My letter from Barclaycard, announcing that I am soon to become one of their
ex-Goldfish cardholders, reassures me at its outset that I'll "hardly
notice the change". Phew!

From the rest of the information, though, it is clear that:

(1) My card number will be scrapped, requiring re-notification to any
continuous authority holders;

(2) My account number will be scrapped, requiring me to alter the BACS
payment reference;

(3) My PIN number will be expiring;

(4) I'll need to call a different customer service telephone number (which,
incidentally, is no longer free to call);

(5) Online management will have to be done elsewhere, presumably requiring
new authentication details;

(6) The statement date and payment date are going to change;

(7) The interval from statement to due date for payment will be eight days
shorter.

So, is "I'm pleased to say you'll hardly notice the change" merely the sort
of weasel-wordy assurance that PR wonks emit, by design, without any
reference to the facts of the matter? Or is it a calculated insult to
customers' intelligence?

"Clifford Frisby"  wrote in message 
news:g7kbbk$mk9$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> My letter from Barclaycard, announcing that I am soon to become one of 
> their
> ex-Goldfish cardholders, reassures me at its outset that I'll "hardly
> notice the change". Phew!
>
> From the rest of the information, though, it is clear that:
>
> (1) My card number will be scrapped, requiring re-notification to any
> continuous authority holders;
>
> (2) My account number will be scrapped, requiring me to alter the BACS
> payment reference;
>
> (3) My PIN number will be expiring;
>
> (4) I'll need to call a different customer service telephone number 
> (which,
> incidentally, is no longer free to call);
>
> (5) Online management will have to be done elsewhere, presumably requiring
> new authentication details;
>
> (6) The statement date and payment date are going to change;
>
> (7) The interval from statement to due date for payment will be eight days
> shorter.
>
> So, is "I'm pleased to say you'll hardly notice the change" merely the 
> sort
> of weasel-wordy assurance that PR wonks emit, by design, without any
> reference to the facts of the matter? Or is it a calculated insult to
> customers' intelligence?

Sainsbury Bank did much the same without even bothering to change the name 
on the card.

It's the way these companies work to make the headline price cheaper *for 
you*.  In order to save 50p a year they dump you with a load of admin that, 
if you are a busy person, costs far more than the money saved.  Insurance 
companies are past masters at it



tim

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Clifford Frisby   wrote:

> My letter from Barclaycard, announcing that I am soon to become one
> of their ex-Goldfish cardholders, reassures me at its outset that
> I'll "hardly notice the change". Phew!
>
> From the rest of the information, though, it is clear that:
>
> (1) My card number will be scrapped, requiring re-notification to any
> continuous authority holders;

Yes.

>
> (2) My account number will be scrapped, requiring me to alter the BACS
> payment reference;
>
They will sort DDs automatically. However, if *you* initiate the payment, 
you will indeed need to change the details.

> (3) My PIN number will be expiring;
>
Yes - but you can change it at an ATM machine, which you can't do with the 
existing card.

> (4) I'll need to call a different customer service telephone number
> (which, incidentally, is no longer free to call);
>
Probably - although that's not totally clear from the blurb.

> (5) Online management will have to be done elsewhere, presumably
> requiring new authentication details;
>
Yes.

> (6) The statement date and payment date are going to change;
>
Yes.

> (7) The interval from statement to due date for payment will be eight
> days shorter.
>
Not necessarily. Morgan Stanley/Goldfish have *already* reduced the interval 
for people who pay their balance in full using DD.

> So, is "I'm pleased to say you'll hardly notice the change" merely
> the sort of weasel-wordy assurance that PR wonks emit, by design,
> without any reference to the facts of the matter? Or is it a
> calculated insult to customers' intelligence?

You're unlikely not to notice the changes! Some things are a pain - others 
may be slightly better, like reduced fees for cash withdrawals (if you're 
foolish enough to draw cash on a credit card!). Cashback will also be 
credited automatically each month rather than having to initiate it manually 
in multiples of £15. As long as you spend at least £200 per month on 
'qualifying' purchases, your cashback will actually increase since it's 1% 
on the first £2400 p.a. instead of the first £2000 (and 0.5% thereafter). 
Mind you, if your spending is irregular, you might get *less* cashback, 
since it's calculated on monthly rather than annual spend. This would apply, 
for example, if you spend very little each month and then make a single 
large purchase.
-- 
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

Roger Mills wrote:

> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> Clifford Frisby   wrote:
> 
>> My letter from Barclaycard, announcing that I am soon to become one
>> of their ex-Goldfish cardholders, reassures me at its outset that
>> I'll "hardly notice the change". Phew!
>>
>> From the rest of the information, though, it is clear that:
>>
>> (1) My card number will be scrapped, requiring re-notification to any
>> continuous authority holders;
> 
> Yes.
> 
>>
>> (2) My account number will be scrapped, requiring me to alter the BACS
>> payment reference;
>>
> They will sort DDs automatically. However, if *you* initiate the payment,
> you will indeed need to change the details.
> 
>> (3) My PIN number will be expiring;
>>
> Yes - but you can change it at an ATM machine, which you can't do with the
> existing card.
> 
>> (4) I'll need to call a different customer service telephone number
>> (which, incidentally, is no longer free to call);
>>
> Probably - although that's not totally clear from the blurb.
> 
>> (5) Online management will have to be done elsewhere, presumably
>> requiring new authentication details;
>>
> Yes.
> 
>> (6) The statement date and payment date are going to change;
>>
> Yes.
> 
>> (7) The interval from statement to due date for payment will be eight
>> days shorter.
>>
> Not necessarily. Morgan Stanley/Goldfish have *already* reduced the
> interval for people who pay their balance in full using DD.
> 
>> So, is "I'm pleased to say you'll hardly notice the change" merely
>> the sort of weasel-wordy assurance that PR wonks emit, by design,
>> without any reference to the facts of the matter? Or is it a
>> calculated insult to customers' intelligence?
> 
> You're unlikely not to notice the changes! Some things are a pain - others
> may be slightly better, like reduced fees for cash withdrawals (if you're
> foolish enough to draw cash on a credit card!). Cashback will also be
> credited automatically each month rather than having to initiate it
> manually in multiples of £15. As long as you spend at least £200 per
> month on 'qualifying' purchases, your cashback will actually increase
> since it's 1% on the first £2400 p.a. instead of the first £2000 (and
> 0.5% thereafter). Mind you, if your spending is irregular, you might get
> *less* cashback, since it's calculated on monthly rather than annual
> spend. This would apply, for example, if you spend very little each month
> and then make a single large purchase.

Hi Roger,

I concur with what you say, but I would clarify that my gripe is not so much
with the changes per se (though I certainly do consider them an
administrative PITA), but with the total inappropriateness of Barclaycard's
opening gambit.

To have said that I won't notice the changeover would have been true in the
case where Goldfish took over Morgan Stanley. Goldfish bought the Morgan
Stanley card business and continued to operate it, and the accounts, as
Morgan Stanley (except for some minor inconsistencies such as sending
emails with 'Goldfish' as the 'From' field).

Barlaycard, by contrast, appear to have bought the list of customers and
their debts, and is issuing them with Barclaycards, albeit with a vaguely
similar cashback scheme.

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Clifford Frisby   wrote:

>
> Hi Roger,
>
> I concur with what you say, but I would clarify that my gripe is not
> so much with the changes per se (though I certainly do consider them
> an administrative PITA), but with the total inappropriateness of
> Barclaycard's opening gambit.
>

I'm afraid it's just another example of the 'spin' to which we've become 
accustomed from most organisations - from Government downwards - when 
they're trying to sell us something which may be unpalatable. I suppose it's 
akin to the dentist saying, "Now this isn't going to hurt . . . *much*"!
-- 
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

Roger Mills wrote:

> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> Clifford Frisby   wrote:
> 
>>
>> Hi Roger,
>>
>> I concur with what you say, but I would clarify that my gripe is not
>> so much with the changes per se (though I certainly do consider them
>> an administrative PITA), but with the total inappropriateness of
>> Barclaycard's opening gambit.
>>
> 
> I'm afraid it's just another example of the 'spin' to which we've become
> accustomed from most organisations - from Government downwards - when
> they're trying to sell us something which may be unpalatable. I suppose
> it's akin to the dentist saying, "Now this isn't going to hurt . . .
> *much*"!

Talking of government examples, my main bug bear was the slogan "It's money
with your name on it". It's inappropriate, even allowing for it being a
metaphor. (Why don't they just send the money to us, rather than requiring
an application to be made?)

Clifford Frisby wrote:

> Talking of government examples, my main bug bear was the slogan "It's
> money with your name on it". It's inappropriate, even allowing for it
> being a metaphor. (Why don't they just send the money to us, rather than
> requiring an application to be made?)

Because it's only got your name on it, not your address as well.  :-)

Bitstring , from the wonderful person 
Roger Mills  said
>In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>Clifford Frisby   wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Roger,
>>
>> I concur with what you say, but I would clarify that my gripe is not
>> so much with the changes per se (though I certainly do consider them
>> an administrative PITA), but with the total inappropriateness of
>> Barclaycard's opening gambit.
>>
>
>I'm afraid it's just another example of the 'spin' to which we've become
>accustomed from most organisations - from Government downwards - when
>they're trying to sell us something which may be unpalatable. I suppose it's
>akin to the dentist saying, "Now this isn't going to hurt . . . *much*"!

As a chip&Sig MS card customer it is going to hurt lots, since 
Barclaycard can only, apparently, send out chip&pin cards initially, and 
you have to then contact them and ask for a swap back to Chip&Sig when 
you get the pin card(s) that you don't want.. Clueless idiots.

On the whole it looks like a lot less hassle just to get a new card from 
some vendor who has >= half a clue. Suggestions anyone? (Not Capital 
One, got that already).

-- 
GSV   Three Minds in a Can
12,169 Km walked. 2,402 Km PROWs surveyed. 43.4% complete.