Upcoming Changes to our Old Rewards Program

[J_PM]

Hey Community,

We have an important announcement to share with our subscribers who are currently enrolled in our old Rewards program.

We’re making changes to our rewards program and are sharing how these changes impact some of our subscribers. Starting in May, we’ll be retiring our old Rewards program and moving all subscribers to our Public Points™ program. 

We launched the Public Points™ program in January 2022 to provide our subscribers with more ways to earn and spend rewards, with greater flexibility. As part of our commitment to continuously evolve our products and services, it's time to retire our old Rewards program and shift our focus on enhancing our Points program.

To show our appreciation for your continued loyalty, subscribers on our old Rewards program will receive a special thank you. We'll send you a text message when it has been added to your account by March 31st. 

We’re excited to continue providing you, our valued subscribers, more opportunities to earn and spend rewards with Public Points™ moving forward.

To learn more about your move to Public Points, check out our FAQ here.

The Public Mobile Team

[Wolfcore]

Fair enough, but PM specifically states that they'd be giving us the best possible value, so that's what we're trying to figure out. 

Also, if we wanna get technical, the way that raffles inherently work (almost always), is that more is taken in, than is given out. So as a whole, the subscriber base would actually be losing even more value. The vast majority of participants would be spending points on nothing, and only a few would be rewarded. Whereas with the old system, every single person is guaranteed to be automatically rewarded.

Edit: Don't know why I wrote "raffle", maybe I just associate that with "giveaways" in my head, but yeah. Even giveaways in general (with no entry fee required), rarely ever reward the entire group of people, so the point is there.

[Wolfcore]

Maybe "question" wasn't the right word. It's more like the solution to your thought process. You were theorizing, and you actually stumbled upon the answer without knowing it.

[ShawnC13]

I didn't say they would bring more benefit to the  consumer, but being able to enter them  with points is something you couldn't do with Legacy rewards.  Remember I am just bringing all information out.  Doesn't mean I am supporting or agree with the move to points from Legacy Rewards

[Wolfcore]

A lot to break down here:

I don't believe in "last comment wins" theory.
I never claimed this. In fact, I even asked you twice for an answer. You refused, that's not my fault.

I didn't reply to it because you have restated your belief again and again already.
But my question is about your belief, not mine? What does my belief have to do with yours?

On the point about " In the interest of equal opportunity," I think this is exactly why PM is making it a one rewards system, so every subscriber will now enjoy the "best possible values" of the rewards

Did PM state "in the interest of equal opportunity", or was that just @RetiredGuy1? Regardless, that doesn't make sense any way you spin it:

- New subscribers are already on this new system, so nothing is being enhanced for them.
- Old subscribers are already on a better system, so they're actually losing value.
- If you wanted to give everybody the best possible value, you'd move the people from the new system, to the old system. That's the only way that everybody as a whole, would benefit more.
- The FAQ mentions multiple times about this change being in regards to "you" (legacy reward customers).
- Since when does PM care about equal opportunity? They literally have plans that are locked, and only available to new subscribers.

Like I understand what you're doing, I get it. Whether you're being told to or not, you feel the need to defend PM. They are paying you for your services after all. But what I find annoying is when Oracles claim to not work for PM, or claim to not be taking sides, or get mad when people call them shills, etc. Look how far you're reaching in order to defend them, of course people are going to call you out for that. The only Oracle I've seen that has said anything that can be considered completely anti-pm, has been computergeek541 (and Shawn, but not as overt). Just be honest and straight, people respect that more. Ending every message saying "but I hate that they're getting rid of the old rewards system too", doesn't justify the rest.

[HALIMACS]

“best possible (emphasis added) value”

• Doesn’t mean, better than before.
• Doesn’t mean, the best value.
• Doesn’t mean, better value

Don’t forget the word possible is inserted  between the words, best and value.

I suspect that word was purposefully inserted to effectively diminish the intent of the whole phrase. 

If someone were to say the best possible outcome of treatment of an illness is that one may live an extra 6 months, if those 6 months are spent in agony, it’s not necessarily the best or better treatment.  It’s all that can be offered in the circumstances

Public Mobile might have been best advised to leave that phrase out entirely – just my opinion, if I may share it.

[RetiredGuy1]

@Wolfcore 

What question?

[RetiredGuy1]

Yes, of course you’re right. Given the context of the discussion, it was implied.

[softech]

@Wolfcore 

I don't believe in "last comment wins" theory.  I didn't reply to it because you have restated your belief again and again already.  

On the point about " In the interest of equal opportunity," I think this is exactly why PM is making it a one rewards system, so every subscriber will now enjoy the "best possible values" of the rewards

But, I am with you on one thing, I don't like the new rewards system and I am losing $7 per account as well.

[Wolfcore]

You believe that giveaways (which, according to nearly every giveaway system I've ever seen in my entire life, can only reward a fraction of the people that participate), and discounted add-ons that we all know very few people buy in general, are more rewarding to these legacy customers than every single one of them receiving nearly $7 automatically off their monthly bill each month? 

