Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

Originally Posted by TehTech

This is ILLEGAL!!!

When virgin finally do make this PhormeWare go public, Im out and taking ALL 3 of my services and they can go jump!

That is a total of £1,176 a year Virgin will be losing out on, and this is just from me!!

They'll probably be happy to let you go

I'm sure they have already worked out how many users deploying this system will cost them and have factored that against the profits they will be getting from their cut in Phorm's advertising revenue.

Say that Phorm will net them about £20,000,000.00 per year - @ £15.00 per month they can easily afford to lose 100,000 customers before the alarm bells start ringing.

[dav]

Originally Posted by Paul Delaney

They'll probably be happy to let you go

I'm sure they have already worked out how many users deploying this system will cost them and have factored that against the profits they will be getting from their cut in Phorm's advertising revenue.

Say that Phorm will net them about £20,000,000.00 per year - @ £15.00 per month they can easily afford to lose 100,000 customers before the alarm bells start ringing.

...and it's that kind of contempt for customers that really sticks in my craw and spurs me on to looking for alternatives.

[mark777]

Hi PhormUKPRteam.

How are you today?

Any idea when the BT trials will start? (again)

[OF1975]

Originally Posted by Paul Delaney

They'll probably be happy to let you go

I'm sure they have already worked out how many users deploying this system will cost them and have factored that against the profits they will be getting from their cut in Phorm's advertising revenue.

Say that Phorm will net them about £20,000,000.00 per year - @ £15.00 per month they can easily afford to lose 100,000 customers before the alarm bells start ringing.

That would be true but how many of those customers are only paying £15.00 per month for their Virgin Media services? I currently pay about £60 per month. Some people pay significantly more. I do agree with your general principle, though, and believe that it will come down to the financial equation of how much they stand to gain by implementing Phorm and how much revenue they will lose via churn of unhappy customers.

Sadly, as things stand right now, I am beginning to doubt their line that they are keeping it under review and that if it begins to damage their brand they will pull out. I already think this Phorm malarkey HAS tarnished their brand image yet they still remain cagey.

Time to leave. Be back this evening or tomorrow.

[dav]

Originally Posted by mark777

Hi PhormUKPRteam.

How are you today?

I'd be surprised if you got an answer other than, "OK thanks"
It seems their rules of engagement have been changed and they are being kept on a short leash after a few calamitous forays on to "teh interwebz"

[Florence]

At present I have ADSL and Cable but will gladly switch of the cable modem today even though it is paid till next month if Phorm went live today.

I am so against this type of spying plus do not trust the managment lepords don't change their spots just their hunting habits when things get lean....

I am off to amend my websites to include the ban for phorm to access the pages or gather any data,information,image from them..

Lmfao Paul i am not a heavy user and my VM monthly bill is around the £70 pound mark as i would imagine a hell of a lot of people on here are. If VM can afford to lose 25-35,000 of us then good luck to them and hope they and phorm have a happy life. I suspect that this system will lose them a lot more then 35,000 not as many as 100,000 but enough that phorm is not going to make them a profit and the damage done to the VM brand will be a lot higher then simple financial terms. Spin it how you want this is a whole new phorm of business suicide and only the terminally stupid in business would even contemplate having anything to do with it.

[Ravenheart]

So they're still claiming the opt out option when the ICO has stated that it has to be opt in.

The silence from Virgin on this whole affair isn't good.

[Florence]

Originally Posted by OF1975

That would be true but how many of those customers are only paying £15.00 per month for their Virgin Media services? I currently pay about £60 per month. Some people pay significantly more. I do agree with your general principle, though, and believe that it will come down to the financial equation of how much they stand to gain by implementing Phorm and how much revenue they will lose via churn of unhappy customers.

Sadly, as things stand right now, I am beginning to doubt their line that they are keeping it under review and that if it begins to damage their brand they will pull out. I already think this Phorm malarkey HAS tarnished their brand image yet they still remain cagey.

Time to leave. Be back this evening or tomorrow.

If you consider the lowest package for BB and phone is £20 a month every 3 ppl on this package will = 4 at the £15.00 a month thye can afford to lose if higher package customers leave the total rises quicker..

It will not be the first time the Cable bean counters got it wrong and almost brought the company to its knees this time they might just succeed with greed.

Originally Posted by dav

...and it's that kind of contempt for customers that really sticks in my craw and spurs me on to looking for alternatives.

Me too

I already have moved to an ISP who treats me like a valued customer rather than a f*cking Lab Rat!

Through my work I am often asked to recommend an ISP to clients and there's no way I would consider signing anyone up to a VM, BTR or Carphone Whorehouse service ever again (that'll lose them at least 3 new customers per month)!

[Ravenheart]

Originally Posted by Florence

I am off to amend my websites to include the ban for phorm to access the pages or gather any data,information,image from them..

I must get my sites done too, all this stuff to do this week... arghhhhh

Originally Posted by Ravenheart

So they're still claiming the opt out option when the ICO has stated that it has to be opt in.

The silence from Virgin on this whole affair isn't good.

Thing is the system's dead on the ground as an opt-in...

