STOP Clawback! – IMPDA

The IMPDA challenges Networks to explain why they won’t stop clawbacks on dealer commission and thinks iPhone sales will be far less than expected.
 
The apple iPhone seems to be taking shape ready to be unleashed on the consumer.  Apple could have made a serious mistake restricting the phone just to O2 on contract, lets face it, if you want a lot of sales of a new mobile then why restrict this to one network only.  Dealers don’t want to sell on O2 generally, as the commissions are very bad, and if O2 think they are going to make a killing, then they have missed the boat.  

There is now a serious consumer demand for unlocked iPhones; as one consumer put it, “why should I want O2? I want to choose who I connect with” Fair point, which is why there is now a steady stream of unlocked mobiles.

O2 and Apple could find themselves not having the monopoly on sales, and Apple could be forced away from their updates after the results of the latest case in the USA as in California when Sprint lost the case of locking phones as it was deemed a barrier to competition.  

In fact with another US lawsuit being filed against Apple for the same thing, will someone challenge the UK networks in this country that lock their phones to their network?  

Will someone come up with the same argument in court that it is a barrier to competition and a detriment to the consumer?  Who at the end of the contract or even during it, must either pay to get the phone unlocked or buy another mobile on a different network, bearing in mind that not all mobiles are given free, and they may have paid a certain amount towards it.

Will the iPhone take off?  Maybe it’s the “I want one of those” phones at the moment, although the reviews suggest it’s not the all singing and dancing phone Apple made it out to be.

When the question of clawback rears its head everyone groans, but who are the winners each time, the networks of course. It’s ironic that dealers do not have a choice.  The dealer cannot just connect to a network; they have to do a network check, and its here that the networks negate their responsibility.  

It is the network that confirms if they will accept the customer, not the dealer.  

Now the networks have a more robust credit checking system than us dealers, and they can see just how viable and valuable the customer is going to be and have a better idea of at what risk.  But if for whatever reason, the network suspends or cancels the customers service they clawback the dealer, usually using the favourite term “suspect fraud”.  

Again the dealer gets hit again, but the networks in reality should be shouldering some of the blame.  It is they who have the final say, so why don’t they take their share of the hit instead of the dealer?

The answer is simple, because they can get away with it.

Networks should bear some of the blame especially when it is they who do the final credit checks and if they pass the customer it should be they who take the hit not the dealer.

So we ask the networks to explain their stance on clawback and why they are not taking some of the responsibility, or are they again going to play 007 and say nothing as usual because they don’t have a real reply to it.

So here’s the challenge to all networks, explain why you don’t take part or all of the responsibility for clawback?

As always, discuss this amongst yourselves (and 00,000’s of other Mobile Business readers) by typing your thoughts below-