Name And Shame! Which?

bs7

I agree with Martin 100%
But i'd go even further:

I've always been a little sceptical of Which? because of it's highly dubious marketing campaigns. Their marketing has always been remarkably similar to certain catalogue companies that are always informing you that you've been "specially" selected to receive some free gift.

I don't know why people can't see it but Which? tries to trick people into subscribing to their magazine. That is exactly what their marketing attempts to do by giving the impression of a massive prize if you subscribe. When you consider the main demographic for their magazine (i'm guessing that it's not usually targetted at teenagers ) it is likely that there will be some confusion by consumers who are perhaps at the most risk of being taken advantage of and need the most protection.

For a company that is meant to act on the behalf of consumers generally and has "super-complaint powers" their website doesn't offer much help to the consumer (unless you pay them for their information). It seems odd that Which? is generally allowed to operate behind the guise of it's charitable status when the majority of the company's business is run by the trading arm of the company (i'm sure most people wouldn't be aware of the different statuses of the arms of the Consumers Association, to which Martin has just refered to above): just look at their Financial Report 2003/4. Given a massive £56,496,000 "Trading Income" from the "The Trading Subsidiary - Which? Ltd" of this only £7,948,000 was used by "The Charity - Consumers' Association" for "Consumer research" and £1,865,000 for "Promoting consumer interests". Which? simply lacks any transparency which is pretty bad for a company that constantly complains about transparent pricing etc. Also i'm not sure if it's good value for money for the consumer at the end of the day either - only 28% of that "Trading Income" goes towards "activities in furtherance of the charity’s objects".

I think the problem with Which? is that the magazine is seen as an end rather than a means to their end (i.e. fighting for consumers' rights).

"Which? fights for consumers' rights in two ways. We campaign to make sure consumers get treated fairly. And we publish magazines, books and websites to help people make the right choice for them." But it's clear (according to their own figures) that one of these two "ways" is the prefered option. Clearly, publishing magazines, books and websites is the prefered goal rahter than campaigning to make sure consumers get treated fairly.

Perhaps it should read: "Which? fights for consumers' rights in two ways. We publish magazines, books and websites to help people make the right choice for them. And we campaign to make sure consumers get treated fairly."

desk_jockey

Martin you havn't given enough information on which (no pun intended ) to base an opinion. :-)

nemo183

Well, the prize draw I have always thought was tacky ... but having been a member for years, what got me to cancel was the more quality of info on reviews. I prime example was not mentioning 18866.co.uk on a review of cutting phone costs. In addition, editions that have featured anti-virus vendors, who are large and successful, whilst ignoring smaller vendors whose products I have found to be more effective.

On top of this, even being a member of most of the magazines, I was still expected to pay quite a substancial premium for access to the same info online.

I think they have just lost touch big time with the market. I reckon their custom base is just ageing, and hence although you could argue their "car reliability" tests are useful (although probably not as reliable as JD Power), when it comes to recommending cars in different classes - well, do they have no subscribers under 30?

Even on their previous areas of strength - ie white goods reliability testing, there is so much on sites like Ciao which offer similar info for free. On top of this, with a bit a shopping around, you can actually get a long term part & labour thingy which almost kicks reliability into the long grass.

However, it's just a personally view, but I reckon this MSE site is the final nail in the coffin - it's free, it's more up-to-date, it contains instant and well kept links.

rikthered

Agreed it's disappointing for a consumer champion to adopt such a shoddy marketing campaign.

Yet, you can submit a complaint online to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) - https://www.asa.org.uk - if it's misleading direct mail.

I did this last September on receiving a large, bright orange envelope from Which marked 'Data Express - Secure Documents' - 'Open Immediately - Urgent Reply Requested' on the grounds that the envelope misleadingly exaggerated the importance of the enclosed materials - i.e. the usual competition crap!

The ASA upheld the complaint but of course the Consumer's Association (Which) said this envelope would not be used again and the case was closed informally - seem to be off their mailing list though!

A few dozen more such complaints could make them rethink perhaps....

nemo183

Which? have been running these draws for as long as I can remember - so maybe they just work. On the other hand, I can't honestly remember them trying any other approach.

Whilst I won't bother to subscribe any longer, there is still a need for a body like this with clout to take up long term issues - eg banking charges in Northern Ireland - that take up more time and effort than MSE probably has time for.

