Finding Plusnet Broadband only

I can find Plusnet broadband only packages via Google: http://www.plus.net/home-broadband/broadband-only/

But if I start at www.plus.net I can't find them at all. Can anyone find links to it?

far left button says broadband only which points to the same link you posted

http://s10.postimg.org/krk5p4rll/plusnet.png

Is yours different?

Mine's like yours Oliver and I can't find them either.

I'll pop across to the Community forum and see if there is any light in the question there.

I can find it directly on their home page

I get a button on the right of the ribbon bar just under the fancy scrolling graphic

Edited by deleted (Wed 08-May-13 22:02:20)

Ahhh! What scrolling script!

In other words, which browsers are seeing what?

I'm on IE10 and see exactly what Oliver's screen shot shows, and there is no obvious broadband only link, and no rolling script.

You prompted me to try IE10, I now get a 4th big tab on the right saying "Broadband Only" (to the right of the "Fibre Broadband & Phone" tab in my screen cap).

No "Broadband Only" tab in Chrome or Firefox.

Works fine on IE10, also on Palemoon & Opera.

OK Oliver, there does seem to be some screen display oddities, but I've found a way. Oldjim has posted a screenshot in the Community forums showing four tabs where we see three.

Does a large chunk of screen above that tab bar scroll left every few seconds? AT the right, by the big offer price, is a circle saying "+ line rental". I clicked that and ended up on the Broadband-only page.

The odd thing is! My scrolling screen now shows the expected four tabs.

3 on goggle chrome
4 on ie 10

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Does a large chunk of screen above that tab bar scroll left every few seconds? AT the right, by the big offer price, is a circle saying "+ line rental". I clicked that and ended up on the Broadband-only page.

I clicked the "+ line rental" circle in Firefox on one of the three large rotating banner images but I didn't get taken to "Broadband Only" and I still have only three tabs.

I'm on Chrome on Windows XP right now, and I get *no* tabs at all.

Compared to Oliver's screenshot, I don't get the image of Joe and the Granny, nor the three tabs underneath it.

Instead, straight under the text saying "Got a Question? Call us...", I get the 3 sections titled "View All Packages", "Need Help Choosing" and "Check What's Available" - all of which can be seen on the bottom of Oliver's picture.

Here's how I get to the desired page:
- Go to Plusnet homepage
- Find that section titled "View All Packages"
- Press button labelled "View Packages >"
- On this page, I see two tabs, and the "Broadband Only" tab is not selected
- Select the "Broadband Only" tab to get to the target page

When I click the "View Packages" button I get taken to a list of all the Broadband & Calls packages: http://www.plus.net/home-broadband/

There is no "two tab" display on my version, just the Broadband & Calls packages and no sign whatsoever of "Broadband only".

yes but i guess u already know that now lol , sorry for slow reply
im useing firefox btw

Edit: i get same as you with chrome

Edited by deleted (Wed 08-May-13 23:31:52)

Just to add to the mix, all four tabs showing in Firefox ESR 17.0.5 on W8.

Place cursor on "Packages" at top and you should see "Broadband only" ....
Ah, but you don't in FF, only seen from IE.

I see all 4 tabs in IE8 but only 3 in FF .

PN will only sell BB Only to IE users .

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

PN will only sell BB Only to IE users .

Now that would be a thing. "Plusnet signs Broadband Only exclusivity deal with Microsoft for Internet Explorer".

It does seem to be one of their worst site update disasters so far.

It could be that they're performing split testing, trying to see which website structure performs best.

It does seem a bit complicated for that though...

They seem to appear and vanish in IE9 (but only ever visible with IE8 compatability turned of)

http://www.coolwebhome.co.uk/media/vanishing_plusnet...

Short 600KB burst video of page refreshing, and Broadband Only tab vanishing.

IE9 running in compatability mode on the page http://www.plus.net/home-broadband/

Will email them.

Edited by MrSaffron (Thu 09-May-13 09:34:59)

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

It could be that they're performing split testing, trying to see which website structure performs best.

Bingo!

It's not a problem, it's not an issue specific to customers' local environment and it's not an accident. Neither is it anything new (although it's perhaps a tad more drastic than what we've done in the past).

We regularly run 'split tests' where visitors to our site will see different versions compared to others. These tests run for a limited time only, and help us ascertain what impact proposed changes to the site may have on sign-up rates etc.

Regardless of the version of the site you're presented with you can still choose broadband only by entering the order journey and then customising your broadband package during the sign-up journey.

Hope that helps explain things (and saves anyone else trying to troubleshoot the cause of the 'problem')

Rgds,

It's an extremely idiotic trial that makes it impossible to access broadband packages that do not require line rental!

It may be intentional, and it may increase bundled signups in the short-term. In the long-term it would reduce the number of signups as it is a huge selling point on these forums that the prospect's landline can be with whichever CP they prefer.

I grant you that the profit margin may improve if line rental becomes compulsory for new customers, but that doesn't necessarily mean total profit would.

As survival is also a numbers game these days, higher margin but with lower net profit and lower numbers doesn't sound wise to me.

If this is really a split testing, then its not very split on Chrome as always appears.

Firefox no sign of the tab, Chrome always there, and in IE there is the video showing that when doing a page refresh you see the tab for around a second.

Sorry to say it looks very like a move to make Broadband Only packages a lot less visible. Particularly when you click on a like that is about viewing the packages available, and no sign of the broadband only ones.

Also makes linking to your BB only deals rather haphazard from this forum...

As you are deliberately withholding facts from the website, re broadband-only, for some presumably nefarious reason possibly as suggested in my previous post, what should we conclude about the "Good, Honest" broadband from Yorkshire?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

It may be intentional, and it may increase bundled signups in the short-term. In the long-term it would reduce the number of signups as it is a huge selling point on these forums that the prospect's landline can be with whichever CP they prefer.

You're getting well ahead of yourself. We /don't know/ if it will increase bundled sign-ups. Neither do we know if it would decrease overall volumes in the long term. That's the whole point of split testing in the first place.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I grant you that the profit margin may improve if line rental becomes compulsory for new customers, but that doesn't necessarily mean total profit would.

And you may well be right. The results from the split testing will hopefully give us a good indication.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Sorry to say it looks very like a move to make Broadband Only packages a lot less visible. Particularly when you click on a like that is about viewing the packages available, and no sign of the broadband only ones.

No doubt part of the testing /is/ to determine how the site will attract sales with the broadband only packages made less visible. Needless to say, we appreciate the feedback and our Marketing/Aquisition folk are well aware of this thread.

In reply to a post by 4M2:

Also makes linking to your BB only deals rather haphazard from this forum...

Does this not work for everybody?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

As you are deliberately withholding facts from the website, re broadband-only, for some presumably nefarious reason possibly as suggested in my previous post, what should we conclude about the "Good, Honest" broadband from Yorkshire?

As previously mentioned, broadband only is still available. Granted, it may be difficult to find with some versions of the site but there's nothing stopping somebody calling our Sales Team to discuss their individual requirements. Oh, and before anybody asks, no we haven't 'split' the Sales department

Rgds,

In reply to a post by bpullen:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

As you are deliberately withholding facts from the website, re broadband-only, for some presumably nefarious reason possibly as suggested in my previous post, what should we conclude about the "Good, Honest" broadband from Yorkshire?

As previously mentioned, broadband only is still available. Granted, it may be difficult to find with some versions of the site but there's nothing stopping somebody calling our Sales Team to discuss their individual requirements. Oh, and before anybody asks, no we haven't 'split' the Sales department

Rgds,

So not good or honest, then.

Edited by Oliver341 (Thu 09-May-13 11:54:21)

In reply to a post by bpullen:

Does this not work for everybody?

Yes, but utterly irrelevant if the page is not accessible from the website. To suggest otherwise is, to put it kindly, disingenuous of you.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

As you are deliberately withholding facts from the website, re broadband-only, for some presumably nefarious reason possibly as suggested in my previous post, what should we conclude about the "Good, Honest" broadband from Yorkshire?

As previously mentioned, broadband only is still available. Granted, it may be difficult to find with some versions of the site but there's nothing stopping somebody calling our Sales Team to discuss their individual requirements. Oh, and before anybody asks, no we haven't 'split' the Sales department

Not "difficult". Impossible. At the very best, if my earlier route works, (which seems unlikely as it didn't for Oliver), almost impossible.

