Vodacom ordered to stop BMW competition

if people received notification of how much they spent then i rest my case.
 
So to avoid anyone missing the question, I'll ask it directly:

WAS THE 100 CARS PROMOTION RUN BY VODACOM or VODACOM SP? IF NEITHER, THEN WHO?

[I ask for confirmation to compare with WASPA's answer.]
 
But can the SP regulate sms usage every hour?

I mean in one hour someone(A bored pensioner) can run up quite a huge bill.
 
Skeptik said:
So to avoid anyone missing the question, I'll ask it directly:

WAS THE 100 CARS PROMOTION RUN BY VODACOM or VODACOM SP? IF NEITHER, THEN WHO?

[I ask for confirmation to compare with WASPA's answer.]
Click to expand...

Theres no difference anymore. Is there?
 
I think this is bull****.... hows the competition where you SMS to win two cars, except one you give away any different?
 
next people will be asking to get back the money they've spent on the lotto
 
Skeptik said:
Just to clear the smoke on this saga about non-membership etc, I came across this adjudication from WASPA
http://www.waspa.org.za/code/download/0213.pdf
Click to expand...

The only saga here is the one you are trying so desperately to create. :rolleyes:

And, as per usual, you drag up something completely out of context, two years old and on completely a different matter (and company) and try and somehow pass it off as something relevant to this thread. :rolleyes:
 
Neo said:
The only saga here is the one you are trying so desperately to create. :rolleyes:

And, as per usual, you drag up something completely out of context, two years old and on completely a different matter (and company) and try and somehow pass it off as something relevant to this thread. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
If you'd checked properly instead of jumping to conclusions, you would see that the adjudication was made less than a year ago on 2007-02-13. :rolleyes:

... and why is it a different company again ....:confused: Seriously I don't think you downloaded the right one.:rolleyes:

It is highly relevant to the above discussion as well because it confirms the relationship the company has (or not) with WASPA and the implications for consumers wishing to lodge a complaint about getting SPAM - which many did about this comp.
 
Skeptik said:
If you'd checked properly instead of jumping to conclusions, you would see that the adjudication was made less than a year ago on 2007-02-13. :rolleyes:

... and why is it a different company again ....:confused: Seriously I don't think you downloaded the right one.:rolleyes:

It is highly relevant to the above discussion as well because it confirms the relationship the company has (or not) with WASPA and the implications for consumers wishing to lodge a complaint about getting SPAM - which many did about this comp.
Click to expand...

Why don't you just look on WASPA's website (you seem to know the link) who are members? :confused: You have to find a document (on Cointel) that you hope will put Vodacom in a bad light and post that. :rolleyes: Just like you tried to pass an iBurst ruling off as one against Vodacom.

According to the link you posted, the Cointel complaint and adjudication was in 2006. The report itself was written in August 2006. The number '2007' does not even appear in the document.

Nice try, but no cigar. :rolleyes:

But don't give up. I'm sure you tireless trawling to find any document with the word Vodacom in will turn up positive results. A true champion of the masses you are.
 
Skeptik said:
If you'd checked properly instead of jumping to conclusions, you would see that the adjudication was made less than a year ago on 2007-02-13. :rolleyes:

... and why is it a different company again ....:confused: Seriously I don't think you downloaded the right one.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I downloaded the .pdf file you linked to, it is from 2006 - one of the first things I noticed is 2006 on the first page and in the footers, I have also just checked the .pdf document propertied and it was created in 2006, I have also just searched the document for any occurrence of 2007 - there is none. Perhaps you linked to the wrong document, otherwise Neo is correct.
 
Last edited:
Frankc said:
The cellphone companies is perhaps the only companies that actually ABUSE the poor people for the sake of the rich and get away with it.

If you purchased one of that BMW's from Vodacom on contract you would pay for example R100 000 but if you buy the same BMW from them because your income is not enough to get a contract you must pay R300 000.

All over the world you get DISCOUNT for cash and pay MORE for credit but with the cellphone companies it works the opposite way where people that's employed and financial strong enough to get a contract pay FAR less than those that cannot get a contract.

Have money = Free Phones + cheaper fees on contract (higher risk)
No money = Pay for phone + higher fees on prepaid (no risk at all)
Click to expand...

