New go card fares ? effective 4 August 2008

[ozbob]

http://www.translink.com.au/qt/translin.nsf/index/go_fees

Frequent user scheme

Frequent user scheme - effective 4 August 2008

In addition to the fare discounts, passengers who travel more than 10 journeys in any one week (Monday to Sunday) will qualify for the frequent user scheme.

Regardless of whether you travel by bus, train or ferry, go card will automatically provide a 50% discount on every trip taken after the tenth journey in a seven day period from Monday to Sunday, regardless of the number of zones travelled. The TransLink frequent user scheme resets every Monday.

For example, a customer who makes ten journeys through two zones during the weekdays Monday to Friday, will receive the upfront discount on each journey made. Then once qualified for the frequent user discount, will receive an additional 50% discount on travel if they take a 15 zone journey on Saturday.

Fare table --> http://www.translink.com.au/qt/translin.nsf/index/go_fees#fares

Fees and charges -->  http://www.translink.com.au/qt/translin.nsf/index/go_fees#fees

I am sure commuters can use the new fares to their advantage with a bit of thought.

Capping (daily / weekly / monthly) and off peak would make it complete!

Bring it on!!   

[Derwan]

Good news re the 50% discount.  It's actually 50% off the already discounted price.  (I was worried it was going to be 50% off the cost of a PAPER ticket.)

In other words, after the 10th trip, you receive a 60% discount compared to the cost of peak paper tickets.

Of course, for most people the discount applies on the weekend which would usually attract the price of an off-peak daily.  Compared to this, it's a 47.3% discount.

Speaking of weekend off-peak tickets, I noticed signs on the AVVM's at Northgate instructing passengers to use the off-peak daily option on weekends.

[ozbob]

These ads have started to appear in the press.

[Derwan]

I've seen these ads and to me it's false advertising - similar to what some phone companies have been prosecuted over in the past.

"Now at least 20% cheaper" implies that using the Go Card will always be 20% cheaper than alternative options when the fact is that where 10 trips occur in one week, a weekly ticket will be of equal or BETTER value.

It then infers that the 50% discount that applies Go Card users who do more than 10 trips per week actually saves them more than their paper-ticket counterparts when in fact a weekly ticket is capped resulting in a 100% discount (if travelled within the zones indicated on the weekly ticket).

Sure, advertise the "Changed fare structure" and explain what it means, but don't stoop to the level of false advertising to lure people in!!  Let people know that a weekly paper ticket may be cheaper, but, "The convenience of the Go Card makes it worth it."  You can advertise the positives without being deceptive.  (Of course it'd be nice if there were more positives about the Go Card - 'cause then it'd sell itself!)

[K_Nikora]

Derwan,
One of the most advertised and well known things about the go card is that the product charges per single journey. Thus the advertisement is not misleading at all, as the go card is 20% cheaper than single paper ticket prices. (Or 30%/35% etc, depending on your zones travelled.)
I don't particularly see anything wrong with these new advertisements, and it clearly leads people to the website for more product information. I think there comes a time that we must stop holding TransLink accountable for our inability to do our own research. People don't rush out to buy a credit card after seeing one advertisement for them, you compare your prices, talk to the banks and shop around. Why is it so difficult for the average commuter to apply the same logic to the go card?

[dwb]

Today I used the KGS busway station and there were workers installing large banners on the terracotta tiled poles with the "Go card at least 20% cheaper" slogan, similar to the small adverts that have been in the papers recently.  When I got to the platform level each of the columns had the same large advertisement.  I think the average consumer would interpret the statement to mean "Go card is 20% cheaper than any product we sell for Translink travel".... this is simply not true. I find this statement misleading and inappropriate. For many travellers Go card will not be at least 20% cheaper than the option they are using. It may not even be cheaper at all. It could be two or three times the price of the product they are currently purchasing off Translink for their public transport travel.  It is NOT widely understood that Go card ONLY calculates using FULL price singles and that there is no daily, weekly or monthly capping.  For those users who currently use monthly or weekly or even daily tickets they already know what they are being charged and they take 20% off and they think that is a good deal.  I think advertising like this simply undermines any remaining trust that consumers may have in Translink.  I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect Translink to deal with consumers in an honest fashion.  This misleading advertising is NOT a clear and accurate reflection of the product or its pricing.  All this advert requires is the addition of "than Singles*" with "*Off peak, weekly, monthly and QR ticket types may still offer a greater level of discount" in a smaller font at the bottom.

