Dan Warne18 December 2007, 6:32 AM
Why don't tech companies just say what they mean? As a journalist, I'm sick of receiving essentially dishonest announcements from big tech companies.
Why don't tech companies just say what they mean? As a journalist, I'm sick of receiving essentially dishonest announcements from big tech companies.
Take, for example, Optus' press release announcing its cable speed upgrades, which stated:
"Optus has announced a speed upgrade on its Optus Cable Network. New and existing customers on the MyHome Broadband Cable and Optus ‘yes’ Fusion Cable plans accessing the network in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane will be able to enjoy speeds of up to 20Mbps."
Many journos reporting on this story fell into the trap I almost did; they thought Optus was offering the speed boost automatically to everyone on the cable network.
Indeed, one major publication reported:
"Customers on the upgraded cable network, which operates in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, would not be slugged with additional charges, the telco confirmed.
“We're not charging customers a premium to receive this additional speed ... existing and new customers would experience the upgrade automatically," Optus consumer group marketing director Michael Smith said.
That could not be further from the truth. The only people who will get the new speeds are people on Optus' very latest set of plans that were only introduced in the last month or so.
Everyone else, including people on the original Fusion plans which didn't have excess data charges, would be forced to switch to one of the new, considerably inferior value, plans.
I was only alerted to this because I said in my original story that people on 'Fusion' plans would get the speed upgrade automatically, and one of Optus' PR people contacted me to advise that only people on the 'Yes Fusion' Plans would get the free speed upgrade.
The email exchange went like this:
"One small thing: the upgrade is eligible for Optus ‘yes’ Fusion customers not Optus Fusion Cable. Simple wording thing," the PR person wrote.
"Is that a different plan to the Optus Fusion plan? I was just trying to differentiate between Optus Fusion ADSL and Optus Fusion Cable..." I wrote back to her.
"We call them Optus 'yes' Fusion," was her response.
"So will people who signed up to the original Optus Fusion plan which had no excess usage charges automatically get the speed upgrade?" I asked.
"New and existing customers on the MyHome Broadband Cable and Optus 'yes' Fusion Cable plans accessing the network in Sydney, Melbourne and risbane will be able to enjoy speeds of up to 20Mbps^," she said.
"Were the original Fusion plans called Optus 'yes' Fusion Cable? I'm just trying to get a straight answer out of you on whether ALL 'fusion' customers will be able to get the new speeds, or only the ones who have the excess usage fees on their plans," I replied.
"Only the customers on the new Optus 'yes' Fusion plans," she said.
"And the Optus 'yes' Fusion plans are the second iteration of the Fusion plans, right? The ones with excess usage fees?" I replied.
Finally, came the response I needed -- a single word email, "Yes."
I'd spent half my day trying to nail down Optus to admit that only people on the very newest plans would get the speed upgrade.
This is so typical of telcos. They make extremely minor changes to the names of plans to cover themselves legally, rather than making it clear that they are offering dramatically different plans.
Legally, technically, Optus wasn't dishonest in its press release, because it did name the applicable plans in one paragraph of its release.
But the overwhelming message from the release was that new and existing customers would get the new speeds at no extra cost, and that was supported by numerous quotes from an Optus executive saying just that.
What Optus neglected to point out is that the very vast majority of its customers would not be on these brand new plans, and therefore they'd have to change plan to get the new speeds.
Vodafone's faux pas
Vodafone is competing for the prize of dodgiest press release of the day today, issuing one with the headline, "Vodafone customers get unlimited data access on mobile"
What would your reading of this be? Could it be ... unlimited data access on your mobile if you're a Vodafone customer?
No, don't be silly.
It's a $5 per month deal for unlimited email and instant messaging, and another $8 per month package that provides unlimited access to YouTube, eBay, MySpace and RSVP. You can get both together for $9.95 a month.
While this is a very attractive deal -- $5 for unlimited email and instant messenger is actually very cheap -- it's not what the headline says it is. It is not unlimited data on your mobile, as it can't be used with any application installed on your phone.
According to the press release: Arthur Panos, Head of Infotainment at Vodafone Australia said, “It’s simple: customers want access to their favourite sites on their mobile, without paying a fortune, and this is what we’re delivering. With simple pricing and unlimited monthly access, Vodafone customers will be in control of their monthly spend.”
Well no, Arthur, actually, if customers want access to their favourite sites, they will get no benefit at all from this 'unlimited data' plan unless they happen to like the same few sites as the ones included in this deal.
Vodafone fails to point out anywhere on its press release that if you were to use a third party application like the Opera Mobile web browser, for example, you'd be paying data usage charges as per normal.
So much for "unlimited data on your mobile".
Meanwhile, Acer's ads have the endorsement of an IT journalist...?
Computer maker Acer is also taking its advertising to new limits with the voice of an "IT journalist" on its radio ads waxing lyrical about how great Acer laptops are.
Except it's not an IT journalist speaking. It's someone commisioned by the advertising agency to say they're an IT journalist.
Apparently the words in the ad are from a journalist called Xu Rong En, an IT journalist in Taiwan. The ad was created for the Taiwan market and then translated into English for local use.
To me, that transcends a certain boundary. Following Acer's logic, you could get a CIO of a company in an impoverished economy to say that some company's servers were by far the most reliable servers, and then 'translate' that into English and have a "CIO" speaking about how reliable the servers were.
What's my point?
These are just three cases of what I consider to be essentially misleading communications from big tech companies in the last few days. I'm not picking on these companies particularly -- journalists get sent announcements like these constantly from all over the place.
My point is it's one matter to be technically, legally correct, and another matter to present the facts plainly, honestly and completely.
In my opinion of the three cases above, none of them presented the facts without trying to obfuscate their true meaning.
As a tech journalist, I can spot where facts have been massaged to say something other than what they literally say. But many mainstream journos who aren't techy and are simply looking to fill column space with a quick tech story won't spot it, and ultimately the wrong message will be conveyed to consumers.
Australian tech companies have a duty to be more open and honest with the buying public. One has to wonder how the advertising standards regulator, the ACCC, would view these ads in light of the Trade Practices Act.