As for "there's nothing stopping ...." Plain drivel.

The bad publicity generated already in itself threatens a match-turning own goal.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Not "difficult". Impossible. At the very best, if my earlier route works, (which seems unlikely as it didn't for Oliver), almost impossible.

If I was an average consumer shopping for broadband only I would have looked at the Plusnet website, not seen it and moved on elsewhere. For Bob to say "nothing stopping somebody calling our Sales Team" is bonkers, I wouldn't call an ISP on the off chance that they might have some product hidden somewhere or other that they don't like mentioning, and I doubt many would.

In reply to a post by bpullen:

In reply to a post by 4M2:

Also makes linking to your BB only deals rather haphazard from this forum...

Does this not work for everybody?

Well I can navigate to that link using IE8 from http://www.plus.net/?home=hometop but folks using other browsers on this forum may not...

BTW. I was a little disappointed the other day to discover that unlimited BB only on a 30 day minimum term was more expensive per month than the headline £9.99 on Market 2/3 ("low cost area") exchanges

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

So not good or honest, then.

Interesting!!

Following on from this thread (& your specific observation) I thought I would Google PN & see where it takes me!

Following a Google Search I'm taken to a paid-for advert with a link for "1/2 price Broadband" (i.e. NO reference to a requirement to take the Phone Service).

On following that link it takes me to a page advertising 1/2 Broadband with Phone!! However I do notice there is also a Broadband Only tab - but this does NOT offer 1/2 price Broadband.

In other words, PN are advertising an offer (i.e. 1/2 price Broadband) but do NOT appear to make it available (as advertised) unless it is linked to Phone provision as well!

Oliver341, I'm reminded of your observation!

In case you haven't read it yet, ASA recently had words with Plusnet: http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/i/5813.html

In reply to a post by bpullen:

you can still choose broadband only by entering the order journey and then customising your broadband package during the sign-up journey.

One shouldn't have to go thro' the unnecessary motions of an abortive order journey just to window-shop for prices of required products. I'd rather move on to the next shop.

EDIT: I would be a prospective PN cust for BB Only if Orange ever goes the O2/Be route or suchlike .

Edited by XRaySpeX (Thu 09-May-13 13:28:41)

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Not "difficult". Impossible. At the very best, if my earlier route works, (which seems unlikely as it didn't for Oliver), almost impossible.

If I was an average consumer shopping for broadband only I would have looked at the Plusnet website, not seen it and moved on elsewhere.

Which is something that's been considered as part of the testing. Each version of the site will drive a certain amount of sales. It's entirely possible one will perform significantly worse compared to others. Split testing isn't a newly devised tactic and we're certainly not the first company to do it.

In reply to a post by 4M2:

BTW. I was a little disappointed the other day to discover that unlimited BB only on a 30 day minimum term was more expensive per month than the headline £9.99 on Market 2/3 ("low cost area") exchanges

Has been since the back-end of last year. Monthly contracts typically cost an extra £2.50pcm.

In reply to a post by johnjburness:

Following a Google Search I'm taken to a paid-for advert with a link for "1/2 price Broadband" (i.e. NO reference to a requirement to take the Phone Service).

Don't suppose you fancy screen-grabbing that for me do you?

Not proud of the ASA ticking off. It's pretty uncharacteristic of us.

Rgds,

In reply to a post by bpullen:

In reply to a post by 4M2:

BTW. I was a little disappointed the other day to discover that unlimited BB only on a 30 day minimum term was more expensive per month than the headline £9.99 on Market 2/3 ("low cost area") exchanges

Has been since the back-end of last year. Monthly contracts typically cost an extra £2.50pcm.

Would it be possible to include that in the "legal bit"? I had to find that out from here http://www.plus.net/support/broadband/products/low_c... !!!

In reply to a post by bpullen:

In reply to a post by johnjburness:

Following a Google Search I'm taken to a paid-for advert with a link for "1/2 price Broadband" (i.e. NO reference to a requirement to take the Phone Service).

Don't suppose you fancy screen-grabbing that for me do you?

Not proud of the ASA ticking off. It's pretty uncharacteristic of us.

Rgds,

Bob, Not certain how I would take a screen-grab & then post it here!!

However, just typing in Plusnet to Google takes me to:-
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=plusnet&ie=utf-8&o...

To which I note the following:-

Ads related to plusnet

plus.net - Plusnet Official Site‎
www.plus.net/Plusnet
1/2 Price Unlimited Broadband for 9 Months - Limited Time!‎
1/2 Price Broadband
1/2 Price Fibre Broadband

Plusnet Business Broadband
Award-Winning Broadband

As you can see, there is nothing that links the "1/2 Price" to a requirement to have the Phone Service included!

In reply to a post by bpullen:

Each version of the site will drive a certain amount of sales. It's entirely possible one will perform significantly worse compared to others. Split testing isn't a newly devised tactic and we're certainly not the first company to do it.

Well it may be common, but I've never encountered it before.

I have two comments.

1) Is it also common for one or more versions of the website to completely omit any path to certain products? Specifically those with a lower overall profit margin? Not even a clue to their existence? Understandable with trial flavours of KitKat, but broadband?

2) If I went to a site a few times to check certain aspects against a competitor I was considering, and found not only a different view sometimes but information I knew I had seen shortly before was no longer there, I would run a mile from such apparent incompetence.

Far from providing useful marketing information to increase sales, it is much more likely to produce marketing information indicating the need to "redeploy" some of that department's staff.

How difficult has it been to overcome a historic bad reputation, and how easily will this tactic destroy all that hard work? The tactic, nay - the strategy, needs immediate binning before it has the wrong effect.

In reply to a post by bpullen:

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

If I was an average consumer shopping for broadband only I would have looked at the Plusnet website, not seen it and moved on elsewhere.

Which is something that's been considered as part of the testing. Each version of the site will drive a certain amount of sales. It's entirely possible one will perform significantly worse compared to others. Split testing isn't a newly devised tactic and we're certainly not the first company to do it.

This isn't a reply to Bob - but rather to everyone currently criticising the problem that some versions of the website prove to be "less nice" than others.

This is indeed the whole point of split-testing - it is to send a proportion of your potential customers down different sales/marketing journeys, and to measure the outcome.

The outcomes measured, for commercial companies, tends to be about the lifetime value of a customer - so includes the initial sign-up, and many future purchases. However, it works by averaging the outcome over a large number of visitors (or "prospects")

The downside of this kind of testing is that *some* customers end up going down a "worse" journey, and fail to sign up, where they would have joined if they followed a different path. The statistics will tend to show these things up - and the worst cases will be rapidly discarded from the test.

In this case the test will show the balance between a possible increase in income because people move phone too, against a loss of income because the people who want broadband only walk away. You don't know which will win until you test it.

I've seen split-testing happen over many aspects - headlines, text content, page layout, colours, and even on the raw price of a product (though haven't seen this with Plusnet). Imagine that you *could* have bought a product a lot cheaper, if only the computer had chosen a different version of the website for you!

And no - raising the price doesn't necessarily drop sales. But you only know if you test it.

As Bob says, split-testing is happening everywhere, in all forms of advertising, marketing and promotion.

Sorry, Wombat, I've never heard of "Split-Testing" before & obviously cannot directly comment on it!!

However, if it was just a simple choice of presenting some colours to one set of potential customers (with a different set of colours to others) then I could understand the purpose of it!

But, (REGARDLESS of what others might see) if I have to jump through obtuse "hoops" just to find basic information then it is very unlikely that I would become a customer!!

That, IMHO, is simple "common-sense" & I wouldn't have thought (whatever fancy name it might be called) that there was any need to "test" this!

Nothing against split testing, but for those who want to look up product details having no access without resorting to Google and site:www.plus.net is pretty poor.

Split testing is often colours or just changing the emphasis and order on a page.

Actually I just had to do that on the BT Retail website to check all the details when re-doing our listings with their latest changes and roll-out of BT Sport packages.

Still not good.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Split testing is often colours or just changing the emphasis and order on a page.

Mr S, as you mention in another post - nothing against "Split-Testing" if it really is about variations in layout and/or colours.

But where it is to make certain Users jump through hoops, then I really don't see the point!

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Well it may be common, but I've never encountered it before.

The truth is that you just haven't been aware of it before.

It happens online, in print, on TV and radio. Even in direct mail. Anywhere where marketing people can put two different "messages" in front of parts of their audience, and test the result.