I have rung Translink today and have made a complaint. I expect (and was promised) a written response within 10 working days.  I also intend ringing the ACCC on Monday and making a complaint.  I think Translink should alter the advertising, remove it, or implement travel cards for daily, weekly, monthly and/or quarterly travel which fulfill the statement "Go card is at least 20% cheaper (than alternatives)".

When I undertook my Fair Fares survey I found that price guarantee is very important to consumers (for example a guarantee that Go card will always be cheaper than alternatives - Oyster card in London makes a similar guarantee and you can ask for a refund if a system error means you pay more).  The Oyster guarantee has been immensely important in driving uptake of the card in London.  This current advertising here seems to make a similar claim, not only that it will be cheaper but that it will be AT LEAST 20% cheaper, this is false and not going to help drive uptake of the Go card. In fact many users will find out the hard way it is more expensive and will be frustrated and distrustful of Translink and the Go card for a long time - this clearly clashes with their strategic direction that states that institutional trust of the community is a key deliverable of the organisation.

Photograph of the signs



Photograph Dwb 17 August 2008

[dwb]

Just a follow up note.

It has been 17 working days since I contacted Translink with no response despite being promised a written response within 10 working days.

The guy looked it up under my name (I'd lost the reference #) and found an "overdue" tag on it.  He then read me a msg that said that it had been passed on to marketing and comms and that I may not receive another response.  I asked the guy to add that I'd never received any response, that I'd also passed it to the Queensland Ombudsman (well Office of Fair Trading passed it to these guys cos it involves the Govt not a private corporation).  He asked me to hold while he typed the notes and said he'd sent it to his supervisor... hopefully I will receive a response before a further 10 business days are up!

[ozbob]

Thanks for the update Dwb!

I noticed a TransLink public notice on page 9 of the mX today (10 Sep 2008).

It mentions go card improvements and details the upfront discounts.  Shame it doesn't highlight if you are a poor unfortunate travelling direct from a railway station on the wider network to the airport you don't get the discount!

Touch off at Central and buy a paper ticket!

[dwb]

Update on the false and misleading advertising complaint I made:

The Qld Ombudsmen passed me back to Office of Fair Trading due to Translink's recent change and corporate status. The OFT has since advised me:

"We have assessed your complaint and can find no breach of legislation administered by the OFT which would enable us to take enforcement action. However on 12 Sept I attended KGSBS to view the sign and discuss your concerns with a Translink Customer Service Officer. It was explained at this time that the 'at least 20% cheaper' sign relates only to the price reduction on the use of the Go Card effective 4 Aug. This sign is solely describing the use of the Go Card and not any other ticketing options provided by Translink."

The whole point of my argument is that if you need to view the signs and discuss what it means with a Service Officer and have it explained that it ONLY means from the previous fare on Go, then THAT IS MISLEADING because the implied comparison (of the average punter) is against alternative products, not solely Go but also paper single, off peak, weekly and monthly tickets, 10 trippers.

