Talk:Uswitch

Criticism of their commission based model

I know in the past the company has been criticised because of the commissions it makes off people switch - there have been accusations that the company might therefore promote the deal that is best for them rather than the consumer. Anyone got any good sources about the matter? --Fredrick day 14:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

All price comparison website receive payments from the organisations they send customers to, so this criticism is a criticism of industry practice rather than uSwitch in particular. uSwitch has in the past been criticised for not giving full/fair results.Jasonfward 22:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of their business practices

The Mirror in their Money section (13 March 2006, page 51) published a letter from uSwitch to British Gas where uSwitch said that if BG paid uSwitch £15 million they would stop customers from switching away from BG. A copy of the article can be found http://myvesta.org.uk/blog/2006/03/exclusive-gas-leak.html Jasonfward 22:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

For use

I don't have time right now, here's some good links - if nobody uses them in the next few days, when I am less busy on Friday I will have a crack at the article). Neil (►) 16:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/29/bt_uswitch/
• http://money.guardian.co.uk/utilities/story/0,,1969281,00.html
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4813192.stm
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4631190.stm
• http://timesbusiness.typepad.com/money_weblog/2006/02/uswitch_i_benef.html
• http://www.britannia.co.uk/c_partnerships/uswitch/index.html

Notable yes, but...

uSwitch is notable, and so are a few other switching sites, but this article as it currently stands is out and out spam in my view.

I actually wrote the original uSwitch website and I think one of the main reasons that makes uSwitch notable was that it was the first website of its kind, when the project was first being described to me I couldn't believe it was possible to make money that way.

However, there is nothing particularly notable about the content of uSwitch current offering compared to their many competitors and the current article just reads a corporate article.

And sorry if I am doing this wrong this is the first time I've ever got involved with wikipedia.

Jasonfward 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that, whilst I have an obvious conflict of interest, uSwitch being my employers, so does Jasonfward, who is employed by one of our competitors. — OwenBlacker 12:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You both have a COI but you have both declared them so I don't see any serious problems - if you think any of your edits might be "suspect" - run them past the talkpage first. The page is clearly standing so we need to ensure it has a NPOV. --Fredrick day 12:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. So long as we're both honest about stuff, I can't see there being any problems. :o) — OwenBlacker 11:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite my working for a competitor, I do have a soft spot of uSwitch in so much as of all the website's I worked on back in the first internet boom its the only one that still exists. I was though a little surprised by the article I originally found as it seemed to have been written as a piece of marketing material. Perhaps we should each just write the articles for each others employer? ;) although in truth, having read many articles here on wikipedia I am struggling to write content that fits with the style. Jasonfward 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What does NPOV mean? (I'm guessing "no point of view") Jasonfward 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think it was all that non-neutral, to be honest, but I'm happy to see other Wikipedians make the article more balanced, so that everyone is happy that it's suitably encyclopædic.

Nearly: NPOV is Neutral Point of View — one of Wikipedia's most important policies. See WP:NPOV for more details. — OwenBlacker 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Latest edits

I find myself unhappy with this latest version of the article but I do have a conflict of interest, undoubtedly influencing my views. And I find it surprising the level of detail apparently known by independents, or people who have not declared a conflict of interest.

In short I find the current article overly generous towards uSwitch. But I am reluctant to edit the article any more myself. Jasonfward 15:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

which bits or sentences in particular are you concerned with? --Fredrick day 15:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

does that read any better? --Fredrick day 16:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Frederick, the philosophy bit rankled the most with me, I'm not at all sure it was appropriate for an encyclopedia, but your edits I think cure that vast majority of what I didn't like. Jasonfward 16:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes - it was getting a bit ... how shall we say... unbalanced. If you want to make changes, Jason - make them, yes you have a COI but you have declared it - if they look promblematical, well we can work that out. --Fredrick day 16:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

UK price comparison portal

I've given this some thought now and I wonder if there should actually be an effort to create a set articles around the price comparison websites (perhaps with switching sites as a subset). Between 2000 and now these companies and websites have transform many sectors (energy in the UK in particular). It would also mean that notes on industry criticism and regulation could go were they are more appropriate rather (right now) in uSwitches article.

