Westfield XS card

[ermen]

I have a bad report here:

1/ Tried to use the self service payment machine for my urban "not debit" card. Barcode no longer recognised.

2/ So went to counter and then tried to use the 90 degrees card to pay off the urban card. Said I wanted to pay via eftpos and she said was fine. But operator stuffed it up. Swiped the "not debit" card first and asked me to key in pin (which I understood was inline with procedure on this thread). Then I was waiting for the next step to swipe the 90 degrees card. Then I saw the screen posted through as a succesful cash deposit (the horror!). I said I wanted to pay using "savings". She went to see her supervisor and they came back a while later and said that I had to swipe the 90 degreses card to withdraw money from the savings account, but they didn't think it would work for obvious reasons. Naturally this failed. Then they said I had to reverse the transaction. And how did they do it? They did a cash withdrawal from the urban not debit card! Now this has really left me annoyed because this "reversal" is actually a cash advance and now, further purchases on this card will be charged interest - and I normally like to take use of the interest free days.

So for me, the absence of a barcode is too difficult...

 

[Shanye2233]

I paid some bills today in the PO no problems at the counter. I also re-loaded my travel card for a overseas trip coming up. Both worked fine. Even tho they did freeze my LG card after a phone call to aus post for more verification there has not been a problem.

Every time I purchase they xs card I show my I.D up front so they don't have to ask. I'm not doing anything wrong and have nothing to hide. The last deal with westfields GC lasted a few months and they simply changed it so you can no longer do it which I'm guessing they will do here eventually.

 

[wafliron]

I don't understand why they would care if you were using the EFTPOS card to pay a $500 bill by EFTPOS at the PO or if you were buying $500 worth of stamps at the PO?

Cause they're losing money on it - at least with the $995 cards - if you just buy them on Amex and then use the complete balance up almost immediately. There's no way Westfield are making a profit on the card itself by charging $4.95 for a $995 card, when taking into account production costs and Amex merchant fee.

The first para of the T&C says they may, in its complete discretion, refuse to sell gift cards to any person at any time for any reason. Purchasing or using the gift card means that you accept these conditions.

Now, that's fair enough, but I would think that if they deny selling to someone because noteastpark isn't making enough profit, then that isn't really good enough.

I hate to say it, but why not? They're a business selling a product in an unregulated, non-essential-service, non-monopolised market. As much as I hope they don't, to my mind they have every right to not sell to someone who is using the card in a way they don't like, or because that person isn't profitable enough to them, or whatever.

 

[xsiq]

I totally agree on the rights business have in using their discretion in choosing their customers but a card purchased for $995 irrespective of whether used at the posties or at myers would not change a thing as far as their bottom line is concerned.

The bigger question here is why have a product in the market which when used within the framework of their own terms and conditions causes them to loose money.

Discriminating sales to customer based on their intent (which is within their terms and conditions) which may or may not materialise is wrong in my opinion.

Placing restrictions on customers directly contradicts their submission to the treasury about "Giving choice to the customer" and "All retailers who accept EFTPOS"

I am not sure they even have a privacy policy on the personal data they are collecting at the concierge desk.

Up the fees on the card, reduce the maximum value or change the terms and conditions.

Cause they're losing money on it - at least with the $995 cards - if you just buy them on Amex and then use the complete balance up almost immediately. There's no way Westfield are making a profit on the card itself by charging $4.95 for a $995 card, when taking into account production costs and Amex merchant fee.



I hate to say it, but why not? They're a business selling a product in an unregulated, non-essential-service, non-monopolised market. As much as I hope they don't, to my mind they have every right to not sell to someone who is using the card in a way they don't like, or because that person isn't profitable enough to them, or whatever.

 

[ermen]

I think what they do is aggregate modelling based upon:
i) average load amount
ii) average breakeage rate (i.e. what % and $ of card values expire unused)
iii) average hold time of balance on the card and average % earned on the "float"

so some are profitable and some are not... but in average the product should be. but if too many unprofitable cards are issued, then it skews the balance...

I totally agree on the rights business have in using their discretion in choosing their customers but a card purchased for $995 irrespective of whether used at the posties or at myers would not change a thing as far as their bottom line is concerned.

