Hi There

I want to get this right and I am concerned that people understand the RingLocal programme but at the same time I do not want to contravene legislation so I invite your suggestions

RingLocal - That cannot change because of the expense and inconvenience it would cause

It is my intention to use the 0845 number in the first instance and then port to an 0345 number as soon as ofcom can carry out the change. I want to do this to enable mobile users to use the service without being ripped off by the network provider.

It is a local service for local people and I wish to use this term as this is true but I need to get the terminology right and I am open to suggestion in this regard

"RingLocal providing a local service for local people"       


Please post your suggestions

Dave wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2009 at 11:01am:



But the same charge for the call will be made regardless of distance, so as Ofcom, ASA, CASP etc, say the term should not be used, as it is meaningless!

bazzerfewi wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2009 at 11:37am:


Why are you flaffing around with this termonology? Why not call it 'geographical rate' and be done with it.

Basically the different tariffs are 'geographical rate' and 'premium rate' surely. Anything over the geographical rate is more, so therefore you are paying a premium?

Me thinks you may be out of your depth here.

Can I make a simple suggestion that may help end this confusion?

If a 0800 number is to be offered for landline callers, this would be the obvious choice for them to use over a 0845 / 0345 number.

Presumably caller location detection facilities will be deployed on non-geographic numbers, so that when the service is rolled out as intended callers will be directed to the appropriate local service within the call centre. I am guessing that the equivalent feature for mobile callers might be too expensive to deploy (but please correct me if I am wrong), which is why separate local numbers are being considered for each area.

If so, then the 0345/0845 number becomes redundant.

If not, then callers may be concerned that the already heavy cost burden that is being carried by sponsors and subscribers could limit the service to only those companies that are perhaps desperate for business. I am sure that there will have been difficulty recruiting national chains with local operations until such time as the return on their addition of this item to their promotions budget can be demonstrated.

---

If numbers for non-clients are to be given out, then one must hope that sufficient care will be taken to make it clear that these have been obtained properly and not pirated from some published source.

I note the apparently noble intentions, however nothing is "free" in the world of commerce. The wary consumer should be very suspicious of any service that appears to work more cheaply than an established norm, especially when it refers to competitors as rip-off merchants. That is not to say that it cannot be done, however there are probably far more tricksters than genuinely smart operators out there. (Considerable attention in this forum has been directed towards an operator that came up with a way of giving GPs a free telephone system).

I hope that there has been sufficient research to show that Barnsley people prefer services funded by advertising to ones that they pay for. The fortunes of local newspapers would provide a good basis for this, as well as showing the extent of the competition that the service faces.

bazzerfewi wrote on Aug 4^th, 2009 at 3:38pm:

The 0345 number will be inclusive from a landline, where a particular subscriber has an inclusive calls element at the time of calling. So use of the STD number does not mean that the call might be inclusive and the 0345 will not.

The only slight difference (spanner in the works, if you like) is with the Talk Talk tariffs which include local calls. So if the STD number is available and the caller is local to it, then in that instance the STD number will be the favourable option.

Some brief further comments.

My point about the "established norm" is that it is not seen to serve the best interests of customers and so someone comes along with something new that appears to break the rules, especially when it is "free" or considerably cheaper. The canny consumer will ask how it is that someone has managed to do things in a way that others have failed to do, and wonder where is the catch.

I note that the established norm includes directory enquiries services that are free to landline users. I called 0800 118 FREE (a service from the "Rip off" operators "The Number" owners of the much promoted 118118), listened to an advert from Interflora (a national service that supports local florists) and on asking the voice recognition system for a dry cleaners in Barnsley was given the number of the local branch of Johnsons, a national chain. I was then reminded of the wonderful service available from Interflora and offered the opportunity to be put through to them for free.

With my BT call plan in effect, a call to RingLocal would have cost me no more and no less. I would however have heard a different advert, been given a different number and possibly have been connected to an independent local dry cleaner that would have been paying for the call.

I understand the essential differences to be that RingLocal would not have ripped me off in the way that 0800 118 FREE did and it is strongly focused on independent local businesses, in particular on those who are prepared to pay for calls to be put through directly. Whilst it would have cost me less if I had called from my mobile (in my case, nothing), it would cost some callers more if calling from a landline.


The point about business that use 0800 numbers, or other means, to pay for sales enquiries has been discussed in the forum previously, but I will raise it again as it is relevant. There are some who believe that businesses who pay to receive sales calls are not to be preferred, for two reasons. Firstly, it makes them appear "too keen"; suggesting that they cannot rely on a good reputation for quality and value to cause people to be enthusiastic to secure their services requiring them to be enticed by meeting some of their expenses in making an enquiry. Secondly, there is no such thing as a "free lunch"; the cost  of receiving both failed and successful sales enquiries has to be met somehow, and this is likely to be reflected in higher prices, or less expenditure on the quality of the service delivered.

One punter on Dragon's Den was sent away with a flea in his ear for suggesting that use of 0800 numbers was the way to secure business. The suggestion was met with unanimous contempt from the panel. It may be that the people of Barnsley see things differently.

Dave wrote on Aug 5^th, 2009 at 10:39pm:

As the quote came from the end of a sentence referring to a decision to initially use 0345 (with a geo number in the Sayno database mentioned later), thereby ditching the earlier suggestions of 0800 and 0845, I assumed that it was the tariff for the 0345 calls that was being discussed.

If you are correct then I hope that Baz is not jeopardising his business by publishing his best possible price in a public forum.

I would have thought that, even though the greater costs of a 0800 number have been abandoned, a client would have to negotiate hard to get a rate as low as 2/3p per minute, assuming no other charges and the best outgoing rate as a cost base. Unless the income from sponsorship could be relied upon to more than cover all of the running costs and overheads, these fees would be the primary source of revenue for the business. By my rough calculations, an agent would have to be very productive (over 100 calls per hour) and onward calls fairly lengthy (over 5 minutes on average) to even cover incremental staffing costs at 3ppm.