When will Seatfrog remove booking fees and allow railcards?

[broomy23]

Ok, so probably to the annoyance of many on here, I regularly use Seatfrog. Reason being, is I am studying so I like having a table, extra room, and light refreshments Greater Anglia provide. My work does expense my ticket, but only standard class meaning Seatfrog is the cheapest way for me to travel first class to/from work.

This upgrade generally works out at £25 return on peak services.

I hold a 16-25 railcard and I’ve heard the ORR say that Seatfrog’s “drip pricing” could be unlawful, although I suspect if the booking fee was removed, Seatfrog would simply increase prices.

Will Seatfrog ever allow railcard discount and when will the booking fee end?

 

[Wallsendmag]

Never ?

 

[AlterEgo]

Will Seatfrog ever allow railcard discount

Unlikely.

and when will the booking fee end?

Unlikely. The booking fee isn't unlawful, but the way it is displayed (or rather not displayed), probably is.

 

[styles]

I'd be surprised if they ever allowed Railcards as their main offering is an auction. How would an auction work if somebody bids £25 without a Railcard and I bid £30 but with a Railcard taking it down to £20? Either I am the winning bidder but this means the winning bidder is somebody who bid less than another bidder which seems counterintuitive; or I'm not the winning bidder and I need to bid at least £31 after the Railcard discount has been applied, in which case the Railcard discount is useless. It could potentially be used on some of the instant upgrades, but I wouldn't bank on it any time soon.

I'd also be surprised if they ditched their booking fee. I don't know if the ORR is actually looking into this any more as last I heard they were satisfied with the changes SeatFrog made. It still seems to be drip pricing to me as it doesn't always show on the first price screen, but if the ORR take issue with it, they'll just change their UI to include it earlier on. The booking fee is how they remain profitable. Without it they'd need to bring in revenue more from the operators, at which point the prices for upgrades would likely just be increased by an amount similar to the booking fee.

 

[RJ]

Why should there be a railcard discount on upgrades, especially for a railcard which doesn’t offer a discount on first class tickets anyway?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The booking fee is how they remain profitable. Without it they'd need to bring in revenue more from the operators, at which point the prices for upgrades would likely just be increased by an amount similar to the booking fee.

Is the booking fee not just in effect a reserve price? Could they not just introduce a reserve price to auctions instead?

 

[styles]

Is the booking fee not just in effect a reserve price? Could they not just introduce a reserve price to auctions instead?

Oh yeah they could swap it for another similar fee.

I just mean i can't see the fee disappearing entirely. Changed into another fee, or absorbed into the starting bid and increments or something else maybe, but the net effect will likely balance out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh yeah they could swap it for another similar fee.

I just mean i can't see the fee disappearing entirely. Changed into another fee, or absorbed into the starting bid and increments or something else maybe, but the net effect will likely balance out.

It could probably be made above board by showing it on the screen when you enter your bid, i.e.

Bid: ___

Fee: £3

Total: £x (calculated automatically when you change your bid)

[Submit] [Cancel]

 

[styles]

It could probably be made above board by showing it on the screen when you enter your bid, i.e.

Bid: ___

Fee: £3

Total: £x (calculated automatically when you change your bid)

[Submit] [Cancel]

I think really there's just no reason not to show it on the first screen where prices are displayed. Ticketmaster made this change and it is just one sentence at the top which says something like, "Each ticket incurs an additional £2.99 booking fee." Or whatever it is. There's plenty of view space for that on mobile, web, tablet, whatever. They get to keep their feet and get the ORR off their backs.

Though like I say, last unheard the ORR were happy with the changes SeatFrog made, so unless they get poked again or somebody starts a group claim, it'll probably just stay as is.

 

[MrJeeves]

It could probably be made above board by showing it on the screen when you enter your bid, i.e.

Bid: ___

Fee: £3

Total: £x (calculated automatically when you change your bid)

[Submit] [Cancel]

It basically already does what you describe, with the bid and fee shown before you change your bid, and showing the fee at the top of the bid entry screen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

View attachment 190309View attachment 190310

It basically already does what you describe, with the bid and fee shown before you change your bid, and showing the fee at the top of the bid entry screen.

I think it needs to be clearer than that to be honest. It might be compliant, but it is only compliant because of the law not being strong enough.

It should say "Price per upgrade: £9 (£6 bid + £3 platform fee)" and when entering a bid the line immediately underneath should clarify the total before you press Continue. If it's on another page then it's still drip pricing.

 

[styles]

I was about to say that it should be shown earlier than that @MrJeeves .

But it looks like they have actually changed it so it shows at the top when you first get shown a price:


That is basically what Ticketmaster does.

So I can't see what objection ORR would have any more.

 

[Djgr]

I was about to say that it should be shown earlier than that @MrJeeves .

