Be aware of the default Refund Insurance tick-box when buying online with Seetickets

[5co77ie]

Might struggle to get Glastonbury tickets for 2013 if you don't use SeeTickets.

[joyful]

Might struggle to get Glastonbury tickets for 2013 if you don't use SeeTickets.

[eFestivals]

1) Because efestivals list Seetickets at the top of their list of 'where to buy' Download tickets (see locked post at the top of this forum). Maybe there should be a thread advising where the best price/service for tickets.

2) Although I believe that the efestival commumity is pretty wise, I still feel the community should be reminded and made aware, in the haste of the buying process, of the Seetickets Option Box Scam (and I do call it that because I reckon they are earning very nicely on this from 'stupid' punters like me who fall for it).

1. do See sell Download tickets? Yep. Someone has to be top of any list, and we put at the top of the list the website that is most likely to be able to fulfil your purchase with the least hassle.

2. you said it. You were stupid.

and 3. you said the situation with See as a lie. It's not "a rip off" for them to offer an added service. Or does McD's rip you off too when they say "do you want that large"?

[eFestivals]

Don't you just love monopolies

yep I do - when they are giving a deal that no other ticket seller will.

That 'monopoly' you're expressing your dislike of is a 'monopoly' of the cheapest. So what you're saying now is that you wish to pay more for your tickets, at complete odds with what you said when you started this thread.

I bet you walk out of Tescos if their milk costs a penny more than at Sainburys, but then happily pay an extra quid for bog roll or whatever.

[august1]

is there a link, for general ticket use on see that I can use for gig tickets etc so this site can benefit?

I dont see the problem with seetickets service and whenever I purchase online I read the info whilst checking out just common sense.

[biffoire]

If a buyer leaves the insurance box ticked when they didn't mean to they've bought insurance by their own error and not See's.

[august1]

but lots of site use it so read before you buy? takes less than a minute

[eFestivals]

It's bad user experience and all automatic opt in should be banned to make the internet a better place.

the thing is, stuff like that is always wrong if it's marked/unmarked the opposite to how you want it to be.

For someone who doesn't want that insurance, it's wrong if the box is ticked. But for someone who does want the insurance it's wrong if it's not. It has to be wrong for one point of view.

But at the end of the day, as someone posted earlier in this thread, there's one principle that applies with all purchases: buyer beware.

And if someone isn't smart enough to realise that, then the only safe answer for that person is to not ever buy anything. There really is no other answer.

[joyful]

the thing is, stuff like that is always wrong if it's marked/unmarked the opposite to how you want it to be.

For someone who doesn't want that insurance, it's wrong if the box is ticked. But for someone who does want the insurance it's wrong if it's not. It has to be wrong for one point of view.

But at the end of the day, as someone posted earlier in this thread, there's one principle that applies with all purchases: buyer beware.

And if someone isn't smart enough to realise that, then the only safe answer for that person is to not ever buy anything. There really is no other answer.

[biffoire]

It's simple, if you want something, you ask for it. To assume someone wants a product or service is wrong. Like buying a flight from easyJet and them assuming you want to hire a car and rent a room and include lugguage as well as picking your seat.

And i can understand how people view it as a cynical ploy to gain money from people. Granted, people should read the boxes first also but the fact the amount isn't included in the financial summary at the top is also misleading. Why is it not listed in the bill with the other billable items?

[eFestivals]

OK, so I bet that if you ran a straw poll on whether punters want or do not want Refund Insurance, then the majority will say NO.

Quite possibly, but it's of little relevance.

If that is the case, then if a company like Seetickets is trading for the general benefit of the market, and are caring and are honest, then they would leave the default 'option' on the box unticked surely.

why? They're in business to make money.

You might as well be saying that Tesco should have a big sign up saying "go to Sainburys to get X, Y & Z cheaper than we sell them".

So lets run a Poll on efestivals (if you can set one up Admin please).

I make posts on behalf of no one. Not even you.

Let's see what the most influential fesival community really want. Then when we have a result we can put this forward to Seetickets to make sure that they serve us, the punters best.

you're more than welcome to do that.

But of course See Tickets are perfectly within their rights to ignore the results of that.

[biffoire]

NO.

[eFestivals]

Do you want McD's to mindlessly say after you've told them what you want "do you want fries with that?" or "do you want to go large"?

It's nothing different at all, yet I couldn't see anyone ever starting a campaign to get it stopped.

[biffoire]

No, cos McDonalds don't automatically give you fries and then say... 'well you need to say you don't want them'.

So that arguement doesn't work. Sorry. The 2 aren't comparable.

McDonalds are asking you to opt into a product, not assuming you want it.