Some tests are focussed on a specific product, and whether you choose to buy or not. This could include offering you different ways to pay.

Some tests are focussed on a variety of choices presented to you... to see which choice you pick out of the group presented (and to see if varying the group of offers makes any difference).

Some tests are just focussed on the overall impact to traffic (eg vistors to websites, or footfall in physical shops).

1) Is it also common for one or more versions of the website to completely omit any path to certain products? Specifically those with a lower overall profit margin? Not even a clue to their existence? Understandable with trial flavours of KitKat, but broadband?

Marketers know that offering choice can be a problem: confused customers don't buy.

So offering a choice can be good for some customers, but bad for others. Which is best for the company overall? Should a choice be removed? Or offered in a totally different way?

Therefore tests to show the impact of completely removing a choice are perfectly valid propositions.

2) If I went to a site a few times to check certain aspects against a competitor I was considering, and found not only a different view sometimes but information I knew I had seen shortly before was no longer there, I would run a mile from such apparent incompetence.

Valid point. Offline adverts do this by varying (for example) in different TV regions, or on different radio stations.

Online testing requires the website to take care that you see a consistent behaviour across multiple visits. Cookies are a likely part of the solution.

Using different browsers, or different computers, makes it easy to see different variants - and some people will see this. But most won't (as you haven't, before today).

How difficult has it been to overcome a historic bad reputation, and how easily will this tactic destroy all that hard work? The tactic, nay - the strategy, needs immediate binning before it has the wrong effect.

That was my initial reaction, as an engineer, to seeing what marketers did. Now I understand it, and why it is done (selling is, in large part, psychological).

With understanding, I can temper my reaction to any one encounter, based on whether I think a company is doing something fundamentally wrong (such as omitting something in the advert (ala the ASA ruling).

In this case, what are PN actually doing wrong? They are failing to offer one of their product variants, in an easy-to-find way, to some of their website visitors. But they haven't made it unavailable to anyone, or discriminated in any way. Just made it hard to find.

Ultimately, the tests will determine what is the right way to offer the variants... whether that is on the home page, a product page, or the sign-up journey. Then PN will stick to the best way, and move on to test something else.

Isn't that better than having a marketer guess at which way works best, and sticking with that method come hell or high water?

Of course, there is a thin line here. If the tests show a departure from credibility, then more people will walk away because of a lack of trust, rather than just failing to like the offer enough to buy it.

I don't think the PN test here is enough to cause mistrust.

In reply to a post by 4M2:

In reply to a post by bpullen:

Has been since the back-end of last year. Monthly contracts typically cost an extra £2.50pcm.

Would it be possible to include that in the "legal bit"? I had to find that out from here http://www.plus.net/support/broadband/products/low_c... !!!

I'll ask about and see if we can get it added.

In reply to a post by johnjburness:

Bob, Not certain how I would take a screen-grab & then post it here!!

However, just typing in Plusnet to Google takes me to:-
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=plusnet&ie=utf-8&o...

To which I note the following:-

Ads related to plusnet

plus.net - Plusnet Official Site‎
www.plus.net/Plusnet
1/2 Price Unlimited Broadband for 9 Months - Limited Time!‎
1/2 Price Broadband
1/2 Price Fibre Broadband

Plusnet Business Broadband
Award-Winning Broadband

As you can see, there is nothing that links the "1/2 Price" to a requirement to have the Phone Service included!

Thanks, I'll run that by the legal folk. Cheers for pointing it out.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

1) Is it also common for one or more versions of the website to completely omit any path to certain products? Specifically those with a lower overall profit margin? Not even a clue to their existence? Understandable with trial flavours of KitKat, but broadband?

It's not that radical a thing to do as part of a split test.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

2) If I went to a site a few times to check certain aspects against a competitor I was considering, and found not only a different view sometimes but information I knew I had seen shortly before was no longer there, I would run a mile from such apparent incompetence.

Which again, is something we've taken into consideration.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

How difficult has it been to overcome a historic bad reputation, and how easily will this tactic destroy all that hard work? The tactic, nay - the strategy, needs immediate binning before it has the wrong effect.

I don't personally think our split testing (which we've done before remember) will significantly tarnish our reputation. I could be wrong of course and we appreciate everyone's feedback. As I think I mentioned in an earlier reply, those involved in the intricacies of the split test have their eyes on this thread.

Rgds,

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

what are PN actually doing wrong?

Plusnet place an Advert promoting 1/2 Price Broadband (WITHOUT any reference to the need to sign up for Phone Service as well), which then links to an offer that combines the 2 Services. In fact the very fact that you can obtain Broadband only is carefully hidden &, when "discovered", you still cannot find any reference to 1/2 Price Broadband.

Personally I would regard that as very questionable Advertising & (whether intentional or otherwise) very misleading!

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

I don't think the PN test here is enough to cause mistrust.

IMHO, "questionable Advertising" will always cause mistrust!

In reply to a post by johnjburness:

But where it is to make certain Users jump through hoops, then I really don't see the point!

I can't say what Plusnet's reasoning was, but there are some ways I could explain it...

One possibility is that someone in PN wants to know what the signup rate will be if they ONLY display the options to take broadband with the phone line. Perhaps they are thinking of making this the only way to sign up. Or perhaps they just want to establish a base number, before performing further tests with differing degrees of visibility of the "broadband without phone line" option.

Intuitively, you'd say that more people will walk away (because, like you, they'd have to hunt for the details they want, or just don't hunt at all). On the other hand, people who were going to move phone line anyway wouldn't be affected at all.

In the middle, however, is a group of people who weren't originally intending to change phone line, and wouldn't do so if they were presented with the "broadband only" prices first. But, with only "broadband with phone" prices in front of them, they perhaps reconsider, and sign up... bringing more income each month.

Result: PN would lose some potential customers, but gain some others. Or perhaps the ones they do gain bring slightly more income with them. Does the improved income from one group offset the reduced income from the other group? Which is best?

You say the results are intuitive. That PN should follow common-sense. But that is only "common-sense" from your personal perspective. Everyone else has a different perspective, and different intuition applies to them and their behaviour.

Split-testing works by testing the statistical behaviour of many people.

The fact is that split-testing, done properly, does not always agree with intuition or common-sense.

For me split testing can be a pain as I tend to visit a site on what ever device is closest to hand which may be iOS, android, osx or IE9, chrome, firefox.

I know I am not the demographic, but then ignoring my role on tbb I am the sort who tend to make recommendations when neighbours ask about who is best at the moment etc

After recently paying for a years line rental with BT (non-refundable), I received news that BE was being sold to SKY. Not wishing my broadband migrated to SKY I looked for a new ISP and choose plusnet, without phone and migrated successfully. If I'd been presented with the current PN portable (missing broadband only) I might well have gone to BT instead.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Split testing is often colours or just changing the emphasis and order on a page.

The marketer's adage is to "test everything".

Some things (like the ones you mention) are easy to test, while others (such as conduct across multiple pages in a site) are harder, so less people test them.

In reply to a post by bpullen:

I don't personally think our split testing (which we've done before remember) will significantly tarnish our reputation. I could be wrong of course and we appreciate everyone's feedback. As I think I mentioned in an earlier reply, those involved in the intricacies of the split test have their eyes on this thread.

Rgds,

If we were talking about a "Split-Test" as being a choice of colours (or anything else that could be described as "personal-choice") I would tend to agree with you!

However, PN have been virtually trying to hide specific Products and/or misdirect potential Customers. On that basis, once it is realised, I would have thought (IMHO) that there was a high probability of tarnishing PN's reputation!

To be honest, I have to express extreme disbelief that anyone could have dreamed up such a crack-pot idea for testing!

In reply to a post by bpullen:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

1) Is it also common for one or more versions of the website to completely omit any path to certain products? Specifically those with a lower overall profit margin? Not even a clue to their existence? Understandable with trial flavours of KitKat, but broadband?

It's not that radical a thing to do as part of a split test.

With respect, I think it is rather radical to remove 50% of the product range, on what appears to be an inconsistent basis for repeat visits by a given prospect.

Broadband buying is not an impulse. More than one visit is surely the norm before deciding?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

2) If I went to a site a few times to check certain aspects against a competitor I was considering, and found not only a different view sometimes but information I knew I had seen shortly before was no longer there, I would run a mile from such apparent incompetence.