Although, thinking about it, maybe with the numbers MSE has now, there might be a case for bombarding the monolopies commission with an organised protest via the site? Just a thought.

CAHA

Some comments.

I subscribe to Which? I use there reports as a guide and benefit from that.

I do not agree with this type of marketing. They get more free publicity each month on publication of each issue. Apart from the BBC who gets better no cost publicity than this.

I do not appreciate them using non-geographic telephone numbers to contact them. (Although they have now started a campaign against such tactics).

Although relatively new to Money Saving Expert have noticed when reading on the subjects that I am interested in a significant number of comments with strong political emphasis. I personally think using these boards to promote such strong political views is as tacky as the marketing campaigns by Which? and is undermining the quality of, what I consider to be, a brilliant website.

faineant

nemo183 wrote:

Well, the prize draw I have always thought was tacky ... but having been a member for years, what got me to cancel was the more quality of info on reviews.

On top of this, even being a member of most of the magazines, I was still expected to pay quite a substancial premium for access to the same info online.

I think they have just lost touch big time with the market.

However, it's just a personally view, but I reckon this MSE site is the final nail in the coffin - it's free, it's more up-to-date, it contains instant and well kept links.

Well said - I gave up on which? and the CA a long time ago for similar reasons. They think they their prime role is to publish the magazine and focus too much on the journalism and marketing (I think I heard that they now even get commission from selling recommended white goods!)

I gave up because I was fed up reading lengthy articles about consumer rights and then at the end of the third page or so found their disclaimer that the legal systems in Scotland and Northern Ireland were different, that the article only applied in England and Wales and other subscibers to write and request a copy of an alternative fact sheet for their country. I wrote to Helen Parker (a couple of times) to point out that as a full subscriber I should not have to make application for such information for their journalistic convenience. Needless to say I got a could-not-care-less response.

Previous posts made a rather unfortunate use of the term 'watchdog' - must have got Nicky Campbell shaking a bit, but no fears there, BBC and MSE are both worthy of top dog status. Well done Martin - what do you have to say Nicky?

burgers3

MSE_Martin wrote:

NAME AND SHAME! WHICH?

I thought long and hard about this, but there's no way round it. In my hand's a 'Which? £300,000 Double Fortune Draw', the type of shoddy marketing that gives companies a bad name.

For Which? to be doing it is shameful. I've huge respect for Consumers Association. It leads great campaigns, forces change and is a 'Super Consumer' in the Courts yet this has now been rebranded to Which? as well, so it's tarnished too. Hopefully some negative publicity will make it think.

Someone has to watch the Watchdog, so i'd like to know your thoughts?

I keep on getting them in the post so i no longer subscribe to Which

pmd

Great idea: I'm constantly irritated by these "Urgent" and "Important" documents, and worried at their impact on my 87-year-old parents. I'm delighted to hear that ASA are interested. If a lot of MSE readers get in the habit of contacting ASA when this sort of misleading direct mail arrives, we might collectively have an impact.

rikthered wrote:

Agreed it's disappointing for a consumer champion to adopt such a shoddy marketing campaign.

Yet, you can submit a complaint online to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) - https://www.asa.org.uk - if it's misleading direct mail.

I did this last September on receiving a large, bright orange envelope from Which marked 'Data Express - Secure Documents' - 'Open Immediately - Urgent Reply Requested' on the grounds that the envelope misleadingly exaggerated the importance of the enclosed materials - i.e. the usual competition crap!

The ASA upheld the complaint but of course the Consumer's Association (Which) said this envelope would not be used again and the case was closed informally - seem to be off their mailing list though!

A few dozen more such complaints could make them rethink perhaps....

scarlets_knees

Which? is a huge bugbear for me. I foolishly fell for the free gift, free 3 month trial and competiton entry pitch. Yet 3 months later NO reminder from Which - the consumer champion - that I would have to start paying, just a debit on my account. I was buying a number of items for my newborn at the time so decided to keep the subscription anyway, well I had paid for another 3 months. They constantly sent me pitches for other mags and when I moved they tried to sell me loads of things on the phone. When I finally got round to cancelling my subscription they effectively told me that I was stupid to trust anyone else but them and 'research on the internet was unreliable'm, ok it can be but not if you know where to look. I found their research to be pretty useless in most cases and anyway the articles seemed ot always end up in my free Metro newspaper days before my copy of Which arrived.

and don't get me started on their cheap shopping partners.....