-
About
-
Visitors map
Jun
28
Just the facts, ma’am
Filed Under Media
Reading an article on the BBC website about the Crazy Frog scam made me realise something about the way journalists/reporters in the big media let off those who are getting away with murder…well, in this case, with a stream of verbiage to evade the problem. A normal PR practice you might say… but bear with me.
Hannah Bayman writes about how she fell for the TV advert inviting her to get the Crazy Frog ring-tone.
After texting a number on a television advert to get the
tone, I was bombarded with messages from Jamster inviting me to
download more tones. It wasn’t until my next bill arrived from Orange that I discovered each junk text from Jamster had cost me £3.Instead of ordering Crazy Frog’s Axel F as a one-off
tone, [I] had unwittingly subscribed to an expensive ring-tone account,
with Jamster sending premium rate reverse-charge texts every few days.
Outrageous. I stand by my description of this as a scam. As a result of many complaints, ring-tone-maker Jamster and its telephone service provider mBlox are being investigated. So far, so good. My beef is with the reporting of the following comment by Andrew Bud, mBlox’s executive chairman:
At mBlox, we look
after the transmission and settlement of messages for many well-known
brands, and we impress on all our clients the obligations and standards
they must adhere to under Icstis’ and operators’ codes of practice.
Now this is just meaningless pointless response, the kind of PR speak that does not address the problem or the questions posed. It is reported here for the world to see but the reporter leaves it at that. Why doesn’t she let rip with the outrage she must feel as she was one of the victims? Why doesn’t she say what she thinks about Mr Bud’s non-answer? Because she cannot be ‘biased’ and must report ‘impartially’, whatever that means. Just the facts, ma’am, so we don’t damage the MSM brand we write for…
Now wonder bloggers are gaining influence - the same quote on a blog would be flamed and spread on the wings of outrage through other blogs. Blogs do not compete with journalists on reporting and investigative journalism just yet, if ever, but they are certainly ahead of the MSM in calling spade a spade. So, the ‘internet power’ will go to blogs who will pick a fight rather than to those who have to adhere to the fallacy of objectivity…
Comments
14 Responses to “Just the facts, ma’am”
Leave a Reply
One of my work colleagues got caught by a very similar scam. In his case he was placed on a list in error, but he received daily messages from real estate agents, and was charged £2 for each message. The trouble was finding just who out of the real estate agency, the mobile network, and various “premium call facilitator” third parties was responsible. I am not sure if he managed to get these removed from his bill, although knowing the persistence level of the guy I suspect he did.
You’re pretty rude about me and what I said, but you’re basically mistaken.
I’m going to justify what I just wrote. mBlox does exactly what I said in my quote - we process the mobile phone billing transaction. It’s a very complicated telecommunications process which we do for hundreds of clients, and it’s all we do - the point is that we don’t run the Jamster service, nor do we have any part in the advertising, nor do we run the clubs, or anything like that. The ads say Jamster and they mean Jamster. We play a small part in the service and make a very small amount of money out of each transaction - pennnies. So the journalist could have let rip at us the way you have - but she’d simply have been pointing at the wrong target.
Since we have absolutely no control over the way our clients run their services, the most we can do is to make damn sure they understand their obligations under the rules that there are - ICSTIS, operators, industry codes. I helped write the industry code that stopped the first wave of subscription scams by people a lot nastier than Jamster late last year. We tell our clients, we impress on them that they are not mere formalities - but then it’s up to them - they’re the ones who will ultimately pay the consequences.
The BBC journalist omitted to note that, beacuse of that code, immediately after she subscribed she received a message telling her how much she was going to be billed, how often, and how to stop it. Pity, that. But there’s no doubt the situation is a mess at the moment, and people are angry, because the rules for how things must be advertised are very unclear. We’ve been pushing to get them tightened up, to avoid exactly this kind of confusion.
Unfortunately, the facts are always harder work than pre-packaged outrage, and sloppy journalism couldn’t care less.
Well, if anything I was rude about the journalist. Also, the words as quoted do come across as standard PR speak that does not address the issue at hand. So I stand by my criticism.
However, I really appreciate the explanation and thanks for bothering to comment here. This puts the ‘blame’, if there is any, into the journo’s court as she did not let you explain (or elaborated herself) the whole story in the article. Oops, now I am being rude about her…
Also, blogging about an article I saw in the form it was published is not rude… it’s what I see and as a result criticise. I glad you took the opportnity to explain here and the world is a more informed place as a result. Thank you.
