PBO's Toothless Watchdog

[Rich_F]

PBO\'s Toothless Watchdog

What do people think of the "Watchdog" page in the July PBO? 6 letters of praise for various companies, and one letter of censure that carefully omits any information about the culprits.

It's great to hear about companies offering good service, but it's disappointing that PBO won't keep me informed about which companies I should avoid.

Maybe PBO are worried about loss of advertising, or litigation. On the latter point, I would have thought that as long as they presented the page as reader's experiences, and offered a right to reply, then they should be safe.

Otherwise, maybe the page should be renamed "Lapdog"?

Rich

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Solitaire]

Re: PBO\'s Toothless Watchdog

Check this out. A new organisation to "Watchdog" the marine industry, both positive and negative. I think it should be a bit like "Rogue Traders". Why should we have to put up with cowboys working on our pride and joys? it would also be good to know who the good guys are. <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.mssa.org.uk/index.php>http://www.mssa.org.uk/index.php</A>

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[kimhollamby]

There\'s no such thing as a get-out clause

This is not a comment on your specific criticisms regarding content -- I will pass them to the editor concerned to make sure she is aware of them.

However you are wrong specifically with regard to litigation. It is no defence in the UK, or many other places, to publish, claiming it is someone else's view and simply offering a right to reply. Publishers (and for that matter, reprographics houses, printers, web hosting companies and all businesses involved in publishing) are aware of that and all can be brought into a legal action that may, or may not, have merits.

For that reason a publication or website of whatever kind will always need to satisfy itself that the facts are as presented. Many times readers or web site users have genuine grievances that deserve to be dealt with, one way or the other; occasionally the angst of a situation clouds the eyes and inaccuracies creep in; very occasionally there is an unfortunate case of deliberate malice and publications can be mislead.

On the web it has become somewhat worse again because a recent test case seems to indicate it is possible to face a court action in any country in which the web page concerned can be viewed. I try not to think about that too much when running the forums here!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[colvic]

Re: PBO\'s Toothless Watchdog

Trouble is it is not just the "cowboys" who are ripping you off, but so are some of the best known names in the marine business in general. Kim and I communicated early this year about a problem I was experiencing and I even sent him documents supporting my case. He was, give him due, prepared to publish but with the quite understandable proviso that if other "posters" went over the top he would have to pull the plug. I know for a fact that PBO has been warned off at least twice this year.

I took matters into my own hands and took on a Euro wide service supplier over a trivial amount of money but I had been robbed. You can do the ame if you're in the right.


Phil

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[sarahnorbury]

Re: PBO\'s Toothless Watchdog

Rich, what you say is not true. We have stuck our necks out as the only yachting magazine with a dedicated Watchdog page, it's unfair of you to have a go at us for doing the right thing, which is to publish a balanced representation of the correspondence we receive. We set up the Watchdog page as a way of notifying readers of problems, and good service, experienced by others. We try to publish all the complaining letters we receive. The ratio of 'good' to 'bad' we receive is about 20 to 1. If I published all the Good for Garmin letters we get it would take up about five pages. We actually give proportionately more space to problems than to praise in relation to what comes in our postbag. There are several 'bad' reports currently pending that will be published shortly.
We offer companies right of reply, but from now on we will publish complaints without a reply, if the company does not respond within a certain time.
To increase your chances of getting a complaint published, please keep your letter short, 200 words max.
Sarah Norbury, Editor, PBO


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[maris]

Re: PBO\'s Toothless Watchdog

I think you've hit a sore point. But at least we're going to get to read them soon. I would expect there to be a few pages worth.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[PGD]

Re: PBO\'s Toothless Watchdog

All good points raised here, the site to which Solitaire refers has been set up to not only to offer the opportunity for improvement to the not so good, but equally to reward those that do value their customers.

More often than not, in my experience, the biggest letdown is a lack of communication, which is probably more common than the outright cowboy antics as seen on Rogue Traders. If you are kept well informed you can understand if a part is taking a bit longer to get hold of for example. If you are left to guess and are offered excuses which amount to over promises and massive under delivery, you won’t be very happy.

Kim is correct with regard to the legal aspects, case law shows that anyone propagating (publishing or distributing) defamatory comments or allegations that can’t be substantiated can be held as liable as the person that made them. Hence the web site in question is fully moderated with no live posting to the web. This helps to protect you and the respective company being commented upon.

In reality the site isn’t a Watchdog as it has no authority over the industry, it’s more of a reference guide to help the consumer exercise their right of choice.

Remember the saying "if you receive good service you might tell 3 people, receive bad service and that will be more like 13, they then may go on to tell others".

Reputation takes years to build and seconds to loose and the quicker some companies realise this the less complaints the boating public will make.


<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.mssa.org.uk>http://www.mssa.org.uk</A> Marine Service Standards Assistance

 

[Birdseye]

Re: PBO\'s Toothless Watchdog

Do you really think there are any companies who have never had a problem or complaint? Or that there are no unreasonable and dishonest customers?

I'm not in the marine trade in case you are wondering, but its been my experience that the vast majority of suppliers are competent and honest, and will deal fairly with a problem if one arrises. Its also been my experience that Joe Public is nothing like as honest as he likes to think he is, regarding insurance fiddling for example as simply something that most people do and therefore OK.

In 15 years of boating, I cannot think of a supplier that I would not go back to, though I can think of a number that have gone bust despite "overcharging" in "rip off Britain". So I agree with PBO - moans need very carefull checking before printing.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Rich_F]

Re: PBO\'s Toothless Watchdog

Hi Sarah, Thanks for responding.

It's really interesting to hear about the ratio of "good" to "bad" letters. Given that people with bad service are more likely to complain anyway, this reflects well on the industry. Also, I do recognise that you do have to be careful about publishing specific complaints, as they can harm a business, and the consumer's view can be very one-sided.

Having said all that, I think that my point is that a non-specific letter of complaint doesn't have much value. It really just says "a bad thing happened to someone, and it might happen to you too, and we won't tell you how to avoid it". Though your title/editorial comment of "Useless junk" on the text box was proably a bit harsh! Admit it, it was just an excuse to print the glum dog cartoon, wasn't it? Just discussing your 20:1 statistic would be more interesting.

Maybe the "Watchdog" title, for me, has too many connotations from the TV series, of really getting "stuck in" on behalf of the consumer, usually aggressively and without much balance. That's not want I'd like to see in PBO! Maybe I should read the banner underneath more carefully, "Readers' reports on products and service".

So I suppose the message is to carry on regardless, but maybe include a bit of editorial about the ratio of complaints to praise, and your policy on publishing complaints.

Great magazine, by the way!

Regards,

Rich

<hr width=100% size=1>