SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 21
st, 2010 at 1:41am:
The point at issue is whether it will become the new 0845, after 0845 has perhaps gone the same way as 0870.
Obviously it's difficult to say exactly what will happen in the future, but the trend now for the private sector is more a move towards 0844 than move to 0845. I don't have any figures to back that up, it's just the impression I get.
The public sector has never really got into using 0844 numbers, and has instead stuck mainly to 0845. I don't think that any removal of premiums on 0845 (i.e. removal of support for revenue sharing) will push them onto 0844. I think that public sector bodies will either go 01/02/03 or stay with 0845.
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 21
st, 2010 at 1:41am:
Having invested in a number, businesses need a good reason to change. The temptation arising from higher termination fees has always been there. The fact that 0845 calls are now included in BT packages is (somewhat perversely) seen as a benefit in using 0845 numbers (the fact that they have for some time been actually cheaper than geo numbers when a package is not in effect is seen to be disregarded). If anything, the temptation to change is therefore currently lower than it has been. For the situation to turn around so markedly as to give 0844 preference over 0845 something radical would have to happen.
I cannot see how 0844 numbers are currently more easily marketed than 0845, as they are less familiar (if only slightly different) and there is at least some uncertainty about the cost of calling. The attempt to present the advantages of 0844 in the quoted 08Direct article indicates anything but ease! It appears to rely on what may happen in the future.
I think that both 0844 and 0845 have marketing potentials. Examples of the sort of claims made are:
- 0844 - "Calls cost less than the price of a local call with BT", "Calls cost no more than the standard price of a local call and you receive up to x pence per minute."
- 0845 - "Now included in call packages, your customers can call you at no extra cost and you can be paid for call received."
These three statements are true and the sorts of things that marketeers band about. They are, of course, economical with the truth, but crucially for providers that use them, they do the job and attract customers.
The GPs who use 0844 numbers are a great example of how this sort of marketing works. It gives the impression that these numbers give benefit to receivers (users of the numbers) without costing callers (much) more.
Whilst 0845 numbers may be more easily marketed, there are different providers out there and they each decide which type of number to push to potential customers. The 0844 numbers are more lucrative than 0845 for providers, which is probably why some promote them more heavily. Providers, in-turn, can afford to offer higher revenue payments with 0844 to attract customers.
Providers of 0845 numbers receive around 1.5 pence per minute whereas for the highest priced 0844 numbers (in BT band g6, which is 5 pence per minute inc VAT from BT lines) they get around 4.5 pence per minute. All things being equal, we would expect to see revenue share payments to users of 0844 numbers to be roughly 3 pence per minute greater than for 0845 numbers from the same provider. I don't believe that this is the case, hence providers are profitting more from 0844 numbers than 0845 numbers.
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 21
st, 2010 at 1:41am:
I cannot either see any compulsion in switching from 0845 to 0844 at present. This would only arise if revenue sharing ended on 0845 (as it has on 0870), i.e. the termination fee was reduced to the point where providers had to charge for the extra features of non-geographic numbers.
I agree, although the current level of uptake of 0844 numbers helps pave the way for more organisations to jump on the bandwagon. So should the time come when subsidies are removed from 0845 calls, it will be easier to promote 0844 as the alternative because others are using them.
Pages: 1
08 Direct - Avoid unwanted calls (Read 10,462 times)