The bigger question here is why have a product in the market which when used within the framework of their own terms and conditions causes them to loose money.

Discriminating sales to customer based on their intent (which is within their terms and conditions) which may or may not materialise is wrong in my opinion.

Placing restrictions on customers directly contradicts their submission to the treasury about "Giving choice to the customer" and "All retailers who accept EFTPOS"

I am not sure they even have a privacy policy on the personal data they are collecting at the concierge desk.

Up the fees on the card, reduce the maximum value or change the terms and conditions.

 

[xsiq]

Totally agree. Perhaps its time they revisit their model and make changes to their product accordingly.

Questioning people at the concierge desk about ones intention for purchasing the card and collecting personal information and not been given a satisfactory answer on how that information is going to be used/stored/shared is not acceptable in my opinion.

I think what they do is aggregate modelling based upon:
i) average load amount
ii) average breakeage rate (i.e. what % and $ of card values expire unused)
iii) average hold time of balance on the card and average % earned on the "float"

so some are profitable and some are not... but in average the product should be. but if too many unprofitable cards are issued, then it skews the balance...

 

[Skyring]

I hate to say it, but why not? They're a business selling a product in an unregulated, non-essential-service, non-monopolised market. As much as I hope they don't, to my mind they have every right to not sell to someone who is using the card in a way they don't like, or because that person isn't profitable enough to them, or whatever.

As I said, fair enough. It's right there in the T&C, and that's what we agree to when we buy the card.

But, that's not how consumers see things - why sell to one person buying a $995 card and be happy for their business, yet refuse another buying the exact same product under the exact same conditions?

 

[Austashes]

Just saw the new Q Cash card, will not be able to load it via EFTPOS, BPAY only.

 

[Newk]

Two things to report. Saw Excess card for sale in telegraphic institution. $100 with 5.95 fee. Phooey.
Plus this morning red star bank definitely needed what non country didn't (see previous posts)
Very helpful CSO said the payments system was undergoing changes. Second report of that this week.

 

[legroom]

.....All I can say is: it's a great bill paying card. Avoids CC fees. Play the game fairly and the game will continue.
Too many cows in plate shops will see changes that make it not viable for ALL parties....

Had a Japanese meal last night

AMEX not accepted!

No problem adjusting my card balance two seconds later.

Restaurateur was happy not paying any CC fee.

I was happy with a clear conscience.

 

[Newk]

Similarly I am enjoying breakfast at a lovely little community club on a lake. No Amex facilities. But more than willing for me to EFTPOS money from my savings account. Sometimes the world is such a beautiful place

 

[wafliron]

I totally agree on the rights business have in using their discretion in choosing their customers but a card purchased for $995 irrespective of whether used at the posties or at myers would not change a thing as far as their bottom line is concerned.

Of course it will [change their bottom line], if they lose money on that card. It might only be by a tiny amount, but change it it will - and lots of tiny amounts can add up to a lot (not saying it necessarily would for XS cards - I have no idea). A smart business would do a quick cost-benefit analysis of what they'd save by trying to shut-down loss-making uses of the card vs costs of doing so (both direct and indirect), and make a decision based on that.

The bigger question here is why have a product in the market which when used within the framework of their own terms and conditions causes them to loose money.

Agreed here, and I'm sure the answer is the aggregate-style modelling as suggested by ermen. The thing is, changes in customer behaviour can change the outcome of that modelling (or cause the model to differ to the real world) - and again, if this occurs, a smart business would act on it.

Discriminating sales to customer based on their intent (which is within their terms and conditions) which may or may not materialise is wrong in my opinion.

How so? Businesses do it all the time - and I'd suspect if you ran a business, and someone told you that it was "unfair" that you wouldn't sell them something that would cost you money, you'd disagree with that point of view.

That said, I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree here

I am not sure they even have a privacy policy on the personal data they are collecting at the concierge desk.

And if this is the case, I completely agree with you. But it's a separate issue.

But, that's not how consumers see things - why sell to one person buying a $995 card and be happy for their business, yet refuse another buying the exact same product under the exact same conditions?