Even if you take this 'at least 20% cheaper' to mean that it is in fact comparing the cost of travel under Go NOW versus before Aug 4, then the claim is STILL NOT TRUE. It is proveable to be untrue in 3 cases, those customers who travel 7, 8 or 9 journeys in a week (ie many of the target audience of the advertising who were using 10 trippers). Why? Because the new discount removed an old discount and the claim relies upon the pre-Aug 4 cost to be the full PAPER SINGLE cost, not the actual Go card cost with the pre-Aug4 discount applied.  This further reinforces my original claim that in fact the claim IMPLIES A COMPARISON BETWEEN PAPER TICKETS AND GO v.1, NOT between Go v.1 and Go v.2.  To some this might be splitting hairs, and it may be, however I am willing to split whatever hairs necessary in order to challenge this FALSE AND MISLEADING ADVERTISING and the damage to the brand not for the fun of it, but because I'm serious about this being a problem that needs to be addressed.

Even the wording of the OFT letter makes me think that the OFT officer did think it was misleading (or at least confusing) as to what the implied comparison was against, but that the act didn't have sufficient powers to enforce against this.  TTA should NOT be relying upon the fine print of some Act to set its minimum behaviour and should seek to act in the manner of which its Strategic Direction sets out, that is, as an organisation which is TRUSTED by the community.  No fine print reading of the OFT Act will clear TTA for an obvious attempt at pulling the wool over consumer eyes!

Note, my calculations are based in 'units' (where a unit is a full priced ticket) not dollars, and I have not taken into consideration that the fares have in fact risen. so in fact, more consumers than those travelling 7,8 or 9 trips/wk are affected... ie if the comparison is pre versus post Aug 4 like the OFT under the direction of at TTA Service officer suggests, then there is actually a 3.9% or greater CPI increase not accounted for.... ie a adult one zone WOULD have cost $2.30 (paper of go no disc) and now costs on Go $1.92 (1.92/2.3=~.835 ie ~16.4% discount) which is NOT at least 20% cheaper.  Really I don't know how many ways I have to say it.... the claim is just NOT TRUE!

I tried to phone and speak to the OFT today, however my case officer was not at work, I will call again tomorrow and hope they follow this up.

[ozbob]

Thanks again for the update Dwb.  I also think that as go card travel to the airport on a connecting service does not attract a discount on the section previous to the Airtrain that is possibly a breach as well. This might be worth pointing out to the OFT as well.

Regards
Bob

[dwb]

Ok another update, I just rang the OFT and the OFT officer has confirmed that TTA describe the Go card as a "single use product" meaning that all the advertising is only refering to if a consumer uses it once (which in itself is a ludicrous proposition as that is not its intended purpose of the product, and if you did only use it once, then surely you'd have to include the $10 purchase price in the cost comparison!).  This means that if you travel 7, 8 or 9 times they don't think the cumulative cost to you should be at least 20% cheaper (than it was previously including the discount).

However, the officer hadn't been aware that the base prices (on Go and paper) had increased at 4th Aug under CPI meaning that pre and post Aug 4 comparison that the advertisement is apparently refering to is erroneous.  The go card discount in this comparison is the maximum discount for your zones of travel less the price rise which is not "at least" 20%/ 25%/ 30% or 35% cheaper (more like 16%, 21%, 26% or 31%).

She is going to look into this further on my behalf.

[Derwan]

Unless the sign states what the CSO explained, it can be easily misinterpreted.  We all interpreted it as being compared to paper tickets.  Even when compared to pre-4-August fees, it can only be compared for a single journey and not general use (which for me would be a 4% increase).

It needs an explanatory note at the bottom of the sign.

[ozbob]

Crikey,  I forwarded a media release on the Go card ripoff connecting airtrain fares to the OFT and was told that the OFT doesn't investigate these matters and I should contact the ombudsman.  Dwb was told by the ombudsman that the OFT does look into these things (see above). 

Does anyone have much faith in the OFT?

In any case I have forwarded the response I received from the OFT to the Ombudsman.  Will be interesting if they tell me to go back to the OFT. 

This shambles just reinforces the mediocrity of these government agencies to my mind.

[dwb]

Here's another update on my complaint.

I rang up today and asked them to look up under my name and date. The guy started reading out an old unrelated email I sent in. I told him it was an old issue I wasn't highly concerned about.  I think he got a bit confused bc I often send them complaints/suggestions.

