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

[mrtourette]

Exactly what the thread says!!

The answer is to spread the word and hopefully punters will buy there tcikets somewhere else.

And I bet if Seetickets made it clear in bold in the text right next to the ticked box that 'This Refund Insurance does not cover cancelled, abandoned, postponed, curtailed or relocated events'

Then a lot more people would untick the box before buying.

[joyful]

Yeah I made the same points earlier. My main objective was why efestivals seemed to get thrown in with see as some kind of business partner at least partially at fault, why is unfair.

[jump]

This reminds me of people who tick the terms and conditions box so they can just get on with online process and not actually read the terms and conditions.

[eFestivals]

I think that the practice of including 'extras' with already ticked boxes like Easyjet, Amazon, Seetickets etc is sharp practice (solely for profit motive) and should be better regulated.

Soi have yuou started forum topics all round the net about those others too? Or do you instead use their services without resorting to starting topics about them?

Why the double standards? And why the lies about "rip off" when there's no rip off, just a feature you dislike and your own stupidity?

[joyful]

Soi have yuou started forum topics all round the net about those others too? Or do you instead use their services without resorting to starting topics about them?

Why the double standards? And why the lies about "rip off" when there's no rip off, just a feature you dislike and your own stupidity?

[eFestivals]

I just wanted to warn other efestival visitors/members to keep an eye out when booking online with Seetickets.

the thread title you used proves that as a lie.

As for efestival admins somewhat defensive attitude to the rasiing of this issue, I am a bit surprised considering about 50% of the correspondents on the post seem to support my position.

And so - from your own estimate - 50% don't support your position.

My attitude to the thread you started has been set by the lie you've used from the start, via which you're trying to make your own admitted error into someone else's bad doing. It seems that you're a dedicated follower of fashion. And the future of the worlds is well fucked. .

If my attitude was what you're clearly believing it to be, then this thread would not have remained here for us to be able to have the discussion that we are having. Do try joining up the dots a bit, eh?

Maybe you just want posts that talk about great bands, listings and all the great stuff about festival going, not anythting that might expose the industry (and it is an industry) failings.

you're of course dead right, and that's why I've deleted this thread you started on the basis of a lie to cover up for your own admitted stupidity.

[kaosmark2]

No, I have not started forum topics on this subject anywhere else on the web, sorry to dissapoint.

It was just the Seetickets sharp practice (and yes I suspect a bit of a 'rip off' ) that I disliked.

I just wanted to warn other efestival visitors/members to keep an eye out when booking online with Seetickets.

As for efestival admins somewhat defensive attitude to the rasiing of this issue, I am a bit surprised considering about 50% of the correspondents on the post seem to support my position.

Maybe you just want posts that talk about great bands, listings and all the great stuff about festival going, not anythting that might expose the industry (and it is an industry) failings.

[Sparticus]

This topic has made me laugh. It's all very good and well stating it's written in black in white and you can uncheck the box, but lets get everything put into perspective here. If you want to buy tickets to a high demand gig, you have to be lightning fast on the dot all details filled in at 9am. You don't have time to read the form, you've just got to fill it in FAST which means they are taking advantage of the fact that people rush through the booking form as quick as possible, some individuals have done it hundreds of times so can very easily miss it being added in (I nearly did myself, but noticed the bit extra, and realised they were trying to con me for a couple of quid).

Biffoire's bang on, at Maccy's they ask you to upgrade, with seetickets they upgrade you with the option to downgrade.

Also, not really right for efestivals (the user) to be involved, direct conflict of interest, I understand this site is here to make money and have no issue with that whatsoever, but it's ridiculous for you to comment on this matter if you're affliated with them. You may think that joyful was being foolish/ naive, and as a person have every right to think that, but joyful has no professional relationship with seetickets, efestivals however does and in order to remain impartial should refrain from commenting.

The funny thing is all this is over a couple of quid, seetickets are much worse than that. Try paying for a leeds weekend ticket, seetickets bundling the ticket in with someone else's tickets and sending them to that person. The person luckily contacted seetickets about it, and then contacted my relative (Seetickets breaking data protection by passing on the mobile number), and then having to drive an hour out of the way (No petrol compensation) as seetickets refused to have anything to do with it. Jokers.

[rivalschools.price]

on the subject of hidden costs/booking fees etc, i just bought tickets for the skindred/therapy? tour next april for the (admittedly bargain) price of £5.by the time they put booking fees/service charges/licking a stamp and putting it on an envelope charges/admin costs/whatever/etc the price came to £8.75.so,£5 for ticket,£3.75 for charges.surely percentage wise the most expensive 'extra's ever??????

[mrtourette]

The extras seetickets charge are pretty standard, it isn't just them charging what appears to be ridiculous amounts for processing or postage. Most work out the same although I know that ticketweb or ticketline (I forget which) charge less for the extras.

Edited November 23, 2011 by mrtourette

[eFestivals]

Also, not really right for efestivals (the user) to be involved, direct conflict of interest,

Utter bollocks.