As a bussiness your aim is to try maintain a constant monthly income. I do the same with maintenance contracts. ou make sure the client can pay the set amount every month then to make sure he grabs a contract sweeten the deal by charging cheaper contracted rates. Now you have a constant inome for the set period of the contract. If its a client that is not financially secure charge normal rates.

Its bussiness practise all over the world. You want a certain amount of money garrenteed per month so sell contracts, to lure ppl to contracts make the product cheaper if on contract.

It makes bussiness sense. remember bussines's are there to make money. Vodacom is a bussines. They povide a service and you pay for it. If you dont like it go somewhere else. So far I have found them the most consumer conscious of the telecom companies.

Anyway that was of topic.

During the competition I didnt notice any mention of the most entries in the week wins the car. does anyone have a link to the ad that states that ?
 
ic said:
I downloaded the .pdf file you linked to, it is from 2006 - one of the first things I noticed is 2006 on the first page and in the footers, I have also just checked the .pdf document propertied and it was created in 2006, I have also just searched the document for any occurrence of 2007 - there is none. Perhaps you linked to the wrong document, otherwise Neo is correct.
Click to expand...
Do a search from all complaints about Cointel and you get a long list. Check the dates to the left of the list:

0018 2005-10-31 Cointel Complaint partially upheld download
0030 2005-11-25 Cointel Complaint not upheld download
0071 2006-04-03 Cointel Telerotica Complaint not upheld download
0152 2006-08-01 Cointel Egg Mobile Complaint partially upheld download
0159 2006-03-22 Cointel Vodacom Complaint not upheld download
0164 2007-04-04 Cointel Telerotica Complaint upheld download
0213 2007-02-13 Cointel Vodacom Complaint upheld download
0331 2006-11-21 Cointel Supersport Zone Complaint upheld download
0398 2006-11-03 Cointel Complaint not upheld download
0330 2007-10-09 Cointel 121_SMS Complaint upheld download
3017 2008-01-28 Cointel Complaint upheld download
3020 2008-01-28 Cointel Complaint upheld download
3018 2008-02-19 Cointel Complaint upheld download
3054 2008-02-18 Cointel Complaint upheld download
3124 2008-02-18 Cointel Shell SA Complaint upheld download
3318 2008-02-25 Cointel Pending download
3346 2008-02-25 Cointel Pending download

I've highlighted the one in question. The date is quite clear.
[You might want to moderate some obvious personal attacks & derailing, baiting posts on this page in case you didn't spot them .. thanks]
 
Skeptik said:
Do a search from all complaints about Cointel and you get a long list. Check the dates to the left of the list:

0018 2005-10-31 Cointel Complaint partially upheld download
0030 2005-11-25 Cointel Complaint not upheld download
0071 2006-04-03 Cointel Telerotica Complaint not upheld download
0152 2006-08-01 Cointel Egg Mobile Complaint partially upheld download
0159 2006-03-22 Cointel Vodacom Complaint not upheld download
0164 2007-04-04 Cointel Telerotica Complaint upheld download
0213 2007-02-13 Cointel Vodacom Complaint upheld download
0331 2006-11-21 Cointel Supersport Zone Complaint upheld download
0398 2006-11-03 Cointel Complaint not upheld download
0330 2007-10-09 Cointel 121_SMS Complaint upheld download
3017 2008-01-28 Cointel Complaint upheld download
3020 2008-01-28 Cointel Complaint upheld download
3018 2008-02-19 Cointel Complaint upheld download
3054 2008-02-18 Cointel Complaint upheld download
3124 2008-02-18 Cointel Shell SA Complaint upheld download
3318 2008-02-25 Cointel Pending download
3346 2008-02-25 Cointel Pending download

I've highlighted the one in question. The date is quite clear.
[You might want to moderate some obvious personal attacks & derailing, baiting posts on this page in case you didn't spot them .. thanks]
Click to expand...

Just shows how important it is to ACTUALLY READ the documents you so quickly post in your fervent attempts to attack. ;)

The complaint against Cointel was received the 10th of March 2006 and the Adjudicator's report is dated 14 August 2006.

Try and read the actual document next time instead of just copying and pasting from a web page. :rolleyes:

In any case, I fail to see how a Cointel issue relates to the BMW competition. As per your own request, the mods might want to moderate your attempts at derailing the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X