But it looks like they have actually changed it so it shows at the top when you first get shown a price:

View attachment 190311
That is basically what Ticketmaster does.

So I can't see what objection ORR would have any more.

Although Ticketmaster is hardly an example of good practice!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was about to say that it should be shown earlier than that @MrJeeves .

But it looks like they have actually changed it so it shows at the top when you first get shown a price:

View attachment 190311
That is basically what Ticketmaster does.

So I can't see what objection ORR would have any more.

There is no good reason bar wilful obfuscation on Seatfrog's part (i.e. drip pricing) for those "place a bid" links not to include the platform fee. It's in essence a minimum bid.

And Ticketmaster should just show the full price you have to pay on the first screen that shows a price. There might be optional services you can add on e.g. receiving a paper ticket by post, and there will be different prices for different seats in many cases, but it should be possible to attend the event for the price shown the first time you see a price with nothing extra added.

 

[styles]

There is no good reason bar wilful obfuscation on Seatfrog's part (i.e. drip pricing) for those "place a bid" links not to include the platform fee. It's in essence a minimum bid.

And Ticketmaster should just show the full price you have to pay on the first screen that shows a price. There might be optional services you can add on e.g. receiving a paper ticket by post, and there will be different prices for different seats in many cases, but it should be possible to attend the event for the price shown the first time you see a price with nothing extra added.

Other ticketing sites show it right at the start, e.g. ATG Tickets


That's entirely fair, and is what SeatFrog have done.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's entirely fair, and is what SeatFrog have done.

If the transaction fee is on the whole transaction, i.e. I pay say £3.95 whether I order one ticket or ten, then that's fair. People will be purchasing different numbers of tickets per transaction. That isn't obfuscation, it's showing two elements to the purchase, one per ticket and one on the total, based at least in some ways on the expenses the ticketing site will incur.

If like Seatfrog it is per ticket, then it isn't good enough in my view; it should simply be included in the headline price. That's wilful obfuscation intended to make prices seem lower than they are and is what this law is intended to prevent.

 

[styles]

If the transaction fee is on the whole transaction, i.e. I pay say £3.95 whether I order one ticket or ten, then that's fair. People will be purchasing different numbers of tickets per transaction. That isn't obfuscation, it's showing two elements to the purchase, one per ticket and one on the total.

If like Seatfrog it is per ticket, then it isn't good enough in my view; it should simply be included in the headline price. That's wilful obfuscation intended to make prices seem lower than they are and is what this law is intended to prevent.

SeatFrog clearly says per seat. I don't think that's unclear.

 

[Bletchleyite]

SeatFrog clearly says per seat. I don't think that's unclear.

It's unclear in the sense that they are using it to advertise a lower number, which is what, as I said, this law is intended to prevent. You see the big number in the green, your eyes aren't drawn to the slightly greyed line at the top.

There is no reason bar wilful obfuscation to hide that the price is really £3 higher not to include it in the main number. The law is intended to prevent this very thing, and if it in fact doesn't then it needs to be tightened further.

What Seatfrog are probably doing here is complying with the letter of the law but not its spirit, which says a lot about their morals and business practices to me.

Notably Trainline and Trainsplit now both include their respective fees in the headline figure shown (breaking them down on a later page for those who want to see what the breakdown is) - which for all the criticism the former often receives is absolutely the right way to do it, both morally and legally.

 

[styles]

It's unclear in the sense that they are using it to advertise a lower number, which is what, as I said, this law is intended to prevent. You see the big number in the green, your eyes aren't drawn to the slightly greyed line at the top.

There is no reason bar wilful obfuscation to hide that the price is really £3 higher not to include it in the main number. The law is intended to prevent this very thing, and if it in fact doesn't then it needs to be tightened further.

What Seatfrog are probably doing here is complying with the letter of the law but not its spirit, which says a lot about their morals and business practices to me.

Notably Trainline and Trainsplit now both include their respective fees in the headline figure shown (breaking them down on a later page for those who want to see what the breakdown is) - which for all the criticism the former often receives is absolutely the right way to do it, both morally and legally.

Well, precisely, and the same reason the likes of ATG tickets and Ticketmaster do the same.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, precisely, and the same reason the likes of ATG tickets and Ticketmaster do the same.

Would you agree, therefore, that the law is not quite good enough and should be further tightened? I certainly am of that view if what Seatfrog is doing here is indeed legal.

My preference would be a requirement to include it in the headline price, but I would settle for something like "Where an additional fee is chargeable on top of the headline price, be it per transaction or per person, the display of this fee must be at least as prominent, if not more prominent, as/than the headline price, wherever it is shown". Hiding it at the top in small greyed out font is clearly malicious compliance, whereas ATG in your example place it on the same line in the same size font so you will naturally read the fee when you read the headline price.