The only conflict of interest I'm adding to this thread is the one between sense and stupidity. The thread title is a lie, and the issue that has got that user's goat is their own stupidity.

Had that user approached this subject in an honest and straightforwards way instead of using a lie to cover for their own culpability, they'd have found my responses to be entirely different to how they've been. The smarter readers have probably already picked up on that from my comments.

I understand this site is here to make money

100% incorrect.

This site was not started to make money. This site does not base anything of what it says on trying to make money. It would only take you to see one of the many emails I send back to those people wanting to leech off this site to realise that.

Yes, this site does make money, but as a consequence of being here and not as its primary purpose. There is not one jot of how I do things that would be changed to claw in any money I can even if this site was on the brink of financial disaster.

I do not chase all that glitters and I never will. I leave the "I'll write anything to put a few quid in my pocket" to the unprincipled scumbags that run so very many of the other websites.

and have no issue with that whatsoever, but it's ridiculous for you to comment on this matter if you're affliated with them.

eFestivals is an affiliate of all of the major ticket agents, and that very fact means that we have no need to defend one agent over the others for our advantage.

The simple fact is that we do give some agents preference over others, but *ONLY* on the basis of their ability to provide the tickets that people wish to buy, and for no other reasons. It's fuck all good to anyone if we sent punters to XYZ tickets because their fees are a quid cheaper if XYZ tickets is unable to supply the wanted tickets.

You may think that joyful was being foolish/ naive, and as a person have every right to think that, but joyful has no professional relationship with seetickets, efestivals however does and in order to remain impartial should refrain from commenting.

Yeah, because the lies that joyful has used are worth more than any sense.

The funny thing is all this is over a couple of quid, seetickets are much worse than that. Try paying for a leeds weekend ticket, seetickets bundling the ticket in with someone else's tickets and sending them to that person. The person luckily contacted seetickets about it, and then contacted my relative (Seetickets breaking data protection by passing on the mobile number), and then having to drive an hour out of the way (No petrol compensation) as seetickets refused to have anything to do with it. Jokers.

Every ticket agent makes a huge number of cock ups every year, because they handle a massive number of transactions which are done by humans who make cock-ups. Apart from you of course who is going to be 100% perfect for all of their life.

The customer can be right. The customer can also be mightily stupid - and sometimes companies are taken in by the stupidity of their customers. And that might well be how your bad experience came about, because...

See Tickets used to use a private courier to handle their tickets. The customers complained that the service was rubbish, even tho it was the cheapest service See could find (and of course, it's the customer who ultimately picks up that cost).

As a result of listening to their customers, See Tickets started to use the post office, which was more expensive. What See found was that the number of customer complaints about the delivery process didn't drop - the customers felt it was just as rubbish - but now they also complained about the higher charges as well and so See got more complaints.

So See switched back to using a private courier. And people then moaned that it was rubbish, and also that they'd switched back to a service they'd left because it was rubbish.

The simple facts are that the service and level of complaints that See gets about the delivery process are around the industry standards, and that them switching delivery companies doesn't improve things. The tickets arrive on the customers doorstep via a company that isn't See, but it's See that gets the slagging for the errors of that company.

See listened to the customer, and the customer by their own complaints showed that See shouldn't have listened to the customer. Sometimes the customer is too unthinking or too stupid to know what is good for them.

I'd never buy insurance such as See offer, but along with that *I* accept the consequences from my choice of not having insurance. I'll happily bet £50 that it doesn't work in the same way for the likes of joyful because the customer is so so often a moron.

[eFestivals]

on the subject of hidden costs/booking fees etc, i just bought tickets for the skindred/therapy? tour next april for the (admittedly bargain) price of £5.by the time they put booking fees/service charges/licking a stamp and putting it on an envelope charges/admin costs/whatever/etc the price came to £8.75.so,£5 for ticket,£3.75 for charges.surely percentage wise the most expensive 'extra's ever??????

Do you work for free? Then why would you expect others to work for free?

Nuff said.

[Chas]

Am I the only one to have this extra refunded? I didn't spot it when buying Reading Pre-Sale tickets a few months back as it was the first time I'd used See since they had added this option by default and I merrily went about booking tickets as I normally do assuming the form was the same as usual. A polite email to See resulted in a refund a few days later.

[jump]

See Tickets used to use a private courier to handle their tickets. The customers complained that the service was rubbish, even tho it was the cheapest service See could find (and of course, it's the customer who ultimately picks up that cost).

As a result of listening to their customers, See Tickets started to use the post office, which was more expensive. What See found was that the number of customer complaints about the delivery process didn't drop - the customers felt it was just as rubbish - but now they also complained about the higher charges as well and so See got more complaints.

So See switched back to using a private courier. And people then moaned that it was rubbish, and also that they'd switched back to a service they'd left because it was rubbish.

