Jumped onto their online shop.

Navigation failed to turn up anything relevant.

So I used search.

“Disk mailer” — no results (and no helpful suggestions).

“Disk” — no results

Hmmm, so I grabbed one of the mailers off the shelf that I have (a few left, need more!).

Ah ha!

“Computer Disk & Photo Mailer” — no results.

Product code on the product is “DP” — no results.

Size is 150mm x 200mm … so “150mm” — no results.

Went to their online pdf catalogue … finally found the product with a new product code.

“Bx9″ — no results.

“CDs And Photos” as it is called now — no results.

Seven separate searches for the product … using the old name, old code, new name, new code, common “tag” words … nothing.

Zilch, zip, nada.

I wonder if a real user actually tested their online shop or search feature?

I guess now they don’t sell their own products in their online shop.

But nothing — nothing at all — informed me about that in their search pages or results.

Finally I found they also have an online stationery shop.

Great, it must be there!

No results.

They don’t even sell their own products in their stationery shop.

Can it get worse?

Yep!

In the online PDF catalogue I found earlier, I get to “print” the sheet with the product on it.

But not to order it.

Not even “how to order”.

The printed sheet defaults to Sydney 2000 to find the nearest postal outlet.

So I reset that to my postcode.

And then on that printed sheet — NONE of the three nearest postal outlets that stock this item are listed!

Not my town, or the nearest two towns.

Only the big “shops” not the licensed postal outlets — that all stock this item.

No wonder they say they face “challenges ahead.”

Powered by Twitter Tools

Powered by Twitter Tools

)))) Get a Google+ invite here: join Plus project circle http://t.co/9WESokO #

Powered by Twitter Tools

Powered by Twitter Tools

Big graphic displays “Only $27.60″ with a much smaller “per month” underneath, and then “SAVE OVER $96″ underneath, with a much smaller “per year”.

In other words, it could be a yearly comparison: “Only $331.20 per year — Save over $96″.

Or just having it monthly: “Only $27.60 per month, save over $8″.

Or, much worse, swapping the year and monthly figures: “Only $331.20 per year — Save over $8 per month.”

None of the other pricing options look particularly persuasive or appealing, do they?

Keep this in mind as a consumer and as a business owner!

The pricing claim is certainly factual, but by being “creative” about the amounts, it is presented in a much more persuasive manner than it would be if you solely used yearly OR monthly pricing in the claim.

It’s often a common marketing “challenge” for copywriters to get attention promoting products as the new year arrives, as it seems to be that time of year when there’s quite a clutter of similar “new year, great time to take action and finally get what you want” offers, across a whole lot of industries.

(That many people ONLY look at making plans for 2011 by way of a “new year’s resolution” once at the start of the year, and then do nothing about it for 12 more months — well that’s a whole other opinion piece and may offend! But I’m getting distracted here. Back to John.).

So when you come across something like John Carlton’s post for his 2011 Action Seminar, you know you’re reading a master at work … well worth a good, close read!

My mobile/cell phone contract has just under 6 months (of 24) to go, and that includes 4 x $10 handset payments remaining.

I wanted a new iPhone4. Happy to have a new 24-month contract, and increase my monthly minimum spend by $30 per month to be on the relevant $79pm plan.

However, my provider wants me to pay out — in full — the remaining 6 months of my existing contract, even though I’m suggesting to them I increase my monthly spend by a minimum 61 per cent, and re-sign for another 24 months.

That’s rather crazy from the consumer’s point of view.

I would have expected the $40 in handset payments to go to a new plan, but not to both pay $49 per month for the next 6 months AND $79 per month on the new contract.

That’s double dipping.

And they’re potentially missing out on my business after this 6 months is up.

All for not seeing $40 in what’s fair to payout the remaining payments on my current handset cost, instead of $294 for the remainder of the monthly spend (plus the $40 anyway!).

What the????

Or … if they were really innovative and flexible, they’d say YES (now you might figure out who they are) and start my new $79 per month plan for 24 months from May 2011 (I would have agreed to that), and increased my monthly plan anyway in the meantime from $49 to $79 per month.

That’d keep my business for the next 30 months.

Here’s a customer offering to spend 61 per cent more per month and go onto a new 24 month contract.

But they’re too short-sighted to see that.

And now I’m looking for a new Telco.

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Powered by Twitter Tools.