(As I stated, though, it is not the same...I do think where there is a fee that is per order and not per ticket that is valid to show separately because it's hard to combine it sensibly - perhaps that's how Seatfrog should go, though single upgraders wouldn't like it as it would no doubt be higher than £3).

 

[styles]

Would you agree, therefore, that the law is not quite good enough and should be further tightened? I certainly am of that view if what Seatfrog is doing here is indeed legal.

(I do think where there is a fee that is per order and not per ticket that is valid to show separately because it's hard to combine it sensibly - perhaps that's how Seatfrog should go, though single upgraders wouldn't like it as it would no doubt be higher than £3).

I'm normally a big consumer advocate, but actually I think a statement above the prices saying there's a £3 per seat booking fee is sufficient information. It's provided at the first time any price is displayed, it's at the top of the page not some small print which could be hidden below scrollable objects, etc.

I would rather the price displayed actually included all fees, but I don't think this is particularly unclear or anything.

And I agree that potentially booking fees should be per booking rather than per seat, but at the same time, if I bought 50 upgrades when I take my Scouts on a train, it wouldn't work for SeatFrog's business model if I only paid a £3 fee for the whole booking. Again, I'd rather it was included in the price shown, but I think the statement, "A £3 platform fee will be charged per seat" at the top of the first price page is actually sufficient, even if not my preferred option.

The test really is, imo - does the customer have all the price information they need when they first get shown a price? To me the answer is yes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The test really is, imo - does the customer have all the price information they need when they first get shown a price? To me the answer is yes.

I don't think that test is sufficient.

I would prefer a test like "will a customer who is in a hurry be guaranteed to see all the price information when they are first shown a price?" A greyed out line of text at the top does not achieve that. Having it on the same line in the same size font as per your ATG example does. In essence the fee is a form of "small print", and I don't agree with the use of "small print" where it includes terms which are material to the price or the contract - it has a role but solely to show finiticky, legally necessary T&Cs that aren't particularly material and are the sort of thing that would be expected to apply.

A way to show it separately complying with that would be that each green button shows e.g. "Place a bid: £15 + £3 fee" if they really have to show it separately. There is clearly room for that.

 

[styles]

I don't think that test is sufficient.

I think it's sufficient, just not the best.

I would prefer a test like "will a customer who is in a hurry be guaranteed to see all the price information when they are first shown a price?" A greyed out line of text at the top does not achieve that. Having it on the same line in the same size font as per your ATG example does. In essence the fee is a form of "small print", and I don't agree with the use of "small print" where it includes terms which are material to the price or the contract - it has a role but solely to show finiticky, legally necessary T&Cs that aren't particularly material and are the sort of thing that would be expected to apply.

A way to show it separately complying with that would be that each green button shows e.g. "Place a bid: £15 + £3 fee" if they really have to show it separately. There is clearly room for that.

Agreed, I would prefer this also.

 

[Adam Williams]

Trainsplit now both include their respective fees in the headline figure

TrainSplit did this from the start. Nothing was changed in response to the ORR, and TrainSplit was not criticised by the ORR in respect of how it displayed its share of saving fees (baked into the price).

 

[Bletchleyite]

TrainSplit did this from the start. Nothing was changed in response to the ORR, and TrainSplit was not criticised by the ORR in respect of how it displayed its share of saving fees (baked into the price).

Thanks. Even better that that was done without needing to be asked or legislated, but just because it is the right thing to do!

 

[OscarH]

although I suspect if the booking fee was removed, Seatfrog would simply increase prices.

Probably, although they make enough bloody money from this nonsense they don't really need the booking fee

 

[Bletchleyite]

Probably, although they make enough bloody money from this nonsense they don't really need the booking fee

To be clear, the objection isn't them charging more (in the end an auction accurately determines what something is worth by getting someone to pay the most they will pay for it), it's doing it in a sly way by adding a booking fee rather than just having a minimum bid three quid higher.

 

[styles]

Probably, although they make enough bloody money from this nonsense they don't really need the booking fee

I probably don't want to go too off-topic with this, but why is it nonsense?

 

[blimmo]

Would you agree, therefore, that the law is not quite good enough and should be further tightened?

I would be happy to see this change (although, like styles, I'm not really convinced it is *necessary*) but I would be concerned this would encourage them to not show the fee breakdown at all. It really irks me is when all fees are included in the price and I can't see where my money is going. I am often paying for something because I want to support the business offering it and I would really like to see just how much of my money is going to them and how much to the platform / payment processor / government.

 

[AlterEgo]

I would be happy to see this change (although, like styles, I'm not really convinced it is *necessary*) but I would be concerned this would encourage them to not show the fee breakdown at all. It really irks me is when all fees are included in the price and I can't see where my money is going. I am often paying for something because I want to support the business offering it and I would really like to see just how much of my money is going to them and how much to the platform / payment processor / government.

Does it bother you when a sandwich is £3 in the shop and the supermarket doesn't tell you its margin on the label?