Which again, is something we've taken into consideration.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

How difficult has it been to overcome a historic bad reputation, and how easily will this tactic destroy all that hard work? The tactic, nay - the strategy, needs immediate binning before it has the wrong effect.

I don't personally think our split testing (which we've done before remember) will significantly tarnish our reputation. I could be wrong of course and we appreciate everyone's feedback. As I think I mentioned in an earlier reply, those involved in the intricacies of the split test have their eyes on this thread.

If this particular experiment does tarnish Plusnet's reputation then once done, it's done. Nor will it take long - far less time than any meaningul data will have been gathered. I question the risk analysis conducted beforehand.

You ignore several facts WWWombat .

For example, for a long time the phone and broadband bundles have been much more "in your face" than the broadband alone.

You seem to be discussing a theoretical marketing strategy, and everything you say on that topic is valid.

We are discussing a particular case of split-testing and its effects.

I've more to say in a new thread, to post once I've been to pick up mt wife from the hairdresser's .

When PN pay for external Adverts advertising 1/2 Price Broadband (WITHOUT need for Phone Line Service) & then link it to ONLY a Broadband/Phone connection, then I regard that as dishonest (intentional or otherwise).

If I went to a Supermarket, in response to a specific Advert, & they made it extremely difficult to take up that offer then Trading Standards Officers would want to be involved!

Sorry, but I fail to see the difference between the 2 circumstances!

In reply to a post by johnjburness:

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

what are PN actually doing wrong?

Plusnet place an Advert promoting 1/2 Price Broadband (WITHOUT any reference to the need to sign up for Phone Service as well), which then links to an offer that combines the 2 Services. In fact the very fact that you can obtain Broadband only is carefully hidden &, when "discovered", you still cannot find any reference to 1/2 Price Broadband.

Personally I would regard that as very questionable Advertising & (whether intentional or otherwise) very misleading!

I agree with that - so does ASA. Plusnet know the half-price ads need to refer to the need for a phone line.

The telling part was that Bob agrees with this. He wanted to know where the ad was found, so he could do something about it.

But my question was about what was wrong with the split-testing itself, not the advertising.

In reply to a post by johnjburness:

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

I don't think the PN test here is enough to cause mistrust.

IMHO, "questionable Advertising" will always cause mistrust!

I agree again, but it will do so whether split-testing is going on, or not.

Naturally, though, any split-testing within a website needs to be coherent with the advertising that leads a customer to it.

Edit: Fixed quotes.

Edited by deleted (Thu 09-May-13 16:47:09)

In reply to a post by johnjburness:

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

what are PN actually doing wrong?

Plusnet place an Advert promoting 1/2 Price Broadband (WITHOUT any reference to the need to sign up for Phone Service as well), which then links to an offer that combines the 2 Services.

Is this similar to what you saw? If so, I've referred it to our marketing/legal folk as promised earlier.

I notice there is some subscript that says 'Line Rental £14.50' but I've no idea if that's deemed sufficient in the context it's placed in.

You need to take phone to benefit from the half price offer.

Rgds,

In reply to a post by NormanB:

After recently paying for a years line rental with BT (non-refundable), I received news that BE was being sold to SKY. Not wishing my broadband migrated to SKY I looked for a new ISP and choose plusnet, without phone and migrated successfully. If I'd been presented with the current PN portable (missing broadband only) I might well have gone to BT instead.

That is an excellent point NormanB: it's got to be incredibly bad timing by PN to "hide" BB only deals considering that there may a good number of folks wishing to leave O2/Be.

In reply to a post by johnjburness:

When PN pay for external Adverts advertising 1/2 Price Broadband (WITHOUT need for Phone Line Service) & then link it to ONLY a Broadband/Phone connection, then I regard that as dishonest (intentional or otherwise).

If I went to a Supermarket, in response to a specific Advert, & they made it extremely difficult to take up that offer then Trading Standards Officers would want to be involved!

Sorry, but I fail to see the difference between the 2 circumstances!

I made the point in a separate post, but your complaint (here, in the quote above) is with a faulty advert.

So I agree with you on this point - it is vital that any split-tests of a website ensure that the tests are coherent with the current adverts. Otherwise you could come unstuck with ASA and, as you say, the trading standards people. Big legal issues, and important.

If the advert had correctly stated a dependence on the phone line, then all of the alternative website variants discussed in this thread would have showed those products available, easily, without needing to hunt. The hard-to-find products would have been the unadvertised ones.

Your other complaint (about you disliking the fact that you had to search hard for product details), when considered aside from the advert, is perfectly valid subject matter for split-testing. It isn't a legal issue, just one that tests whether your personal dislike is common to many other people or not.

Remember that the vast majority of this thread is about the different things seen on the website without reference to any advert at all, and subsequently about the behaviour and validity of split-testing. The advert you saw is something of a side-issue. Because of the ASA adjudication and the chosen split-tests going on at present, it is a very serious and unfortunate issue for PN, no doubt, but still a side-issue.

In reply to a post by bpullen:

........ by entering the order journey.....

That sounds very offputting.

In reply to a post by bpullen:

In reply to a post by johnjburness:

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

what are PN actually doing wrong?

Plusnet place an Advert promoting 1/2 Price Broadband (WITHOUT any reference to the need to sign up for Phone Service as well), which then links to an offer that combines the 2 Services.

Is this similar to what you saw? If so, I've referred it to our marketing/legal folk as promised earlier.

I notice there is some subscript that says 'Line Rental £14.50' but I've no idea if that's deemed sufficient in the context it's placed in.

You need to take phone to benefit from the half price offer.

Rgds,

NO! It is not similar because that one refers to the Line Rental!

I've just double-checked by typing "Plusnet" into Google, both using IE & Firefox & both return the original where the Line Rental is NOT mentioned!

However, even the one that you've linked to, does NOT make it clear (IMHO)that the "Line Rental" bit is a condition of "1/2 Price Broadband".

NB:- I regard it as "clear" that a Telephone Line (including the requisite rental) is a "technical" requirement of having Broadband but that doesn't necessarily mean that it HAS to be a combined provision! Having had Broadband for many, many years (the majority of time with PN) where the Land-Line has been a separate provision, it is not an intuitive thing to "assume" that it can now only be a "combined" offering!

Again, IMHO, the ASA findings were because ISPs (including PN) where NOT making it clear that a paid-for Line was req'd!

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

If the advert had correctly stated a dependence on the phone line, then all of the alternative website variants discussed in this thread would have showed those products available, easily, without needing to hunt. The hard-to-find products would have been the unadvertised ones.

Then I wouldn't have wasted time looking for what would appear to be non-available products!

Don't get me wrong, if PN have decided that they ONLY want to supply combined products, that is their entitled decision!

By the same token, I don't have to trade with PN!

None of that has anything to do with Split-Testing (as both you & Mr Saffy have defined it), where it is trying to establish the best way of selling a specifically defined Product (as in your example, by choice of token things such as colours)!

In reply to a post by bpullen:

In reply to a post by 4M2:

In reply to a post by bpullen:

Has been since the back-end of last year. Monthly contracts typically cost an extra £2.50pcm.

Would it be possible to include that in the "legal bit"? I had to find that out from here http://www.plus.net/support/broadband/products/low_c... !!!

I'll ask about and see if we can get it added.

Please do because the "from £9.99" headline figure suggests a higher price for Market1 exchanges only without any mention of the intermediate price for monthly contracts in the "legal bit".

Cheers

In reply to a post by johnjburness:

In reply to a post by bpullen:

In reply to a post by johnjburness:

... nested quotes trimmed ...

Plusnet place an Advert promoting 1/2 Price Broadband (WITHOUT any reference to the need to sign up for Phone Service as well), which then links to an offer that combines the 2 Services.

Is this similar to what you saw? If so, I've referred it to our marketing/legal folk as promised earlier.

I notice there is some subscript that says 'Line Rental £14.50' but I've no idea if that's deemed sufficient in the context it's placed in.

You need to take phone to benefit from the half price offer.

Rgds,

NO! It is not similar because that one refers to the Line Rental!

I used the link you provided in this post (and then disabled my ad blocker).

In reply to a post by johnjburness:

I've just double-checked by typing "Plusnet" into Google, both using IE & Firefox & both return the original where the Line Rental is NOT mentioned!

Tried again from my box at home and got this.

I've made sure the marketing/legal folk are aware of that one too (although I'm sure they'll look at all variants anyway).