Hi there, I’m the journalist and I am afraid I simply did not receive the text that Andrew Bud mentions. If I had, why on earth wouldn’t I have unsubscribed before receiving a phone bill doubled by reverse-charge texts? Many, many others have had a similar experience.
I explained exactly what happened to me in the article, without leaving out a single detail.
This includes the fact that when the texts began to arrive I visited the Jamster site to find out a) if I had subscribed by buying a single text and b) if I was being charged and if so how much. I was unable to find this information.
I also sent an email to Jamster’s customer service email address asking these questions and got an automated response, which did not give any information about cost, subscription or unsubscribing.
Hi again. I am pasting below the urls for two of the many sites on which consumers are discussing this issue, which might be of interest.
I’m sure Andrew Bud would agree that this level of consumer dissatisfaction with the ringtone industry is worrying.
http://www.blagger.com/db4/company_id/1229/companyname/Jamster.html
http://www.grumbletext.co.uk/
This blog is becoming a rather interesting place - the first place of dialogue between Hannah and me!
Hannah, we have tested Jamster’s service to ensure they are sending that first, crucial message, and they always do - they are punctilious about following the rules. Otherwise they’d be in breach of the industry code, and that would not be tolerated. If you didn’t receive it, I’d like to find out why. Could you please give me a call at mBlox (you have the number), tell us your mobile number, and we will trace what happened.
The implication of your story is that mBlox is basically responsible for your plight, and is somehow a serial offender. Both of those are utterly wrong. In my earlier post I hope I dispatched the first point. As to our ICSTIS track-record, since we have nearly 1000 clients it does occasionally happen that one of them breaks the rules. Our record is as good as the best in this industry.
I feel especially aggrieved because we have been industry leaders in trying to put things onto a better footing. Back in November, I initiated and led the industry side of the project that put in the first rules; then in the context of the consumer dissatisfaction you rightly highlight, about three weeks ago I initiated another round of consultations on tightening up the rules on advertising and promotion. I believe mBlox has had a very high reputation for diligence and good behaviour in the industry - just read what is said about us on Grumbletext.
As the largest processor of mobile payment transactions in the world, we care deeply about our reputation. When you propagate the story, I’d be grateful if you’d take care to ensure you don’t damage it gratuitously.
Fair points. I shall take the back seat here and learn. Communication is a wonderful thing…
Sparking off the conversations
When blogging about something that has caught your eye, sometimes the other people reading what you have written can add a new dimension to the subject. Over on Media Influencer, a seemingly off-hand blog about a controversy regarding some questionable…
Since we have absolutely no control over the way our clients run their services, the most we can do is to make damn sure they understand their obligations…
Can’t you refuse to do business with them? I mean, your opinion of their practices doesn’t seem to be very high. Why not refuse their business and set the bar a little higher? That you make only pennies out of their scam is hardly noble or even excusable.
From my (relatively uninformed) perspective, I wouldn’t say mBlox are to blame for Jamster’s abuses - any more than a supermarket would be guilty for selling me a kitchen knife if I stabbed someone with it. mBlox provide a service and - it appears - Jamster may be using that service incorrectly. The moral fault surely lies with Jamster, rather than mBlox.
What is striking to me is that the honest response in the blog comments here is far more enlightening than the original quote featured on the BBC website. Proof that the discussion-oriented approach of blogs is better than the top-down reporting of traditional media?
Sparking off the conversations
When blogging about something that has caught your eye, sometimes the other people reading what you have written can add a new dimension to the subject. Over on Media Influencer, a seemingly off-hand blog about a controversy regarding some questionable…
Certainly the reply by Andrew Bud is far more satisfying than the PR speak that was quoted (correctly or incorrectly) in the newspaper article. He has taken a meaningful position, with which one can agree or not, and that has to be a good thing.
I can just about conceive why someone might feel £3 was worth paying for a ringtone. It’s another way of getting your fix of teen cool, even if that’s a frog with crap sound quality.
However, perhaps Andrew Bud can explain to us why the world is a better place now that penurious teenagers can sign up for regular expensive delivery of ringtones chosen by someone else.
Almost every recurring charge sale of this sort is of extremely dubious value (think book clubs or collectable china). mBlox may be following the law precisely, but the ethics of the ringtone industry are still up the wazoo.
Frankly I’d see the industry as more honest if they were peddling weed. At least kids would get a decent high out of the bargain.
A Blogging Case Study
Blogs are all about conversations … yeah right, I hear you say. Well, if anyone is in any doubt that blogs can stimulate an often more informative and stimulating debate than main stream media, then head over to Media Influencer.