The simple facts are that the service and level of complaints that See gets about the delivery process are around the industry standards, and that them switching delivery companies doesn't improve things. The tickets arrive on the customers doorstep via a company that isn't See, but it's See that gets the slagging for the errors of that company.

See listened to the customer, and the customer by their own complaints showed that See shouldn't have listened to the customer. Sometimes the customer is too unthinking or too stupid to know what is good for them.

[rivalschools.price]

Do you work for free? Then why would you expect others to work for free?

Nuff said.

[jump]

first of all, i know youre not in the best of spirits on this thread as your integrity had been called into question but i was talking about a totally different subject to the ticked/unticked charges.i also agree that it is simple to untick what you dont want so please don't confuse me with the people attacking you/see tickets.(admittedly it was the wrong thread but we were talking about extra charges)

of course i dont expect anyone to work for free but gig tickets seem to be the only product where commision/fees/etc are not included in the price.if i was to use the skindred example,why not simply advertise the price as £8.75 all in? people could still be paid and given a commision.

i know some pay cash on the door with no fees but cant they be given a discount?

to use your mcdonalds example you wouldnt want a big mac and fries to be advertised as £3 but then presented with a bill for £5 and be told 'you didnt expect the staff to cook and serve you for nothing did you?'

[eFestivals]

to use your mcdonalds example you wouldnt want a big mac and fries to be advertised as £3 but then presented with a bill for £5 and be told 'you didnt expect the staff to cook and serve you for nothing did you?'

I take your point, and there's a good argument that can be made for ticket agents doing that.

But all the same it's a completely different thing. McD's are selling all of their own thing, and selling it directly (and not remotely) to the customer.

Buying online is an extension of the older 'mail order' method, where service &/or delivery charges are traditionally added onto the cost of the order at the end of the order. Just about every online seller works things in this way.

On top of that, what ticket agents sell is not their own product; they are a purely 'service company' who are providing an added value service onto someone else's product.

I know that people might object to the idea that they add value - I do to an extent - but within existing/traditional retail ideas that's what they do. They certainly succeed in removing the costs and/or inconvenience for a buyer in acquiring those tickets.

A ticket agent doesn't have any part in setting the price of the products they sell, and so they detail the product's cost and their own charges separately, and things are done this way right across the ticketing industry - enabling customers to explicitly see an agent's charges, and so creating better competition across the various ticketing companies.

[eFestivals]

i know youre not in the best of spirits on this thread as your integrity had been called into question

That has got zero, zilch, zip to do with the attitude I've had towards this thread. Absolutely nothing at all.

It's the lack of integrity of the OP that has set my attitude here, and nothing else.

Had they started a thread about how they think it's wrong for See Tickets to be doing things in the way that they are then that point of view would have had my full support.

Because they chose to present how See have chosen to do things as a "RIP OFF" only on the basis of that person having been dumb enough to make an order without reading what they were ordering then they don't get my support they get my wrath for their lies instead.

[AcademicPistol]

eFestivals the user and the website own! I wish i had thought of it i think it deserves all the money it makes keep doing it eFests your the man/woman/robot?

[joyful]

Utter bollocks.

The only conflict of interest I'm adding to this thread is the one between sense and stupidity. The thread title is a lie, and the issue that has got that user's goat is their own stupidity.

Had that user approached this subject in an honest and straightforwards way instead of using a lie to cover for their own culpability, they'd have found my responses to be entirely different to how they've been. The smarter readers have probably already picked up on that from my comments.

I'd never buy insurance such as See offer, but along with that *I* accept the consequences from my choice of not having insurance. I'll happily bet £50 that it doesn't work in the same way for the likes of joyful because the customer is so so often a moron.

Edited November 23, 2011 by joyful

[eFestivals]

from what you say from where you have put "1)" and downwards is all more than reasonable.

Had you made those points in the same fair manner - and without the unfair manner - from the off then this thread would have gone a completely different way.

If you wish me to try to use any sway I might have with See Tickets (and as far as I'm aware, I have none) I'm prepared to - but it will, in the interests of fairness, require a compromise on your part. And that will be the removal or retitling of this topic.

[eFestivals]

It's not "a rip off". It is an option that people can choose to take or not, and where things have not been done in the manner and with the clarity that you'd like.

[joyful]

from what you say from where you have put "1)" and downwards is all more than reasonable.

Had you made those points in the same fair manner - and without the unfair manner - from the off then this thread would have gone a completely different way.

If you wish me to try to use any sway I might have with See Tickets (and as far as I'm aware, I have none) I'm prepared to - but it will, in the interests of fairness, require a compromise on your part. And that will be the removal or retitling of this topic.

Edited November 23, 2011 by joyful

[eFestivals]

No problem. I'll send an email, and will post back here details of the response I get.

(I might not post the response in full. The emails I exchange with the person I deal with at See don't always keep to the main point in hand).

[jump]

http://www.metakinetic.com/news/new-eu-ruling-to-change-how-ecommerce-sites-sell-optional-extras

"banning of pre-ticked boxes on websites"

No idea when it comes into action.