Rgds,

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

You ignore several facts WWWombat .

I don't really, I'm just trying to point out how extreme split-testing could be - and that it is going on all around, all the time.

Remember all those adverts in newspaper that you had to respond to by post. They'd include a "Dept TV27" line in the address, or somesuch. That's split-testing, and would affect which papers and magazines the next month's budget would be spent on, and what the advert content would be. But it would take weeks or months to go from devising the test to having results to analyse.

The only difference nowadays, with online adverts and websites, is that a split-test can be devised, run and analysed in 30 minutes. Adverts can be fine-tuned, website content can be adjusted, prices changed, the sign-up process can be altered.

My logical engineer side hates the inconsistencies that can happen. My mathematician side finds it a fascinating statistical exercise. There's a whole psychological side that I'm not qualified to delve into but find fascinating anyway.

You seem to be discussing a theoretical marketing strategy, and everything you say on that topic is valid.

Ah, that might be true. I do tend to do that.

We are discussing a particular case of split-testing and its effects.

So I'll point out that in this particular case I too find it a little strange that the BB-only product could become invisible to some variants.

At the same time, I can understand why it would be a valid case to test - even if I don't think it would ever be the winner.

I should also say that I'm not convinced that "BB-only" was actually invisible in each of the cases we saw at the start of the thread. For a start, we saw a few different ways to find the product. However, the focus of the thread was on what different people saw with different browsers - so everyone kept posting what they saw, but no-one really concentrated on what the "discovery steps" were for each variant. We don't even know how many variants there were.

I've more to say in a new thread, to post once I've been to pick up mt wife from the hairdresser's .

Oh no. There goes the decorating this evening...

In reply to a post by bpullen:

I've made sure the marketing/legal folk are aware of that one too (although I'm sure they'll look at all variants anyway).

Rgds,

Thanks for that!

Do you mind if I refer to a hypothetical Supermarket situation?

At Christmas I will go along to my local Supermarket where they are offering cut-price Turkeys!!

As we all know, you can't really roast a Turkey without a Roasting Tray.

Often the Supermarket, on the same Poster, will advertise Roasting Trays.

QUESTION:-
Under that scenario, would I expect (or appreciate) if the Supermarket, when I had been attracted by their Turkey Advert, stated that I couldn't buy the Turkey unless I also purchased a Tray?

In reply to a post by johnjburness:

NO! It is not similar because that one refers to the Line Rental!

I've just double-checked by typing "Plusnet" into Google, both using IE & Firefox & both return the original where the Line Rental is NOT mentioned!

That's the problem with Google's Ads - they choose what you see on a very individual basis from what they know about you and your search habits, as well as the actual search phrase.

Bob will see different ads. I, for example, see no ads whatsoever when I type "Plusnet" into Google (which wasn't the result I expected when I tried it).

That's why Bob wants a screenshot of what you're actually seeing.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

In reply to a post by johnjburness:

NO! It is not similar because that one refers to the Line Rental!

I've just double-checked by typing "Plusnet" into Google, both using IE & Firefox & both return the original where the Line Rental is NOT mentioned!

That's the problem with Google's Ads - they choose what you see on a very individual basis from what they know about you and your search habits, as well as the actual search phrase.

Bob will see different ads. I, for example, see no ads whatsoever when I type "Plusnet" into Google (which wasn't the result I expected when I tried it).

That's why Bob wants a screenshot of what you're actually seeing.

Which is why I supplied Bob with the full URL, since that would appear to be based on my reading of the situation!!

Incidentally, regardless how Google chooses to select the personalised Advert, it would still be based on an Advert supplied by PN.

Additionally, since I haven't got a clue how to insert screen-shots into TBB-Forums (you will note that Bob had to link to a PN hosting) there wasn't much I could do about providing the screen-shot.

FWIW, I think the link in the footer is present on all variants of the site (happy to be proved wrong if that's not the case).

Rgds,

In reply to a post by bpullen:

FWIW, I think the link in the footer is present on all variants of the site (happy to be proved wrong if that's not the case).

Nope, not there for me. Same as yours without the "Broadband only" line.

In reply to a post by johnjburness:

Which is why I supplied Bob with the full URL, since that would appear to be based on my reading of the situation!!

No - that just gets Bob's computer to search google as though he'd typed "Plusnet" into the search engine for himself, from a Firefox browser.

The URL doesn't magically give his computer the ability to be recognised, by Google, as your computer. His IP is different. His location is different. His search history is different.

All of those means that Google serves him different adverts from you.

Advertising campaigns change dynamically too (and not just the one run by Plusnet), all of which means that the adverts served NOW can be different from the ones that you saw THEN.

Oh - and Google also employs split-testing of the ads too, so the chosen ad can change at any time, depending what tests are being run.

The fact is that unless you grab a screenshot of the ad, there is no way *ever* that Bob can guarantee that he is looking at the same ad you saw.

Incidentally, regardless how Google chooses to select the personalised Advert, it would still be based on an Advert supplied by PN.

This isn't guaranteed either. Anyone can place an advert with Googe, and ask for it to be displayed when you type "Plusnet" in.

If someone else can make money out of Plusnet when you sign up, then it becomes viable for them to run such an advertising campaign.

I don't know if Plusnet offer any affiliate deals, but they certainly give people "referrer" discounts. If you can get enough money for each of these, it can be worth paying Google for the ads.

However, that's all theoretical. I suspect you're right, and it *is* an ad placed by Plusnet themselves.

Additionally, since I haven't got a clue how to insert screen-shots into TBB-Forums (you will note that Bob had to link to a PN hosting) there wasn't much I could do about providing the screen-shot.

No - it's a pain. Most people put images onto some shared hosting, like Tinypic.

In reply to a post by bpullen:

FWIW, I think the link in the footer is present on all variants of the site (happy to be proved wrong if that's not the case).

Not the case. I could post a screen capture but I don't really want to beta test your nonsense.

It is there in mine - both in the site as it was seen last night, and when refreshed just now.

If you want an image hosted and have no place of your own, then email me [email protected] with a copy and can put up on personal web space and give you link back

In reply to a post by johnjburness:

Additionally, since I haven't got a clue how to insert screen-shots into TBB-Forums (you will note that Bob had to link to a PN hosting) there wasn't much I could do about providing the screen-shot.

Dropbox is excellent and can also give you a tinyurl to the upload. Put it in the Public area though .

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

I should also say that I'm not convinced that "BB-only" was actually invisible in each of the cases we saw at the start of the thread.

I appear to be both right and wrong on this front. "BB-only" isn't entirely invisible, but there is a very concerted effort to hide it as an option throughout the website.

I just tried starting Firefox, and created a new profile to give me a fresh cookie-less setup.

With that, I got to one of the split-test varieties with no reference to "Broadband Only" at all. There was no reference from the home page graphic (near the top) nor from the standard header or footer on most pages. When I went to "view packages", there were no tabs at all, so certainly no tab for "broadband only". When you drop down the "packages" menu at the top of the screen, it has disappeared too.

I couldn't find a link or reference in any of the standard navigation mechanisms on the residential sales pages.

But I could find the product in the following ways:
- Type "broadband only" into the site's search box, which gave me a link on the result page
- The same search result gave me a different footer too, that includes "Products" rather than "Packages", and "Broadband Only" is one of the linked products.
- The same search result gives a different header too, with a residential drop-down menu that includes "broadband only"
- Type "gobbledygook" into the search box. The header & footer still gives me the same links
- From Home Page, click "Help & Support". The header & footer gives me the same links
- Click "Business", and it gives the same header & footer with the "broadband only" links back to the residential side
- Click "Member Centre", and it gives me the same header & footer, except the links are on the portal website, rather than the main site.

When reaching the "broadband only" page from one of those locations, on either the main site or the portal, it doesn't appear as a link in its own footer, and there is no tab present to swap to the BB+phone deal.

So it is very much being air-brushed out of normal navigation, but not quite smartly enough.

I also tried the live chat, and asked if they did broadband-only. However, when asked exactly that question, the person there wouldn't answer directly, and needed my landline and address before being able to confirm whether I was "eligible for a standalone deal". I don't know if this is an attempt to hide the package, or over-zealous script-following.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

I also tried the live chat, and asked if they did broadband-only. However, when asked exactly that question, the person there wouldn't answer directly, and needed my landline and address before being able to confirm whether I was "eligible for a standalone deal".