It would be legal as an opt-out if they wrote targetted advertising into the service contract for new customers - a sort of "love me, love my dog" clause.

Then they could gradually lose their current customer base...

[mark777]

Originally Posted by Ravenheart

So they're still claiming the opt out option when the ICO has stated that it has to be opt in.

The silence from Virgin on this whole affair isn't good.

The problem is, for so long these ISP's have concentrated on customer numbers and market share. The Holy Grail. They cut everything to the bone to achieve this.

The theory goes that when you have a large enough market share, you can add value.

So far, so good. You can add value by :-

(a) Increasing the quality of your service, charging a bit more for it and keeping your customers happy. Add the odd new service now and again. This is a sound, sustainable approach.

OR

(b) Go for a quick fleece and hope nobody notices.

I know what's most attractive to VM.

---------- Post added at 11:46 ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul Delaney

Thing is the system's dead on the ground as an opt-in...

It would be legal as an opt-out if they wrote targetted advertising into the service contract for new customers - a sort of "love me, love my dog" clause.

Then they could gradually lose their current customer base...

They couldn't just bury this in the T&C's even for new customers. It has to be informed consent to opt-in.

They have to acknowledge that burying it in T&C's does not constitute 'informed' because not everyone reads the T&C's.

This was demonstrated by a well known PR team admitting not reading the Wiki T&C's, which will come back to haunt them one day in court.

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by Paul Delaney

They'll probably be happy to let you go

I'm sure they have already worked out how many users deploying this system will cost them and have factored that against the profits they will be getting from their cut in Phorm's advertising revenue.

Say that Phorm will net them about £20,000,000.00 per year - @ £15.00 per month they can easily afford to lose 100,000 customers before the alarm bells start ringing.

Paul,

If you are wishing to enter into hypothetical earnings then it would be better to pro-rata, for customer base size, on the projected (read possible hypothetically :-) ) 2010 income for B.T.

The projected income would be around a quarter of your number and churn would be exceptionally painful for VM compared to BT. For me it would be one out, all out and that is in excess of £1K per annum. By the time that the Virgin Media brand is considered synonymous with a spy company I suspect that the leavers will so far outweigh any income that Phorm will be dropped and a campaign launched to encourage returners to a spy free company.

These battles have only just begun and if implemented there will be new targets. The system needs paying advertisers and if as they appear each one is inundated with thousands of e-mails deploring their involvement with spyware and employing the reverse logic of "I now will boycott your company, totally", Phorm will be starved of the oxygen it needs to survive. It will not be long before they will be become aligned with Corporate financial suicide.

Virgin Media are IMO showing the least intelligence in this Phorm fiasco. They have high penetration in areas where the network is available. It is not feasible to increase network size due to cost factors therefore must gain income from value adding. Exploitation is not value adding and if exploitation leads to customer loss then in a limited sized network it is corporate foolishness in the extreme.

VM and its predecessors have been to the brink of the financial abyss before and I have a feeling of deja vue.

Originally Posted by mark777

They couldn't just bury this in the T&C's even for new customers. It has to be informed consent to opt-in.

They have to acknowledge that burying it in T&C's does not constitute 'informed' because not everyone reads the T&C's.

This was demonstrated by a well known PR team admitting not reading the Wiki T&C's, which will come back to haunt them one day in court.

Yeah you're right, it would need to be in the same format as a Software EULA. When signing up to the service it will require action on the customer's part when given the choice of accepting the service with targetted advertising:
I Agree / I don't Agree.
Of course if you check the latter you get dumped out of the sign up process!

---------- Post added at 12:22 ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 ----------

Originally Posted by Traduk

Paul,

If you are wishing to enter into hypothetical earnings then it would be better to pro-rata, for customer base size, on the projected (read possible hypothetically :-) ) 2010 income for B.T.

The projected income would be around a quarter of your number and churn would be exceptionally painful for VM compared to BT. For me it would be one out, all out and that is in excess of £1K per annum. By the time that the Virgin Media brand is considered synonymous with a spy company I suspect that the leavers will so far outweigh any income that Phorm will be dropped and a campaign launched to encourage returners to a spy free company.

These battles have only just begun and if implemented there will be new targets. The system needs paying advertisers and if as they appear each one is inundated with thousands of e-mails deploring their involvement with spyware and employing the reverse logic of "I now will boycott your company, totally", Phorm will be starved of the oxygen it needs to survive. It will not be long before they will be become aligned with Corporate financial suicide.

Virgin Media are IMO showing the least intelligence in this Phorm fiasco. They have high penetration in areas where the network is available. It is not feasible to increase network size due to cost factors therefore must gain income from value adding. Exploitation is not value adding and if exploitation leads to customer loss then in a limited sized network it is corporate foolishness in the extreme.

VM and its predecessors have been to the brink of the financial abyss before and I have a feeling of deja vue.

Excelent point!

I do keep underestimating just how much pressure the average Internet "consumer" can exert and how fragile online advertising can be when confronted by determined opposition - food for thought indeed!

When compared to BT, VM is indeed on shaky ground I would imagine for them deployment will create a make or break situation - this is obviously greed driven and could go very wrong!