Also, there is a difference between beeing asked something face to face and a misplaced check box in an order form. If the amount was next to the other financial info, it wouldn't be so bad. But it looks like you're subscribing to their marketing emails or something.

Edited November 22, 2011 by biffoire

[eFestivals]

No, cos McDonalds don't automatically give you fries and then say... 'well you need to say you don't want them'.

So that arguement doesn't work. Sorry. The 2 aren't comparable.

And See don't automatically give anyone the insurance. A person gets that insurance via the choices they make, no different to whether they get fries or not from McD's.

And in the case of ticket insurance there's very good reasons why customers might want it; there's not the same rationale to McD's trying to sell you stuff you've not asked for, it's something they're doing *ONLY* for their own benefit (whilst there is a clear benefit to the customer with ticket insurance).

In both cases it's a company trying to up-sell their customers. It's something I'd rather didn't happen at all, but if the likes of McD's are able to do it legally then it's no different for See and the hundreds of thousands of other companies that do it.

[joyful]

No, cos McDonalds don't automatically give you fries and then say... 'well you need to say you don't want them'.

So that arguement doesn't work. Sorry. The 2 aren't comparable.

McDonalds are asking you to opt into a product, not assuming you want it.

Also, there is a difference between beeing asked something face to face and a misplaced check box in an order form. If the amount was next to the other financial info, it wouldn't be so bad. But it looks like you're subscribing to their marketing emails or something.

[biffoire]

You're missing the fundamental point which is. See tickets automatically opt you in and ask you to opt out. McDonalds ask you to opt in.

Both ask whether you want something but it's done in 2 different ways.

'Please uncheck this if you wouldn't like X' is different to 'would you like X'.

And while yes, it is about making money, it doesn't make it good customer service or good user experience.

[biffoire]

Also, funny thing is, if McDs assumed to give you something you didn't order and you complained, you'd probably get a refund. I find the fact that insurance is none refundable quite telling and a reflection on See tickets customer service.

[mrtourette]

It is underhand, just as McD's not asking you if you want to go large but automatically charging you for it (yes I've had that before), because they're automatically applying the most expensive option and relying on you to correct them rather than vice versa. It's not neccessarily about whether the insurance is useful or not but more that of the two possibilities (ticking the box to make is easier for those who want insurance or leaving it unticked to make it easier for those who don't) they just happen to have chosen the one that if missed nets them more money.

But as pointed out it's there in black and white and it says to uncheck the box if you don't want it. It's not illegal and if you get caught then all you can really do is suck it up and pay more attention next time (or get your tickets somewhere else).

[mrtourette]

Actually in the name of fairness and all that, I think it was Burger King and not McD's.

[eFestivals]

You're missing the fundamental point which is. See tickets automatically opt you in and ask you to opt out. McDonalds ask you to opt in.

it's a tick on a box. Unticking the thing is far far easier than making continual posts about it being there in the first place.

And of course McD's ask. They're not selling via the net where things have to work differently.

Both ask whether you want something but it's done in 2 different ways.

It's done in two different ways because the whole process is done differently. McD's are not selling via the net where things have to work differently.

And while yes, it is about making money, it doesn't make it good customer service or good user experience.

Similarly, if you've spent £200 on a ticket and can't use it because you've (say) broken your leg, finding out that you can't get the money back on the unused ticket is not good customer service or a good user experience.

There's two sides to this issue, but some people only want to see the self-centred version.

From my point of view - a view where I use my eyes and brain and take responsibility for my own actions (an unfashionable and ridiculous idea for some, I know ) - there is no issue at all.

[joyful]

It is underhand, just as McD's not asking you if you want to go large but automatically charging you for it (yes I've had that before), because they're automatically applying the most expensive option and relying on you to correct them rather than vice versa. It's not neccessarily about whether the insurance is useful or not but more that of the two possibilities (ticking the box to make is easier for those who want insurance or leaving it unticked to make it easier for those who don't) they just happen to have chosen the one that if missed nets them more money.

But as pointed out it's there in black and white and it says to uncheck the box if you don't want it. It's not illegal and if you get caught then all you can really do is suck it up and pay more attention next time (or get your tickets somewhere else).

[biffoire]

The main thing I guess is, the customers always right.

[gary1979666]

Not sure how this thread has gone on so long - I think Neil's original reply pretty much sums it up.

This is common practice on the internet:

-Easyjet / Ryanair regularly include a lot of extras, like travel insurance, etc that you might not necessarily want.

-Amazon - automatically select the chargable delivery option, rather than the free one which takes a few extra options.

Just read what you're buying - not difficult!

[eFestivals]

The main thing I guess is, the customers always right.

that's something that only works in the real world if the customer has a working brain.

Anyone who has to deal with customers know that customers often don't.