That's a whole lot worse than we've heard so far!

Here's mine... visited the plus.net website for the first time on my work's PC - no mention of it on the footer area.

http://db.tt/HSFzm4hA

And when searching for 'plusnet' on Google

http://db.tt/PAumqFpX

One thing that I really did not like is this

http://db.tt/bVeEFXlQ

it should have given me the option to go with Broadband Only. But that did not give me the option, just new line or have Plusnet to take over my line. If I were someone looking for broadband, I would have closed down the Plusnet website and look elsewhere from this point.

Edited by hypertony (Fri 10-May-13 10:14:05)

In reply to a post by kasg:

In reply to a post by bpullen:

FWIW, I think the link in the footer is present on all variants of the site (happy to be proved wrong if that's not the case).

Nope, not there for me. Same as yours without the "Broadband only" line.

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by bpullen:

FWIW, I think the link in the footer is present on all variants of the site (happy to be proved wrong if that's not the case).

Not the case. I could post a screen capture but I don't really want to beta test your nonsense.

Don't think there's any need for that. I said I was happy to be proved wrong. I based the statement on some early prototypes I fished out from our project tracking system.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

I also tried the live chat, and asked if they did broadband-only. However, when asked exactly that question, the person there wouldn't answer directly, and needed my landline and address before being able to confirm whether I was "eligible for a standalone deal". I don't know if this is an attempt to hide the package, or over-zealous script-following.

The latter.

In reply to a post by johnjburness:

NO! It is not similar because that one refers to the Line Rental!

I've just double-checked by typing "Plusnet" into Google, both using IE & Firefox & both return the original where the Line Rental is NOT mentioned!

However, even the one that you've linked to, does NOT make it clear (IMHO)that the "Line Rental" bit is a condition of "1/2 Price Broadband".

Right, we're limited in what we can say here as we've only 70 characters at our disposal, split across 2x35 character blocks. Looking at some of the other big ISP's (mentioning no names) there are certain ads where they're not explicit about the line rental either.

From an ASA perspective I think we're in the clear anyhow. The opinion seems to be that as long we're only broadly advertising the offer and link directly to the full details, then we're OK.

Having said that, we're going to change the wording of some of the ads based on your feedback.

e.g. "Unlimited Broadband from £4.99pm for 9 months! +£14.50 Line Rental"

Rgds,

Post deleted by Sadoldman

In reply to a post by bpullen:

Don't think there's any need for that. I said I was happy to be proved wrong. I based the statement on some early prototypes I fished out from our project tracking system.

The "nonsense" I referred to was not your assertion that "Broadband Only" is always present in the footer, it's aimed at your company's concept of hiding information from potential customers for the sake of greed.

The trouble is Oliver, although we are in agreement that this is an ill-thought-out experiment, and shoddy to boot, the actual product is amongst the best, and the support is the same.

If it leads to withdrawal of "Broadband only" then the product will be considerably less competitive.

I fail to see how withdrawal of 50% of a product range could improve customer capture, when that 50% has for a long time been less acceptable than the bundles. It might improve the overall margin, but will simply block out people who don't want a bundle but ant their phone with some other chosen provider.

The flaw in my argument there is that there wouldn't really be any other price-competitive "broadband only" providers.

If they need to increase the price of "broadband only" in order to make it viable then so be it. There's really very little mainstream competition in that market now, so they could conceivably put the price up without affecting new signups.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

If they need to increase the price of "broadband only" in order to make it viable then so be it. There's really very little mainstream competition in that market now, so they could conceivably put the price up without affecting new signups.

If PN put the price up on unlimited BB only, 30 day minimum term, on Market 2/3 exchanges (currently £12.49) then it wouldn't really be competitive with LLU (SMPF) resellers, such as xilo/uno, who can do a similar deal, e.g. 30 day minimum term, 100GB at about £15 inc. VAT. Activation fees are about the same at £50 also...

But as you rightly say: there is actually very little mainstream competition

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

If it leads to withdrawal of "Broadband only" then the product will be considerably less competitive.

Of course, PN could do what BT do, being a subsidiary, and remove BB Only from website, not advertise it, and only offer it via the backdoor to those who phone up and explicitly ask for it .

That seems to be part of what they are testing. Hence my "Calling the tune" thread .

As they've done with unlimited for years.

They would then struggle to compete with the better ISPs customer service.

Done what with Unlimited? Not advertised it? They have for as long as they lifted the cap, 40 or 80GB I thimk.

In reply to a post by professor973:

They would then struggle to compete with the better ISPs customer service.

How would increasing the price of "broadband only" make them struggle to compete on customer service?

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by professor973:

They would then struggle to compete with the better ISPs customer service.

How would increasing the price of "broadband only" make them struggle to compete on customer service?

Quite simply, because there are suppliers that offer no tie-in broadband only and far better customer service for only slightly more money. I would have thought that was obvious.

Edited by professor973 (Fri 10-May-13 20:39:50)

In reply to a post by professor973:

Quite simply, because there are suppliers that offer no tie-in and far better customer service for only slightly more money. I would have thought that was obvious.

Right. But it seems that it isn't viable for them to have at the current price, so increasing the price can't be any worse than withdrawing the product completely.

That would be getting close to being BT proper, but the way things are going, I think it is heading toward BT or LLU anyway, as hard for others to compete with higher allowances.

Edited by professor973 (Fri 10-May-13 20:56:46)

Aren't we jumping the gun?

I do a few posts wondering if they are thinking of dropping "broadband only", and discussing margins, and suddenly the broadband only product isn't viable?

I'm sure it is viable. Just less profitable than bundles, as it is for all ISPs.

The question they seem to be asking themselves is the effect on total sign-ups/customer base. That needs to stay high as well, else credibility as a (sort of) stand-alone CP falls.

"as her"? OK, it's a typo, but I can't work out what it should say .

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I'm sure it is viable. Just less profitable than bundles, as it is for all ISPs.

It's so unprofitable they are hiding it from potential customers, even at the risk of losing customers. I would say if there prepared to go that far, it's time to consider making it more viable.

I am talking about keeping unlimited under the counter since the BT takeover. Pretended it did not exist, but was there for those that threatened to leave. Good honest BB.

Thanks Bob, senior moment corrected.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I'm sure it is viable. Just less profitable than bundles, as it is for all ISPs.

It's so unprofitable they are hiding it from potential customers ....

An unwarranted conclusion, based on no evidence whatsoever unless you have access to their detailed product financial performance statistics.

As they have said, it is a split-test on the website of the effect of this hiding for some visitors. I accept that explanation. I do think it is very unwise and can only end at best in lost custom, and at worst in tears.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

As they have said, it is a split-test on the website of the effect of this hiding for some visitors. I accept that explanation. I do think it is very unwise and can only end at best in lost custom, and at worst in tears.

They know that and are prepared to lose customers because of it. Why?

I don't know, any more than you do.

It depends on what their desired result is. Selling bundles only will clearly improve average revenue per customer, as I've stated several times. As an avid reader of several years-worth of O2 quarterly reports I'm sure you are aware of the importance attached to that figure.

It isn't however the only important figure. The number of customers is also high on the list - again see all the publicity every ISP gets when those come out, for better or worse.

There is the question of fixed overheads to be covered, plus several variable overheads. Some of which are fairly linear as numbers change, some of which involve more significant steps in costs.

All these have to be balanced to achieve optimum ROI, revenue and profit growth.

I think we can be absolutely certain of one thing, in direct contradiction of your assertion that the "broadband only" products are not viable. If they weren't, they would simply have withdrawn them from sale the other day, when the Home Phone prices changed and the split-test started.

Edited by RobertoS (Fri 10-May-13 21:28:29)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

If they weren't, they would simply have withdrawn them from sale the other day, when the Home Phone prices changed and the split-test started.

As far as a large percentage of their potential customers are concerned, they actually have withdrawn it from sale. I've seen elsewhere people saying "it looks like Plusnet don't sell broadband only anymore". That thought will be lodged in their heads and they won't be returning to the Plusnet website any time soon to see if it magically returns.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

As they have said, it is a split-test on the website of the effect of this hiding for some visitors. I accept that explanation. I do think it is very unwise and can only end at best in lost custom, and at worst in tears.

They know that and are prepared to lose customers because of it. Why?

Because it is a split-test to determine which path is the best.