I then scrummaged through my diary to find the reference number for the false advertising complaint I originally made on 17 Aug and followed up on 10th Sept.

He read (to himself) the info on file and informed me that apparently no additional notes had been added since when I originally made the call (ie nothing about my follow up call).  Apparently the file said that I had received a response dated Aug 29 (ie what WOULD have been 10 working days after I originally lodged it).  This is in direct contrast to the statement by the previous officer who looked it up on the 10th September and acknowledged that the file had an "overdue" tag on it and a draft response (which he read to me) but that had never been sent. That officer had said that he'd forward it to his supervisor with additional notes added to the file.

I asked this officer (Chris) to re-open the complaint as I STILL had not received ANY response from Translink and had already followed it up once to little avail.  I also informed him that I was continuing to deal with the OFT as the "at least 20% cheaper" was not true, based on the explanation by Translink that it was comparing pre and post Aug 4 Go card only but that seemingly disregards the fact that fares went up in that period.  This was not my original approach, as I'd infered that it was comparing Go to alternative products ie paper, however is the approach that OFT may be able to enforce against TTA.

I have not heard back from the OFT officer (although I'll expect his by post not phone) and only once there is some progression on the case.

In the meantime I still hope to have a response from TTA direct to me regarding my original complaint that the advertising is false and misleading and undermining any little consumer trust that may still exist in TTA/go card.

[dwb]

Still no word from either TTA or OFT.

Here's my latest:

**
**
**

7th October 2008

Attn: Dianne Grist
A/ Senior Compliance Officer
Office of Fair Trading

Re: 1-2008-02536

Dear Ms Grist,

I refer to your letter dated 15th September and our telephone call 18th September regarding my complaint to the Office of Fair Trading regarding Translink Transit Authority (TTA) advertising for the Go card, specifically the use of the ?at least 20% cheaper? slogan.
My original complaint stated my belief that the advertising was misleading due to an implied cost comparison against alternative travel products offered by Translink for public transport services (for instance 10 trip savers, paper single tickets and paper weekly and monthly tickets).

Your letter stated that Translink explained its use of the comparison as simply with regards to the changed price structure on Go card since the fare changes in August 4th and that the 20% cheaper was the base discount with higher zone travel attracting a higher discount.
I pointed out that fares in fact rose at the same time that the discount on Go card changed and as a result the maximum discounts customers would have on ?the price reduction on the sue of the Go card effective 4 August 2008? would be as follows:
1-10 zones 16% not 20%,
11 zones 21% not 25%,
12 zones 26% not 30%and
13 or more zones 31% not 35%

1 to 10 zones ~4% increase then 20% discount = ~16% discount on cost paid by the customer, for instance a 1 zone adult trip used to cost $2.30 and now costs $1.92 on Go card, therefore the discount is ~16% as a 20% discount would mean that you would pay only $1.84 as base prices rose 4% on August 4th.

The old ten trip tickets cost $18.40 for an adult zone 1 card (or $1.84 per ticket).  This equated to a 20% discount off the paper single ticket price.  In order to gain new market share and promote users to switch from 10 trip savers to Go card the discount system was changed.

My understanding from our phone call was that as Translink had explained the ?at least 20% cheaper? slogan to be comparing the before and after August 4 price change, that the fact that the discount was applied after a price rise would mean that perhaps the advertising slogan was in fact false and misleading statement in a manner than that the OFT may be able to enforce a change in advertising approach on behalf of the TTA.

If TTA changes its story about what the 20% discount is referring to, then this seems proof enough that the average consumer wouldn?t be able to understand accurately what the slogan was referring to and would as such be being mislead.

Consider the following analogue:
A chair manufacturer normally sells a chair for $100.  The manufacturer then places an A frame advert in front of the shop indicating the chair is now 20% cheaper but at the same time puts the RRP of the chair up 10% to cover rising manufacturing costs.  Is the manufacturer misleading customers if the chair costs $90 rather than $80( when it has been advertised as 20% cheaper than the previous cost of $100)?

