I read an ad once for vacancies for B&Q check out staff. The job description included 'the ability to strike up a relationship with the customer'. For what? I wondered. Ringing up items on a till, asking for the money, and giving change, noting the correct info on a cheque or doing the paperwork for a debit or credit card does involve skills, but I wouldn't describe this as developing a relationship.
Another example of a strangely worded job ad was for traffic wardens. The wording included 'wearing a smart uniform'. To what end? What use is a smart uniform if all car owners hate you?
When I worked for the health board, a national organisation was involved in a healthy eating campaign, targeted at low income groups. I could have understood brightly- coloured posters promoting apples or bananas. But ones recommending kumquats or mangos? A bog standard mango might well cost £1. A consideration for many of us when shopping. For someone surviving on a meagre wage or benefits, spending a £1 on a piece of fruit would be a joke. As for posters advocating the health benefits of a kumquat, get real. How many of us know what a kumquat is? A type of weedkiller? A Polynesian parrot?
These are kumquats, by the way
Estate agents providing photographs for property, especially rented ones, have much to learn. Recently we looked at an advertisement for a one bedroomed apartment in Lyon. There was only one photo: of the pantiled roof. Admittedly it was an attractive roof, but it left a question mark - was this bedroom inside or outside the building? Then there was the apartment in Grenoble featuring photos of the top right hand corner of a shower room and a garden wall, with a distinct absence of photos of bedrooms, sitting room or kitchen. Who, I ask myself, follows up an ad where the selected photography is so dire?
Other advertisements are shamefully inaccurate. I stumbled across one for a two bedroomed flat in Cornwall. The advertisement described the first bedroom, and continued to state 'the second bedroom is a pull out bed in the sitting room'. Am I being pedantic?
As for the holiday properties where the owners can't even be bothered to include photos... We're happy to take your money, they imply, but don't expect us to make any effort to show you what our apartment looks like. And - linked, if a different issue, are the websites which only include favourable reviews. We were caught out at Easter, with the house we rented in Cornwall. I should have been more on the case before booking. The one review displayed mentioned the superb location, but failed to say anything about the property itself. We know the house had been rented out for over 12 years, I thought it was odd that only one review featured. I am currently in communication with the company about what I consider a dishonest practice. Had we read an honest review of the drawbacks of his house, we wouldn't have chosen it.
Nor have banks escaped my wrath recently. Most people will be aware of scandalous practices, not least the loathsome custom of golden handshakes to high heid yins who have ripped off or otherwise squandered away pensions of those who can scarcely afford to be cheated. But smaller things rankle, too. The Halifax operates an Ultimate Reward Account. Recently I saw it advertised as being the only account which pays its customers £5 every month. What it neglected to add was that before customers receive this magnanimous sum, they have to pay £12. I've never gone in for graffitying, but I could imagine myself scrawling some derisory comment all over those deliberately misleading advertisements.
As for the food industry- don't get me started. As a former dietitian, I'm only too aware of how easy it is to fool the general public into thinking they're buying a better product than they actually are. Particular irritations include breakfast cereals advertised as being 'low fat'. Anyone with nutritional knowledge will know that unless a cereal contains nuts, and until it is drenched in whole fat milk, it will automatically be low in fat.
Buying online can be problematic - obvious. A few months ago I was seduced by an online advertisement featuring a supplement which promised wonderful results in the field of weight loss. Despite the fact that I trained as a dietitian, despite the fact that I should know better, I was successfully wooed and ordered, as advertised, a FREE 15 days' supply ( plus shipping costs, which were reasonable). The deal was - or so I believed - that if I didn't like the product, within two weeks of receiving it I should email the company to cancel any further orders. Failure to do so, would mean my bank account would be debited every month for the next four weeks' supply.
I did email the company. I also - simply out of interest -checked my bank statement only to find that I had been charged for a month's supply. It's very clever. It's very dishonest. The company advertises two weeks' worth of product for free but sends you four weeks' supply and therefore feels justified in charging you for what you haven't requested. I phoned the company to complain, they indicated I hadn't read the small print properly (perhaps I hadn't). Prompted by my angry comments, they agreed a compromise: they'd refund me for half of the amount. So, in fact, the two weeks' free offer wasn't free. The cynic or perhaps the realist in me says that this practice is deliberate. Potential customers assume they'll be sent 14 days supply free of charge, and find they've had to pay for a month's supply. With a debit card, of course, any companies can request the money from the bank, without your permission, once they have your bank details. It's different with a credit card, so my bank informed me when I went in to ask them not to honour any claims from this company. I am now older, poorer, certainly no thinner and probably not any wiser but much more cynical.
Be wary about buying this product online
(Incidentally, if anyone reading this has had similar experiences, I'd be interested to hear of them).
And finally - I hear the sighs of relief - again in the area of online advertising, as blogged about previously, I've become keen on buying from eBay. Mainly DVDs. Recently I purchased one, described as being 'like new'. it was watchable, although gradually the pictured started breaking up more frequently. As requested, I completed the feedback form, stating my dissatisfaction, only to receive shortly after a message from the seller offering to refund me but asking me to 'revise' my comments, i.e. to lie and say the product was fine. What do you think I did?
Disapprovingly yours
Jane
No comments:
Post a Comment