongoing call is handled normally.   There is no detriment to the company concerned, other than the possible loss of unethically obtained revenue, and a significant benefit is obtained by the callers.    This is an ETHICAL response to an unethical practice by the phone service industry and the users of 084/7 numbers.    

So the Saynoto0870 site is ETHICAL.

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.

Here is where I am conflicted.

I assume that a company is in its rights to charge for its services. As a customer, one agrees to a contract (in my case with a mobile phone provider) and the terms and conditions of that contract when signing up.
It is therefore clear to the customer that, should he choose to use that company's services, he will be charged the rate stated on the "terms and conditions". Still as a customer, I feel angry when I am being put on hold and I am paying for it. The business model is obviously unfair to the customer and yet I am still free to refuse to use that company if I want. (although in many cases there are no alternatives) People may protest but isn't the company within its legal rights?

I think that it can be shown that these companies are clearly being unethical/immoral although not unlawful.  But this is nothing new. Examples can be multiplied. Similar situations can also be seen in the frivolous costs added by cheap airline companies or perhaps the habit of mobile phone companies locking their phones.

Unfortunately, it is obvious that moral right and wrong can often not be determined by the law of the land.

But here is my question: Is it Ok for me to exploit loopholes in a system just because they exist.  Of course it is legal, but assuming I want to be the most moral/ethical person I can be - is it right? That these companies are in the wrong seems obvious but that in no way justify me in doing wrong. Am I in fact doing wrong when I steal back what I feel should be rightfully mine? (ie those premium minutes)

The problem is that I can see how this could be wrong for me, but it is difficult to shell out the money when you are being put on hold for 30 minutes because they stuffed up some where along the line with your service.

So to reword my question: When is it right to "game" an unfair system assuming that we want to act in the most moral way possible?

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

... So to reword my question: When is it right to "game" an unfair system assuming that we want to act in the most moral way possible?

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.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 13^th, 2010 at 5:10pm:

Those who may be confused

I think we all are! ;D

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

To bring this matter into the realms of the real world and real problems, I have a current example.  I bought my husband a boxed set of DVDs for Christmas from the RT Entertainment catalogue which it seems is part of the Webb group.   My husband opened them yesterday and found they are faulty and will not play on our DVD player so I will have to contact them, they have also made an administrative error in not enclosing a despatch note although I have a copy of the order confirmation.   In other words, they have failed in their contract with me.  The only telephone number they give is an 0844.  Are those concerned about "ethics" saying that I am wrong to use the entry in the unverified database on this site and am morally obliged to use the 0844 as that is what the company has chosen to provide?   Is it being suggested that I am "abusing" the person who answers my call if I call the geo no?   I think it is about time a little consideration was given to justice (not the same as the law) and fairness and a little less to nitpicking hypotheses.

PS If I do have to call the geo no & it works, I will post accordingly.

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

To bring this matter into the realms of the real world and real problems, I have a current example.

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).

Then I see we have no common ground whatsoever in this matter.   At least it is now clear.

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

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.

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.

sherbert wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 1:26pm:

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

The point of fact is that when someone makes a purchase and pays a company (provider/shop etc) for the goods, the contract between the seller and purchaser does not, by law, have to include any clause that allows them to be taken back and monies refunded unless the goods are not as described including them being faulty, unless they were sold on the basis that they are faulty.

However, due to consumer pressure (that is, an effect of consumerism), retailers will often take items back and provide a full refund where a customer has changed their mind. Therefore, the company has generated no income for, but now has an item which has been used and must try and sell it in order to get some income on it. The costs incurred as a result of this customer changing his/her mind are therefore supported by customers of that company in general.



sherbert wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 1:26pm:

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

I am not aware that any suggestion has been made that customers should be forced to pay in this way. It has merely been pointed out the effects that these ways of doing things have.

I take it you understand the old saying that there's no such thing as a free lunch. What's wrong with pointing out how that free lunch is paid for?


SCV clearly states:

Quote:

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.

I totally agree with this principle.

Dave wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 2:35pm:

However, due to consumer pressure (that is, an effect of consumerism), retailers will often take items back and provide a full refund where a customer has changed their mind. Therefore, the company has generated no income for, but now has an item which has been used and must try and sell it in order to get some income on it. The costs incurred as a result of this customer changing his/her mind are therefore supported by customers of that company in general.

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/

It is perhaps a little unfair that this has developed into a discussion about charges for returns of unwanted goods, as the original point was clearly about an item that was faulty. I hope I was clear in expressing my dislike for the fact that the two situations have become confused. I repeat my assertion that in the case of an item being found to be faulty the full cost of the telephone call should be reimbursed.

There may be some who would support the use of restocking charges, not because these are paid as a bonus to the member of staff who receives the returned item, but because they enable the initial price of items to remain lower than they would have to be otherwise. We are not familiar with this approach and there may be circumstances in which they would be applied wrongly, however, with that caveat, I am inclined to see them as worthwhile and certainly not improper.

I do not advocate the use of revenue sharing numbers. I firmly believe that in situations where it is permissible to levy a service fee on a telephone caller, that fee should be openly declared. It may be "fair game" for some to try to avoid paying that fee by using alternative numbers. In the case of most public services, the NHS is one of a number of particularly outstanding cases, it is totally unacceptable for a fee to be charged. For me, the possibility of needing to declare the fee, or the need to have valid alternatives, simply does not arise as an issue worthy of ethical consideration as both are ruled out of order by the overriding nature of the total unacceptability of the situation, when considered as a matter of ethics.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 4:43pm:

It may be "fair game" for some to try to avoid paying that fee by using alternative numbers.

I actually do not see the difference between looking for a cheaper telephone number to use than looking for a cheaper brand of tea, coffee, soap etc.

sherbert wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 5:48pm:

I actually do not see the difference between looking for a cheaper telephone number to use than looking for a cheaper brand of tea, coffee, soap etc.

Getting the same service at a discounted price from the same provider, or indeed getting it for free, would be a better analogy. (We are only referring to the revenue share premium component of the cost of the telephone call - SAYNOTO0870.com is not focused on which provider offers the cheapest rates.)

In this respect, SAYNOTO0870.com is in the same position as MSE and the various "discount code" sites. This may be a perfectly healthy manifestation of consumerism, given the ethical qualifications that may apply to consumerism wherever it is found.

The difference for me arises in that the charges being avoided are generally not properly advised, and secondly, that they are applied in situations where they are wholly improper. This discussion forum extends beyond the issue of alternative number to address these points. That is why I am engaged here, giving particular attention to the latter, campaigning with a progressive focus that deliberately starts with the softest targets. I believe that an opportunity to address the former will arise in the course of this year, and intend to be fully engaged.

Some may believe that online retailers should publish their discount codes for all to use and some may believe that it is valid for public service providers to offer users a choice about what they pay for access. Those who hold these views (or fail to consider these issues) would not see any difference between SAYNOTO0870.COM and the other sites when assessing its ethical position.

I see the OP never responded again so clearly his intent was mischievous.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was a former employer, client or business acquaintance of SCV given that all of SCV's normal pro telecoms ripoff merchants processes of thought seem to have employed.  :o >:( [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 6^th, 2010 at 9:08pm:

... SCV's normal pro telecoms ripoff merchants processes of thought ...

One may cite, for example:


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jan 18^th, 2010 at 6:41pm:

... the revenue share premium component of the cost of the telephone call ... ... the charges being avoided are generally not properly advised, and secondly, that they are applied in situations where they are wholly improper

Are we simply falling out over whether certain charges would not be proper even if they were fully and clearly advised?