[Wolfcore]

You unironically solved your own question with your final sentence, and don't even know it.

It's also the point I'm trying to make, and why I assume Softech didn't answer me. We all know what the definition of value is, and we all know that addons will only apply to a small portion of the subscriber base. If you're trying to provide the best possible value for your customers, you're referring to the majority of them, of course. Therefore, discounted addon's are not superior to receiving $7+ off of your monthly bill each month.

To play devil's advocate though, and to be fair, I'm also making assumptions, because I don't know what these new "addons" will be (assuming there are even any). For example, maybe there's an "addon" that let's you exchange 1 point for $5 off your monthly bill. In this case, yeah, one could argue that this may be a better value.

But I have to base things off of the information we have, and use occam's razor, because it makes the most sense. If they were going to tip things more in our favour, and give us MORE (best possible) value, they would have come out by now, and stopped the damage to their subscriber base, and their reputation. They most definitely wouldn't want to be paying these CCTS fees either. It would also be pretty crazy for a company to go from paying the best rewards in the business, to increasing those even further, without any real competition to those rewards. It just wouldn't make sense, sorry.

So what makes the most sense, is that they're just lying in their statement about providing us the best possible value. They've done it before, so there's history to back it up.  

[ShawnC13]

---

@RetiredGuy1 wrote:

Online dictionaries define “best value” as a term that is used to describe the most advantageous offer possible in a given situation. It can be applied to both tangible and intangible things, and is often determined by taking into consideration multiple factors such as quality, price, and convenience.
———

I agree that, in that context, its easy to understand how a reduced bill could be considered as more “advantageous” than a reduced add-on. In the interest of equal opportunity, the former also applies to ALL customers and the latter to only some.

---

@RetiredGuy1  this statement isn't true without some additional wording like ALL LEGACY rewards customers.  Again I don't like the decision, and hte way PM is playing it with  the points is that they can be used for entering giveaways as well which wasn't possible with legacy rewards (YES I WILL MISS LEGACY REWARDS)

[RetiredGuy1]

Online dictionaries define “best value” as a term that is used to describe the most advantageous offer possible in a given situation. It can be applied to both tangible and intangible things, and is often determined by taking into consideration multiple factors such as quality, price, and convenience.
———

I agree that, in that context, its easy to understand how a reduced bill could be considered as more “advantageous” than a reduced add-on. In the interest of equal opportunity, the former also applies to ALL customers and the latter to only some.

[Wolfcore]

I was looking for your point of view though, that's why I'm asking. You consider cheaper addons to be the best possible value for customers?

[Public_Cust_17]

@Wolfcore  / @softech   value verb. - to calculate or reckon the monetary value of; give a specified material or financial value to; assess; appraise: 

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/value

[softech]

@Wolfcore  From your big number of replies, I certainly understand your point from a customer point of view 🙂

[Wolfcore]

"Best possible value" in this context, would refer to giving us something that we'd want more, above all else. It also implies that they weren't giving us the best value before, and this move is the way that will allow them to accomplish this. It's pretty straightforward if you ask me.

Do you believe that the vast majority of customers would prefer cheaper addons, instead of $7+ off their bill each month? Nobody would honestly believe that.

[softech]

HI @Wolfcore possible value does not equal to most savings, right?

Also, since people can use the points to buy add-on as discounted price (like a $30 US bundle only cost 25 points, a $5 saving), it is a definitely "possible" value change as you highlighted.

[Wolfcore]

Fair enough, so how about this?

It says that we're being moved to ensure we're getting the best possible value. How do you interpret value in this case, and do you believe that they're going to give us more value than before? (but they just haven't announced it yet because they like losing customers, enjoy their reputation being attacked, and are happy with fighting/paying CCTS?)

[RetiredGuy1]

Agreed @kb_mv and I would just add that that style of politics has now become prevalent here in Canada too (unfortunately)

[RetiredGuy1]

---

@softech wrote:

---

@eyes wrote:

👌glad that you are tickled pink with the PM enhancements. 👌

I may be wrong— but have noticed that  only the Oracles seem to be supporting and defending this reward to points change. 

---

@eyes 

not maybe, but you are wrong

you might not be following this thread closely.  As far as I know, NONE of the Oracle supports this move.

I was just presenting the facts here.  My point is simple, it affected myself, I will loss $7 per cycle like most people here.  And I have multiple accounts with PM so I am paying more than $7 more per month

But at the same time, I don't waste time with the complaints as there are no solid ground for subscribers to put in the complaints.    PM has the right to make change and even cancel the rewards system with sufficient advanced notice.  Rewards affect the amount you are paying every renewal but reward savings are NOT part of the plan price.  So, at the end of the day, there is no price hike here.     CRTC also has no suggestions/guidelines/rules for mobile providers that a rewards system is needed for the operation, and hence many providers choose not to provide their subscribers with any kind of discount from rewards system.