Now consider Translink the chair manufacturer, the slogan on the A frame ?at least 20% cheaper?, the chair (a one zone adult single ticket), which originally sold for $2.30 is now being sold for $1.92 rather than $1.84 (20% discount).

As I have not heard from you either by telephone or written correspondence since you stated you would further investigate, I would appreciate a written response immediately as to what actions or investigations your office has undertaken in regards to my complaint and whether this advertising approach is appropriate.

Regards,

**

[ozbob]

I have received advice from the Queensland Ombudsman Office that our concerns with the go card advertising relating to increased fares for connecting airtrain services  have now  been sent back to the OFT!

[dwb]

I have noticed there has been a change on the TTA website and they are now spruiking the following benefits of Go

Why use go card?




Quicker - no need to queue for a ticket.

Great value - with go card, you get 20-35% off full fares - from your first trip. And, if you use your card more than 10 times in a week (Monday to Sunday), you get a further 50% off.

Convenient - no need to buy separate tickets for different zones travelled - and you can use it on buses, trains and ferries. And, if you register your card, you can top up online or by phone.

Easier - simply touch on at the beginning of your journey and touch off at the end. Your fare is automatically deducted from your card balance.

Smarter - the cutting-edge technology calculates the value of your journey, including up to three transfers.

Reusable - easy to top up and the money you put on your go card doesn't expire. You can choose how much money you put on your go card.

Safer - you can register your card to protect your balance against theft or loss.

Notice, this is the FIRST time they've said the discount is off full fares.  Even the TTA response to the OFT request stated that this was a comparison against pre Aug 4 and specifically that it was NOT against full priced or paper tickets!!!

This seems contradictory to me! I wonder what OFT will say?

[dwb]

Another update on OFTs response to my original complaint.

I'm actually a busy person and I didn't end up sending that last letter as I wasn't happy with the wording. Despite thinking that this had dropped off their radar I had a call today from the investigating officer stating she was still seeking response from Translink and that she was drafting another letter to them.  This has restored a little faith.

I took the opportunity to point out that the banners are still up in King George Square and that they've got the web banner which, when you click through on it seems to contradict the original TTA position that the price comparison was against the before Aug 4 go card fare and not against full priced fares!

I wonder if anything will ever happen and I'm considering writing to the Premier to get a hurry along.

[ozbob]

If its any consolation Dwb,  I am still waiting too ....

[dwb]

Thought I'd let you know I received a phone call from Dianne from OFT yesterday 9 Dec stating that she had received Translink's response, but was yet to go over it. She has been good at keeping me in the loop and I look forward to her reply to myself and to Translink.

I do not expect Translink have shifted their position due to their current advertising approach and continual Ministerial statements to the effect that Go card is "at least 20% cheaper"... which given my survey that indicated a high level of community support for a guarantee that Go card is the cheapest option, it really seems they did read my submission, took that on board on a superficial level, and have used (abused) that "guarantee" in the current false advertising approach.

oh well.... I'm not giving up just yet even if by the time they change their approach any sense of actual comparison has been lost and the statement is just puffery.

[ozbob]

Thanks for the update Dwb,  I have also receive advice on my complaint re the 'at least 20% cheaper using a Go card' advertising that OFT has received a response from the TTA.  Details to be forwarded in due course.  Sure takes a while ..

Cheers
Bob

[dwb]

I also just noticed some new adverts inside on the buses... and these ones say "at least 20% cheaper than a single ticket" - not sure if it's in all their advertising, but this was what I suggested as the simplest way forward.... just making it clear what the discount is against - that is all I wanted!

(even if it does go against TTA's initial response to the OFT officer's investigation - I have it in writing they were comparing pre vs post Aug 4 prices... not Go card to non Go card).