Skip to main content

Cost, value and worth - becoming ever confused

Two words seem to be very misunderstood out in marketing land - "cost", "worth" and "value".

I have to smile when I see the advertisements, most noticeably from the phone providers or phone bucket shops, for the "New super-duper Acme phone" which includes "free acme headphones worth £199".

Er. No.

Sorry chaps.

The headphones are not in any way "worth" £199. That £199 would be the "cost" of them in rip-off Britain. Not their worth. They are actually "worth" about £25, if that!

Oh! And they're not "free". The price has been factored into your phone contract. Which would be a few quid less a month if it didn't include the "free" headphones. Those that are worth £25.

Supermarkets are increasingly coming under scrutiny for their special offers that have been discovered to be not all that special after all. The buy one for £2.50 or two for £4 type of thing, when they've not really been on sale for the required previous period of time at £2.50, and were in fact price-hiked from £1.85 prior to the offer anyway.

The management trot out the not-unbelievable excuse that they have thousands of items on sale at any one time and mistakes do happen.

Well, a well-organised and rather simple spreadsheet would take care of that! You list your products down the left of the spreadsheet. You then list the prices across the top of the spreadsheet with the statutory date range and relevant prices. You then place your spreadsheet within easy access on your content management system and hey presto! The perfect mechanism for all management to monitor your prices.

Simples, and hardly rocket science!

And talking of "simples", although not the one that accompanies that phrase, one insurance site is offering a staggering 1,000 Nectar points if you take out an insurance policy with them. So you pay your several thousand pounds to get your car insured against someone looking at it, and immediately run up and down the street in joy clutching your 1,000 Nectar points...........worth £5.

Almost as bad as taking out one of those coffin policies clearly marked "you may not get back the sums you have paid in premiums" where they give you an incredibly cheap and nasty flat-screen tv as an incentive. Some "experts" have worked out that it may be better just to plonk your £5 a week into an ISA. Or under your mattress.

And talking of coffin policies. If one of the main ones in the North West can afford to let one of the big four supermarkets sell their policies, wouldn't it be more equitable and honest to stop and offer their existing customers the commission they are paying the supermarket, as a reduction. Then customers might just "get back the sums they have paid in premiums".

It really is appalling that consumer watchdogs and programmes on television such as "Watchdog" and "Rip-Off Britain" have to constantly monitor companies on our behalf, if only to overcome their sheer greed cleverly disguised as administration errors.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The "Win a Million" free scratch card newspaper inserts

One of those three-panel "Win a Million" scratchcards fell out of my newspaper this morning. Not a major or in anyway newsworthy event in itself, but I must admit my surprise. I didn't think anyone bothered with them anymore, or, to be a little more technical, I didn't think anyone was taken in by them anymore. Firstly, it actually is printed on the bottom of each panel that "Every card has a set of 3 matching symbols, 2 matching symbols and no matching symbols". Right, so you are going to 'win', half-win and not win respectively. Then, while the prize list is somewhat impressive with 1x£1m, 1x£100k, 2x£20k, 3x£10k and other things like holidays, tablet PC's city breaks all the way down to 1000 "faux" fashion watches, 1000 salon  makeovers and 1000xVIP Thames cruises. Now should I be stupid enough to spend the £1.53 a minute for the 6 minute phone call to claim my prize (that's almost a tenner, for those of you without cal

Chancellor's letter of apology to Bob Diamond of Barclays

Thanks to my contacts at the new News International business "Phonetaps'R'Us", I was exclusively sent a copy of a letter sent to the Chief Executive of Barclays Bank, Bob Diamond, from the Chancellor yesterday. "Dear Bob Trusting you and yours are well. Listen mate. Sorry the F inancially S tupid A sses wrote to your bank yesterday to demand £290million as a fine. It's nothing personal, and just because your bank head office people are a bunch of dishonest, thieving bastards, I thought there was no reason to carry on that way and fine you. I made this clear to the FSA yesterday as soon as I heard the news. I told them that the taxpayer would have been more than happy to bail you out. And also. Look mate. Sorry you've had to give up your bonus this year. It must have come as quite a shock, and was a wonderful thing for you to volunteer to do. I only hope you've put something by from the £17million you received last year. No doubt the bank pay

"Q". My name is Bond. Oh. not THAT Q.

I was sent a story today by a friend who knows my feelings on the subject - that is, about one of the consummately greatest of all British activities, namely, queuing. It seems some Danish Professor or other has come up with the theory that those who queue the longest should actually be served the last. He claims it makes purchasing something altogether more efficient and smooth through the idea of 'contra-queuing' (whatever the devil that may mean). 'Serve the people at the back of the queue first', he says, with profound wisdom. Altogether very professorial, albeit demonstrating a somewhat keen lack of understanding of the purchasing psyche. The Nobel Prize-chasing Prof suggests that if, for example, a popular entertainment act was to announce a tour, with tickets going on sale at 11am one morning, using the theory of 'contra-queuing', no one will want to be first to buy said tickets. So no one will turn up 14 months in advance and venues will