---

I agree both you and @ShawnC13 have presented facts to allow people to make informed decisions. As the Aussies say “good on ya”. With regard to you don’t “waste time with the complaints as there are no solid ground for subscribers to put in the complaints” that reads to me as one taking one specific point of view. By that, I’m assuming you mean “solid ground” as the legality of the matter. However, many feel there is an ethical point of view which has every right to be considered and are expressing their reaction to that in a wide range of emotions including frustration, disappointment, upset and even anger. They obviously don’t feel its a waste of their time to do so.  When all is said and done, the terminology chosen to describe the “enhancements” of the points program has a legal standing. Having said that, one could argue they are weasel words nonetheless.

[ShawnC13]

---

@eyes wrote:

👌glad that you are tickled pink with the PM enhancements. 👌

I may be wrong— but have noticed that  only the Oracles seem to be supporting and defending this reward to points change. 

---

@eyes , you are wrong.  I don't know one Oracle who is supporting this change.  I wouldn't consider presenting information and facts as defending but more like making sure everyone can make a fully informed decision.  Have always said everyone needs to do what is best for them financially especially now as times are getting tougher for a lot of people.

[softech]

---

@eyes wrote:

👌glad that you are tickled pink with the PM enhancements. 👌

I may be wrong— but have noticed that  only the Oracles seem to be supporting and defending this reward to points change. 

---

@eyes 

not maybe, but you are wrong

you might not be following this thread closely.  As far as I know, NONE of the Oracle supports this move.

I was just presenting the facts here.  My point is simple, it affected myself, I will loss $7 per cycle like most people here.  And I have multiple accounts with PM so I am paying more than $7 more per month

But at the same time, I don't waste time with the complaints as there are no solid ground for subscribers to put in the complaints.    PM has the right to make change and even cancel the rewards system with sufficient advanced notice.  Rewards affect the amount you are paying every renewal but reward savings are NOT part of the plan price.  So, at the end of the day, there is no price hike here.     CRTC also has no suggestions/guidelines/rules for mobile providers that a rewards system is needed for the operation, and hence many providers choose not to provide their subscribers with any kind of discount from rewards system.

[kb_mv]

---

@eyes wrote:

👌glad that you are tickled pink with the PM enhancements. 👌

I may be wrong— but have noticed that  only the Oracles seem to be supporting and defending this reward to points change. 

---

@eyes I think you are wrong. I haven't seen one Oracle try and sell these changes as a good idea. They are simply offering the other side of the argument, whether it's Terms of Service or showing that the term enhancement doesn't necessarily preclude the changes made. From there it's up to the user to decide what they are going to do but they can do it having all the info. Too often we are falling into American style politics and blaming or finding fault with or attacking anyone who we disagree with.

Edit to add: My intent was not to single you out @eyes  but to comment on the direction the thread takes in general.

[softech]

---

@ShawnC13 wrote:

@eyes no that isn't how threads work here.  We still want it to stay on the topic, but even though many think that this thread has been heavily edited.  I see it as a thread that has been given more leeway in the discussion.

---

I agree it was given more leeway.  Even some previously banned members are allowed to express their concern on this topic

[softech]

@eyes even better is a subjective thing.

I don't earn as many points as before, it's not better for me

but it is true that there are more ways to earn and more flexible to spent, so it is an enhancement still

So, saying "Enhancement" is a false claim has no solid ground

[softech]

Enhancement does not necessary mean you are getting more points with the change, so there is no false claim here

As the announcement said: "more ways to earn and spend rewards, with greater flexibility." 

More way to earn: the old system does not allow you to earn points/savings if you buy add-ons, but now you do
More way to spend: you can use points to redeem add-ons (discounted price as well) and you can use it for Jackpot

So, with the "enhancement", there is no false claim at all

[G_Pomzz]

Doesn’t the math proves that PM is making a false claim by stating that switching us to the point system will be an enhancement. 

Exactly, and that's the point that should be emphasized in your CCTS complaints 

[edsou]

@Antonio_Almeida I also received this email.  It was interesting, on March 19 I received an email from CCTS saying they accepted Public Mobile's Objection then the next day I received another email saying they changed the decision and they reject PM's Objection.  Was it similar for you?

Still not expecting much to change but nice to know it isn't completely closed out.

[IanP]

Personally speaking I will be watching closely for the offers from competitors as they are probably going to target May . They will hope to profit from this debacle, I may even wait for the black friday type of offerings. No rush, bide your time and do what's right for you in your particular circumstance. 

[Antonio_Almeida]

Got an email back from CCTS.

On March 15, 2024 Public Mobile objected to {my name} complaint because Public Mobile believes that we did not have the authority to accept the complaint under our Procedural Code. After reviewing the complaint and objection, we are rejecting the objection. The complaint remains open for the reasons explained below.

….. email goes on to explaining their assessment!