Find alternative ways to sell

Apr 24, 2010
Today
Letter from Li MingHui

I REFER to "Don't call us, period" (April 21), which described how painful it is to be harassed by banks for credit-card membership, by insurance companies for a great product launch, etc. I would like to highlight that fitness clubs and spas are no less guilty for pushing sales through telemarketing.

Is it truly necessary to call a person twice/thrice a day to talk on the same subject? Has anyone who was never interested in fitness clubs/risky investments ever succumbed to these calls and bought products/services?

Businesses which attempt to sell their products via telemarketing could end up having harassment charges filed against them. In this day and age, I am truly surprised that marketing people have yet to come up with more targeted, high yield and less intrusive methods to sell their products.

Telemarketing is as futile as printing thousands of flyers and hiring pushy aunties and uncles who would stand in the middle of high-pedestrian traffic junctions and underpasses, shoving them out as furiously as their arms allow them.

I'm simply against lazy, unimaginative marketing people, many of whom are well paid to reach new customers. It is time to sit down and analyse the target market and think about how to reach them.

[I share this rant. I don't know how effective telemarketing and flyers are, but they are not effective with me. I agree that lazy unimaginative marketing people are not doing their jobs if these tired, ineffective ways are their best efforts at marketing.]

Play fair, Fifa

Apr 10, 2010

I AM still puzzled why Fifa wants to charge so much for broadcast rights of the World Cup matches after it has secured fees from broadcasters in most other nations.

[What's there to be puzzled about? Money is money. If that is not enough reason, more money is better than less money, and there is no such thing as enough money.]

Singapore's telcos and media broadcaster should not be held to ransom.

[Definition of "Ransom":

• money demanded for the return of a captured person
• payment for the release of someone
• exchange or buy back for money; under threat
• the act of freeing from captivity or punishment

In all the above definition of ransom, there is an element of wrongful imprisonment of denial of liberty. For example if the world cup matches belong to Singapore, and FIFA had taken it from us and is now offering to return what they have wrongfully taken for money or payment, that would be a ransom. In this case, FIFA is the rightful owner of the rights of the World Cup broadcasts. Singapore is not even part of the final 64 or however many teams that make it to this final stage. So "Ransom" is overly emotional. "Profiteering" would be more correct.]

In the spirit of any sporting event, the World Cup should be for all to enjoy and appreciate. It can also rally people to strive for sporting excellence. Broadcast right fees must be at a fair and reasonable rate. Singaporeans should stand by the cable TV providers and free-to-air broadcaster in whatever decision they make.

[So you go to an S-league match and say in the spirit of the sporting events, I wanna watch the match for 20 cents, because, frankly, in terms of entertainment, it is probably worth that much to me. Or go to the F1 and say, I think your prices are unreasonable. How about lowering to say, oh, $20 for paddock tickets, cos frankly, I can't really see much from the paddock, and the prices you are charging are unreasonable.]

Let's use the millions of dollars saved to make an impact by helping Singaporeans who are unable to make ends meet.

[Oh like Singtel and Starhub will say, "we saved a bundle now that Fifa has charged reasonable fees. Let us donate the money we saved to the poor Singaporeans." Get real. And start making plans to travel to M'sia and Indonesia to catch the world cup.]

Felix Ng

Cheaper, direct bus ride beats MRT option

Apr 11, 2010

I refer to last Sunday's article on cross-country bus routes, 'Please don't take away my long bus rides'.

I live in Taman Jurong and take service 30 bus to work as the bus stop is just in front of my block.

The bus ride costs $1.65 and it takes about 45 to 50 minutes to reach HarbourFront. From there, it is just a short walk from the bus stop to my office.

If I take the MRT route, I need to first take a bus to Lakeside MRT station, then a train to Outram Park MRT, and then transfer to another line to get to HarbourFront MRT station. The whole trip also takes about 45minutes and it costs $1.80.

Buses can go to the places that trains cannot get to, and such trips cost less than taking the MRT.

Teo Cher Whei

[So in the writer's case, it so happens there is a direct bus service between his home and his workplace. But not everyone would have such a service. What if he moves? Or he changes workplace?

In any case, if Service 30 where to be shortened, or split, it would probably terminate at Harbour Front anyway, so he wouldn't be affected. In fact, there will then be zero chance of him overshooting his stop. He should be happy.]

Tie COEs to owners instead of vehicles

Apr 2, 2010

THE recent spike in certificate of entitlement (COE) prices has stirred emotions among car buyers and dealers. Instead of making tweaks, the authorities should consider revamping the system to make it more equitable and effective.

One way is to allow COEs to be tied to the vehicle owner instead of the vehicle.

Car owners can then transfer the remaining COE to their next vehicle. There are many advantages to this proposal:

# The actual number of 'used' COEs will not be artificially inflated because of COEs that are tied to unsold second-hand cars. This will result in a better reflection of actual demand for COEs as only car buyers without an existing COE will need to bid for a COE.

# Car dealers will also benefit as new and used cars will be sold without COEs. Car prices would become more stable for dealers and more transparent for buyers.

[Except for prices of second-hand cars. One scenario is an existing car owner with a COE already will buy the second hand car, and one wonders why one would do that. A serial second-hand car owner will sell an older car, say 8 yrs or older, to buy a newer second hand car, say 3 - 5 years old. With 2 years, left he would be looking to either bid for a new COE in 2 years with the uncertainty of prices in 2 years. A second scenario is a new car owner, without an existing car looking to buy a second hand car...]

# Existing car owners will be more free to change to a new or second-hand car without being concerned about how changes in COE prices will affect car prices.

[... because that burden will now be transferred to the second hand car would-be owner, who would have to bid for COE on a used car. ]

# With consumers able to transfer their COEs to their next vehicle, they would be more cautious in bidding for COEs.

Consumers who need more than one COE should be made to pay more for their subsequent COEs.

For example, a consumer who needs a second or third car should be made to pay an additional levy of 30 per cent and 50 per cent respectively on top of the prevailing COE price.

The idea is to make the COE system more consumer- and business-friendly. The Government can still continue to peg the availability of COEs to the number of COEs deregistered but further changes will go a long way in making the system better.

Loh Chee Meng

[So. What are the disadvantages?

Like many forum writers, the author speaks from his own perspective and interests. Let me guess. He is a car owner. He was just thinking about getting a new car to replace his slightly used (less than 5 year old car), But DAMN! the COE went up. He can't believe it. He paid like $5k for his last COE and now it is $14k or maybe more in the next bidding. So if he can hold onto the COE he paid for his current car, he doesn't have to worry about bidding for a new COE. Let the buyer of his current car bid for it.

So some poor sod who can only afford second hand car will pay high prices for COE in order to own his used car? Most likely, he won't be able to sell his car cos the second hand car market would have collapsed. Yes second hand cars will be cheaper, because there's no market for them.

The 10-year COE tied to the vehicle is not perfect. But it keeps things straight, relatively. ]