By definition, a split-test has multiple variations, and some will perform worse (for the business) than others. The ones that perform worse must also, by definition, result in a loss of custom.

Until you run the test, you don't know which variant performs the worst, so you don't know which one loses more customers (or gains least). When you run the test, you are going to lose some customers, somewhere.

But once the test has been run, the business can switch to the variant that performed best overall, so that *all* customers will now follow that path.

The end-result is that more (future) customers are going to get a better experience. The (temporary) cost is the probability that a few customers in the middle were lost.

The saying "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs" springs to mind...

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

The end-result is that more (future) customers are going to get a better experience.

They're trialling the effect of removing "broadband only" from the website. If they like the result, then bye-bye "broadband only". Probably a "better experience" for Plusnet's bank balance, but not for those customers who would like the choice.

And they have got free help in their marketing experiment.

This is another reason why I won't trust plusnet. I had thought rhey were making up for their earlier scurrilousness but the apple still isn't falling far from the tree.

I am confused too.

Plusnet unlimited is something they seem very keen to push rather than hide.

Which is a point at which the internet becomes real world rather than virtual world.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

I am confused too.

Plusnet unlimited is something they seem very keen to push rather than hide.

They still have two of the four unlimited packages always visible. The other two also at times, on some basis we don't know.

Perhaps it is all part of a conspiracy plan that usually emerges on a Friday evening

Which reminds me... time for another pint of that conspiracy-creation liquid

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

If they need to increase the price of "broadband only" in order to make it viable then so be it. There's really very little mainstream competition in that market now, so they could conceivably put the price up without affecting new signups.

how is it unviable? eg. if I signup to voice services as well it adds so much hassle to me I would expect plusnet to pay me to do that. and after all that I dont make calls on my landline so where do they make money of me for that?

or is it the case plusnet are cross subsidising from call revenue from customers who use landlines heavily. In that case they fail a margin squeeze test.

right now I am still considering plusnet but if broadband only dissapears the consideration is gone as I wont be moving my line. I just consider it greed for an isp to not be happy with just selling broadband.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

right now I am still considering plusnet but if broadband only dissapears the consideration is gone as I wont be moving my line.

My decision when leaving IDNet fibre was between PN and BT. In the end it was largely decided by the phone calls I made to both about FTTC >> FTTC migration, which in Feb 12 was almost unheard of.

Neither had heard of it, but at least Plusnet believed I was already on FTTC. BT didn't, (even after the UK sales guy "spoke to his manager"), but they would take the order and send an engineer to check "your equipment is compatible with our service".

If I had had to move my line rental away from BT in order to join Plusnet FTTC I would have gone for Infinity, despite the above. I'm very fixed about the line being with BT, in the same way as large numbers of O2/Be customers are leaving in droves rather than feed Murdoch's empire. As I would have done if I hadn't already jumped, for FTTC.

In reply to a post by professor973:

suppliers that offer no tie-in broadband only and far better customer service for only slightly more money. I would have thought that was obvious.

Care to mention 2 or 3, please ? Now that fibre seems to be almost ready at my nearest cabinet, I see that Plus.Net has dropped from 6 to 3 the number of months of half price. It might be worth my while to have a new phone line from Primus and a connection with one of the competitors (and if you don't want to post, a private message would be appreciated). Are you talking 'unlimited' and broadband (rather than fibre), by the way ?

I am not particularly talking unlimited or fibre, but customer service, price and quality of service, from the likes of Zen or Enta. Freeola in my case. I find their 40gb service far better than the 60gb Plusnet one I had, simply because Freeola are unmetered from 7:00 pm AND all weekend (65%of the time!). No need to stay up half the night to keep within my allowance when streaming. They also throw in many many freebies, such as free hosting and Static IP as standard, all of which add up when combined with their superb customer service. Gamers may be interested in my superb constant low pings I have not found elsewhere.
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/7389/pingsx.jpg

Edited by professor973 (Sat 11-May-13 14:39:03)

However, on Plusnet Unlimited ....

However, Enta are reportedly going unlimited. Though it will make little difference to a service that is unmetered most of the time anyway. Monthly contract also, which is another incentive to keep customers happy. Like most, they will probably eventually be squeezed out with the likes of BT, who have a larger budget. It is only the tie-in that keeps many of us away.

Unlimited has been the main eye-catcher on the Enta website for a while, so rather more than "reportedly" . IIRC there is a downloadable price list, but I didn't pursue that.

I get the feeling that the price may not be low, though not exorbitant either.

I had just seen it mentioned here. Like you, I have not followed it up, thinking there may be a higher price or tie-in and I am happy with what I have. As you know, it takes a good supplier to keep me happy

Edited by professor973 (Sat 11-May-13 15:45:03)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

It's an extremely idiotic trial that makes it impossible to access broadband packages that do not require line rental!

Looks like a trial to see if they hide it they get more line rentals.
Not so honest BB IMHO

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/5824-entanet-adds...

The addition is unlimited on WBC network, though starting at £19.99 for ADSL2+, presume the £41.49 is 80/20 FTTC.

I have screen shots from Chrome and Safari from about noon yesterday, before I started chat (because Safari popped up a chat invitation), and Safari, unlike Chrome, did show Broadband Only.

At 18:00 Saturday, Chrome was showing Broadband Only... on both iMac systems, so I assume the 'test' is over. (I tried it on a second iMac in case the first had some cookie set when I logged into the user portal).

Here's what happened when I asked. Total 'chat' connection 20 minutes, of which about 15 minutes was waiting... I think Plus.Net should not pop-up a prompt really, just let potential sales ask, like many other sites do... as it looks bad when there's then quite a delay...

info: Welcome to our Live Chat service. A member of our sales team will be with you shortly.
info: Sorry for the wait, one of our sales team will be with you soon.
info: Sorry for the wait, one of our sales team will be with you soon.
info: Sorry for the wait, one of our sales team will be with you soon.
info: Sorry for the wait, one of our sales team will be with you soon.
info: Sorry for the wait, one of our sales team will be with you soon.
info: Sorry for the wait, one of our sales team will be with you soon.
info: You're now chatting to xxxxx.
PNsales: Hi, my name is xxxxx, I'm here to help you with your Plusnet order today.
PNsales: How may I help you with your order today?

Me: I wondered why the web site doesn't show 'Broadband Only' packages on some browsers?
PNsales: It will be dependant of which information you put into the checker
PNsales: If your property has an active BT landline you will get the option for Broadband only

Me: Could you check whether fibre is available for 0151 9xx xxxx (post code L20xxxx) please ?
PNsales: To check availability and pricing - please click here - then enter your details. It will then generate results on my end, so please get back to me so that I can help further.
PNsales: This will bring up the info on ym end
PNsales: my*

Me: I checked the other day and it doesn't show fibre (on Plus.Net or BT Broadband) but an Openreach engineer says this area is enabled.

PNsales: Unfortunately we don't have full details about future fibre dates via this chat as we only have access to the website, sorry about that. However our team on 0800 432 0200 or 0345 140 0200 should be able to help further.

Me: right. bye then
PNsales: Sorry about that Peter
PNsales: Thank you for chatting with me today, Plusnet values your feedback. Please click the "End chat" button at top right to close the chat.

info: A copy of this chat will be sent to dfplusnetkeepyouwaitingagesthencannotansweranyway.5.myrealm@dfgh.net when you've finished.

Everything about this company seems to be misleading, removing broadband-only packages from their website, displaying half-price offers in ads without saying that you need to get a phone-package from them, charging you £5.99 for a "Free Router" just so they can post it to you (Is Plus.net run by Ryanair?)

Plus they have the most obnoxious and annoying advertising campaign on TV and on their website at the moment that I'd be willing to pay more just to spite Plus.net's marketing section.

In reply to a post by professor973:

I am not particularly talking unlimited or fibre, but customer service, price and quality of service, from the likes of Zen or Enta. Freeola in my case.

I'll have a look to see how Zen and Enta-based services compare, to see what you consider a slightly higher price.

Certainly in the case of Freeola, (at double what the Market 3 price is for my unlimited service from Plus.Net {not yet on fibre, and it would be quadruple the amount I actually pay}), I'd see no reason to consider them.

Understoods, Freeola was not the one you intended comparison with, as it is quite costly (as far as I am concerned). I just compared the two... to see how the 'extras' stack up.