Cause they think one of those customers will make them money, and the other will cost them money... and they're in the business of making money, not losing it. The customer may not see it that way, but it's not the customer's decision to make - although if Westfield (or any other business in a similar situation) as smart, they'd be factoring customer perception / brand damage / etc into any cost-benefit on whether they should deny the cards to some people or not.

I'll also refer you to the same analogy about if you were a business owner, as per above. And the same comment about agreeing to disagree

 

[wafliron]

@Newk: your PM inbox is full, FYI!

 

[xsiq]

I totally agree on your point that business are in it to make money. Profits are the life blood of a business. A smart business always change their products in line with change in market conditions. I have no issues with them changing their products if it is not meeting their profit expectations.

Having run a business in the past, I have had situations where certain loss leading products that were introduced to attract more customers were not offset by the extra profits on other products. It was not the fault of my customers that they purchased the loss leading products in big numbers We got our internal model wrong and that was that. Checks were put in place by way of terms and conditions and communicated well in advance prior to running similar promotions so that it did not happen again.

I can already foresee Westfield changing their product in a manner that would make it impossible or uneconomical to use the card at the PO and I am fine with that.

What I have an issue with is being told that they are investigating customers who are using the cards at the PO. This does not in any way violate their terms and conditions as it stands today.

I am sure a lot of of us here would not be too happy if we were denied tickets because of the fact that we have done status runs and the airline deemed us unprofitable.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Of course it will [change their bottom line], if they lose money on that card. It might only be by a tiny amount, but change it it will - and lots of tiny amounts can add up to a lot (not saying it necessarily would for XS cards - I have no idea). A smart business would do a quick cost-benefit analysis of what they'd save by trying to shut-down loss-making uses of the card vs costs of doing so (both direct and indirect), and make a decision based on that.



Agreed here, and I'm sure the answer is the aggregate-style modelling as suggested by ermen. The thing is, changes in customer behaviour can change the outcome of that modelling (or cause the model to differ to the real world) - and again, if this occurs, a smart business would act on it.



How so? Businesses do it all the time - and I'd suspect if you ran a business, and someone told you that it was "unfair" that you wouldn't sell them something that would cost you money, you'd disagree with that point of view.

That said, I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree here



And if this is the case, I completely agree with you. But it's a separate issue.



Cause they think one of those customers will make them money, and the other will cost them money... and they're in the business of making money, not losing it. The customer may not see it that way, but it's not the customer's decision to make - although if Westfield (or any other business in a similar situation) as smart, they'd be factoring customer perception / brand damage / etc into any cost-benefit on whether they should deny the cards to some people or not.

I'll also refer you to the same analogy about if you were a business owner, as per above. And the same comment about agreeing to disagree

 

[Newk]

Sorry. Inbox tension relieved.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

What I have an issue with is being told that they are investigating customers who are using the cards at the PO. This does not in any way violate their terms and conditions as it stands today.


.

FWIW I know of one person who was investigated for PO spend on the card a fair time back well before this thread was a twinkle in Newk's eye, and whose activity was then curtailed by them.

So it is not a matter of if they are watching (they are), or if they are aware (they are), but rather what they choose to tolerate per individual, or en-masse.

Tap is currently on, but it could be turned off at anytime......either per person or en-mass.

Business's tolerate "leakage" as long as it is small and is offset by profits. But if the leakage becomes a flood then, the hole will be plugged.

TOTWYW

 

[d00dz]

FWIW I know of one person who was investigated for PO spend

So do I. His name is Craig Thompson*.



*well still talking about it in the courts but hey sue me

 

[Cruiser Elite]

FWIW Concierge at WF Southland refused to sell me XS cards this morning - told me to go through corporate sector.

 

[DeKa]

FWIW Concierge at WF Southland refused to sell me XS cards this morning - told me to go through corporate sector.

Did they know you, or look up your name on any register? What happens if you send family members to buy on your behalf I wonder?

 

[Newk]

FWIW Concierge at WF Southland refused to sell me XS cards this morning - told me to go through corporate sector.

your little by line wouldn't be any indication of what's been going on would it?



In any case can we have some hints (coded in public of course) or by PM about what may have drawn attention to your dealings?
Want to see if we can add to the knowledge base or whether you have done more circular basic transportation device reinventing