Knowledge Base
Community

pre-loaded sims

Started by: mcilwraith
On: 01/02/2018 | 17:21
Replies: 65
Reply

by: paulg59830
on: 01/08/2018 | 17:46

@t_willwrote:

I've flagged this to our SIM distribution folks this morning - will let you know what they come back with, but hopefully we can sort this quickly. (EDIT: Have just heard back, and Asda are now aware and are on the case)

It would be interesting to know if the product name in the distributor catalogue has the wording  '£10 Goodybag' or if that's down to Argos. 

--

I've just spotted Sainsburys has virtually the same name 'Giffgaff £10 Goodybag Sim' so it sounds like it was decided upstream...

https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/gb/groceries/giff-gaff-trio-sim--132611671-p

Product description is also the same.

Message 61 of 66
by: ujo55
on: 01/08/2018 | 23:30
@paulg59830
I'm unsure of the names in the distributor catalogue, but for marketing reasons giffgaff sell the same sim in 3 different packages which can be ordered from gg for free or bought elsewhere for 50p - £1.
- The £10 goodybag SIM - currently sold at Argos for £10
- The £15 goodybag SIM - currently sold at Argos for £15
- The international SIM - currently sold at Argos for £1
The reason given is that this demonstrates part of the wide range of goodybags GG have to offer and which can be enjoyed by activating with the appropriate amount of money.

It is however very confusing, as any of the SIMs can be used with any of the goodybags.
Only with the updated packaging is it clear to the customer that the goodybag refereed to is not preloaded onto the SIM.
The description also seems to confuse retailers such Argos on this point.

So in this case it does seem giffgaff's marketing efforts have created confusion and indeed dissatisfaction rather than to positively promote the brand.

Message 62 of 66
by: paulg59830
on: 02/08/2018 | 13:04

Looks like Argos have pulled the £10 and £15 SIMs from their website today.

@ujo55
Yep, I've now read this whole thread. I can see how this came about but the official explanation doesn't hold up. Product packaging is usually taken to be what you're buying unless clearly stated otherwise.

 

similar to the example you gave earlier;
If you bought a '10x KitKat multipack' online, complete with nutrition information, calories, weight, only to find nothing inside other than empty wrappers and a reminder that you have to send away (and pay extra) to get the product, I think most people would call that deceptive.

 

It also shouldn't hinge on the price to give a clue that you're not getting the product. Since a retailer is free to charge whatever they want. Some products are also heavily discounted or done as a loss-leader to get customers on board. So that's no guarantee of clarity there. It can't all be explained away as an Argos pricing error.

 

As harrrrrry showed on post 25, they could've easily listed either all the goodybags or a selection, standardised the packaging and clearly stated the SIM requires a _separate_ topup voucher to be purchased or card payment, which would completely avoid this confusion. Just changing the wording slightly doesn't really cut it. Nor does a line in the small-print which says you need to 'apply' a top-up and opt in. Which could be taken to mean apply a voucher that you get when you buy the product.

 

The EE SIM examples in post 43 (page 5) by figment_uk are no clearer. They also rely on the price being substantially below £10, otherwise it's equally deceptive. It looks like all mobile operators have slipped into this style of product naming and packaging without Trading Standards getting involved. Surprising.

Message 63 of 66
by: harrrrrry
on: 02/08/2018 | 13:42

@ujo55 @t_will

 


- The £10 goodybag SIM - currently sold at Argos for £10

- The £15 goodybag SIM - currently sold at Argos for £15

- The international SIM - currently sold at Argos for £1

Until very recently, all three products were being sold for £1.

 

I'm guessing that argos did a "quick fix" on the live website when t_will previously investigated, but the change never found its way back to the source material. Consequently a server update has restored the error.

 

However, today only the £1 sim is listed on the site, so it looks like there has been at least another temporary fix.

 

Get a free giffgaff Sim

Message 64 of 66
by: harrrrrry
on: 02/08/2018 | 13:56

@paulg59830

 


It looks like all mobile operators have slipped into this style of product naming and packaging

I suspect there is one distributor that is behind all of this and is intentionally misrepresenting the networks in the same way. The distributor employs marketing people, and you've got to remember that most marketing people go to college to learn how to write copy that's intentionally deceptive without actually breaking the law. They know they can get away with it for at least a couple of years before the law catches up, and most of the time the law enforcers have better things to do (or are just too lazy) to properly deal with the more minor offences.

 

But giffgaff should be clamping down on the distributors and insisting that they tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Furthermore, they should insist that this must apply not just to giffgaff sims but to those of its competitors too.

 

Continuing to do it "because our competitors do it, therefore we have to too" isn't the way forward. Telling the whole truth has a marketing value too, if its handled properly.

 

Get a free giffgaff Sim

Message 65 of 66
Highlighted
by: paulg59830
on: 02/08/2018 | 16:56

@harrrrrrywrote:

@paulg59830

 


It looks like all mobile operators have slipped into this style of product naming and packaging

I suspect there is one distributor that is behind all of this and is intentionally misrepresenting the networks in the same way. The distributor employs marketing people, and you've got to remember that most marketing people go to college to learn how to write copy that's intentionally deceptive without actually breaking the law.

It seems unlikely that a company would completely hand over its branding to another organisation. Not without keeping close oversight, at least. Brand image is too important these days.

Message 66 of 66