While a static IP isn't free on PN, they only charge a small one-off fee (5 quid) (my account is old so I had one anyway from years ago) and as for web hosting, then for a bit less than you spend each year on Freeola, I use Plus.Net with no traffic limits, and a Xilo hosting reseller account, which provides plenty of web space (5 GB) for as many domains as I wish to use.

Admittedly I did get 12 months of hosting for the price of 11, just by asking, but I prefer to have web hosting and e-mail separated from my ISP, and Xilo's standalone hosting serves me well.

You don't "have" to take the Plusnet Router.
12mth contract on PN Broadband unlimited without phone
Month 1 £34.99, month 2 onwards £9.99
12 mth contract to PN Broadband Essentials without phone
Month 1 £30.99, month 2 onwards £5.99

http://www.plus.net/home-broadband/broadband-only/

In reply to a post by ultra:

At 18:00 Saturday, Chrome was showing Broadband Only... on both iMac systems, so I assume the 'test' is over. (I tried it on a second iMac in case the first had some cookie set when I logged into the user portal).

I still don't see Broadband Only with any browser on any device.

Cleared cookies and opened IE8 which I rarely use when compared to using FF, I then typed in the PN url and this is what appeared:-


[img]http://s23.postimg.org/qogjfdwuz/PN_BB_only.png[/img]

Just tried the same with IE10, clearing all history and cookies, and I also now see the Broadband only options. I thought it might be my IP address, but obviously not.

To be honest, as I now do the updating of our provider lists. It is not just Plusnet that are like this, all the major providers and a good few smaller ones have confusing pages, with odd links to old package information.

Well using Firefox 20.Or IE7 i don't have any issue finding Broadband Only options from the plusnet Home Page Screenshot of Plusnet home page Outlined are most of the places you can access details of broadband only 1 in the middle i think is new, Details of Broadband only packages

I just tried logging on under a different user name that I don't normally use then explicitly clearing cookies and all history, etc, in both Firefox and Chrome and the Broadband only options then reappeared. That would seem to be the key, rather than being anything to do with which browser you were using.

Makes no difference if cookies are cleared or not for me, I'm still able to navigate to "broadband only" I can't see what changing user profile in your O/S would do TBH, Unless it's damaged/corrupt in some way or other

Edited by tommy45 (Sun 12-May-13 20:45:40)

In reply to a post by tommy45:

Makes no difference if cookies are cleared or not for me, I'm still able to navigate to "broadband only" I can't see what changing user profile in your O/S would do TBH, Unless it's damaged/corrupt in some way or other

Well, so far, every time I have cleared cookies, the Broadband only option has reappeared. I don't particularly want to clear cookies on my normal installation of Firefox or Chrome as I'd quite like to keep them, hence why I tried a different user profile, which has a completely separate set of cookies and temporary files, none of which I needed to keep.

In reply to a post by kasg:

In reply to a post by tommy45:

Makes no difference if cookies are cleared or not for me, I'm still able to navigate to "broadband only" I can't see what changing user profile in your O/S would do TBH, Unless it's damaged/corrupt in some way or other

Well, so far, every time I have cleared cookies, the Broadband only option has reappeared. I don't particularly want to clear cookies on my normal installation of Firefox or Chrome as I'd quite like to keep them, hence why I tried a different user profile, which has a completely separate set of cookies and temporary files, none of which I needed to keep.

I find this firefox extension quite handy when a site messes up or confuses it's own cookies or I need it to forget me https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cooki...

Seems Plusnet REFUSE to offer me broadband-only as I've cleared them twice and still no option for it. (Using CTRL_SHIFT_R too)

EDIT: Third time's a charm. To be honest though, if I have to go to these lengths to get an bleh set of offerings, I prolly won't bother with plusnet.

Edited by deleted (Sun 12-May-13 21:02:14)

In reply to a post by Pyrii:

Seems Plusnet REFUSE to offer me broadband-only as I've cleared them twice and still no option for it. (Using CTRL_SHIFT_R too)

EDIT: Third time's a charm. To be honest though, if I have to go to these lengths to get an bleh set of offerings, I prolly won't bother with plusnet.

It was annoying me, too, since I had been planning to leaflet anything up to 200,000 homes, but if the option for broadband only wasn't there, my own websites would look like they were lying about the product set.

I think Plus.Net has a lot of "thinking" to do before messing (nearly put something that'd be censored) around with their website like this. Bob Pullen if you see this, please feed it back to Marketing and whoever decided on this "test" that as a customer wanting to promote your service, I feel you should keep ALL options you offer on display and not &^^$ with the site for your own reasons, however long or short such a test might be. How the &^%* can I put together a website saying that someone can choose "broadband only" at some price, if they visit and find almost everything leads them to having their phone service with you.

It may be avoidable via the "order process" but someone not wanting to switch phone service will never get to do a blasted order, they'll click to another website well before seeing they don't have to take Plus.Net Line Rental.

If whoever decided on this doesn't "see" that, they need a course in something... commonsense, perhaps (and sorry, moderators, or whoever, if that's considered a personal attack and determined unacceptable... as it's actually meant to be, because I deem the person a complete idiot for deciding to go with this ridiculous "test").

PS Bob - I refuse to say "order journey" or whatever marketing/software engineering speak was written the other day... it's a "process" in my (old, rusty) book.

I remember bookmarking the Claranet SOHO 'gamer' account order pages, but I bet if I try to order 13 quid a month unlimited (off peak) broadband, it won't let me Bet they cannot be found by old links on their sites.

Clara is one ISP which makes relatively few changes (at least on the outside, looking on as a non-customer for some years, but still bit of a fan).

Hi,

Unfortunately, we removed the Claranet SOHO Gamer package from our product list.
It was mainly a change in business direction which prompted its removal.
However we still have a similar products available.

If you would like like to know more, please feel free to direct message me?
Regards

Thanks Anthony - probably worth your while to get ThinkBroadband to mark your account as that of an ISP, and I'll be in touch, and feel free to send me a private message with the info...

I notice now both BT and plusnet sites will not show packages straight away, have to find something else to click onto view, seems odd site design to force people to click more to order, or maybe thats just modern site design but I find it odd.

BT don't do broadband only. They gave me some nonsense that providing a phone package allows them to provide a better quality service. I pretty much laughed in the rep's face and they hung up on me.

BT do do BB Only if you have BTw phone with someone else and you phone them up to order. Just don't advertise it on website.

Well We're with the post office because it saves us a lot of money and we don't have mysterious numbers appearing on our bill which their CS refused to investigate.

I told the rep this and he refused to offer me any broadband-only deals. Besides, their prices are much higher than plusnet too.

Over the last few years PN were pretty upfront about their use of traffic/network management and provided you spent some time going through their website you would find it, like you I have found of late that looking for product packages or more in depth info seems to becoming more time consuming to find than it was some years ago ..... it is available but buried deeper within the web-pages

I can only think that Plusnet must be getting ready to ditch broadband only packages, or at very least evaluating the possibility of ditching them.

Why else would they run this test?

correct but with BT it doesnt matter for me as I want a BT retail voice line anyway.

Any other isp I go with would have to be broadband only service.

Who knows?
Maybe the big boys have screwed up by offering BB so cheaply, in order to get a large customer base, that there is very little money in it for them,so they must think they can get more profit from the customer from the voice + line rental route.

Looks like the next phase for them to make money is to provide and offer on-line TV packages especially with a now growing base of customers taking up fibre connections where possible.

A thoery I read also is that line rental has a margin big enough that it subsidises otherwise unproftable broadband, notice that line rental's continue to go up whilst broadband pricing is static.

Yeah, I don't think they are banking on the calls making the money, the line rental (which in many cases costs more than the broadband now) is what makes the dough. So in effect the broadband becomes a loss leader for the line rental (can't see the likes of Talktalk offering £3.25 broadband for a year without the £14.95 line rental coming in).

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Yeah, I don't think they are banking on the calls making the money, the line rental (which in many cases costs more than the broadband now) is what makes the dough. So in effect the broadband becomes a loss leader for the line rental (can't see the likes of Talktalk offering £3.25 broadband for a year without the £14.95 line rental coming in).

thats my take on it also.

which is also why we never see half price line rental offers, the half price deals or free for X months is always only on the broadband subs,

So sky loss lead on broadband for tv (and now line rental).
and it seems isp's like plusnet which used to be broadband focused now are using broadband to get line rental subs.