Sorry if this is in the wrong place, I am still figuring my way around Wikipedia. Jasonfward 19:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I found this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_switching_services_in_the_UK not quite what I was thinking, and indeed a subset of switching sites... but an interesting start. Jasonfward 19:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Are uSwitch.com and Uswitch-business.com related?

Are you Are uSwitch.com and Uswitch-business.com related?

Reply: I would say since they use the same name and are in the same business they are definatly related, otherwise scripts would be making noise and heading to the courts.

I think the newly inserted bits in the article about Uswitch-business.com are weasel and should be removed. Jasonfward 10:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that 81.152.109.194 wrote both this question, and wrote the article saying they were unrelated. Jasonfward 11:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest discussion

There's a conflict of interest discussion going on at WP:COIN#uSwitch and Energy switching services in the UK regarding recent edits made by uSwitch to the articles uSwitch and Energy switching services in the UK. Please could anyone interested in these two articles take a look at both that discussion and the edits in question (1, 2) and post their opinions to the COI discussion.

Thanks! — OwenBlacker (who works at uSwitch.com), 11:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Press releases make for poor sources

A great deal of the article is drawn all from a single source, the "Scripps acquires uSwitch" press release. This makes for a very poor source, and shouldn't be used alone. If third-party sources aren't forthcoming to support this information, anything that is at all questionable should be removed. --Ronz 01:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that press releases are perfectly acceptable sources for certain things, like bland statements of fact that a company really couldn't get away with lying about (like changes of ownership), or statements of things that the organisation releasing the press release really is most qualified to talk about (like their own policies, mission statements, etc). Other matters can reasonably be sourced to such things if the article reads "X claims/states/whatever Y", rather than just stating "Y". SamBC(talk) 01:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hence I qualified myself with, "anything that is at all questionable should be removed." We've COI and NPOV issues here. Press releases are insufficient for such problems. --Ronz 16:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I didn't mean to seem disagreeing, more clarifying. Anything "at all questionable" would seem to be broader than what I describe, but if you meant basically the same, then we agree. SamBC(talk) 17:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes

It is requested that an edit be made to this article that the user below doesn't want to make because of a conflict of interest. Please review the request below and make the edit if the edit is well cited, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. NOTE: This edit has now been made. Many thanks to User:BeachTeach007.

I am posting this on behalf of the copywriting team here at uSwitch. Further to Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy and discussions resulting from some previous changes to the article, we would like to suggest the following changes to this article.

The section Investigation by consumer advocate Energywatch is currently worded in a way that goes against the policy on neutral point-of-view. We would like to suggest the following wording:

== Relationship with Energywatch ==

uSwitch.com is fully accredited by Energywatch, the energy watchdog in the UK. It played a role in the industry consultation which led to the establishment of a voluntary code of practice — the Energywatch Confidence Code — in 2002. Press reports suggest that, under the code, the company has subsequently been asked by Energywatch to change how it displays comparison results and information so that consumers can enjoy greater transparency. The company has complied with any such requests and has always remained fully accredited.

To be entirely transparent about this proposed edit, this would remove the current reference link to FAULTY SWITCH (dated November 29, 2006 and accessed 2007-09-29). The article is heavily biased as it is based on hearsay comments made by a rival competitor, rather than an independent body such as Energywatch. In fact, the Energywatch responses which are included towards the end of the article do not single out uSwitch and make it clear that any company not adhering to the code would not be awarded accreditation. uSwitch was accredited and has remained accredited ever since. Given this, inclusion of this article as reference could actually be misleading and detracts from Wikipedia’s value as a source of independent, impartial and neutral information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OwenBlacker (talk • contribs) 11:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I'm in and out of airports the next couple of days (I'm at heathrow) or I'd do it - I'll ask someone at the COI board to take a look. --Fredrick day 12:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at making this change, please? Also, given all uSwitch staff are now committing not to make any significant (non-typo) changes to the article, could we get the {{COI2}} note removed from the article head, please? Thanks! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 09:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have made the proposed changes to the Relationship with Energy watch section for you. BeachTeach007 (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you *very* much. If you're ever in London, feel free to let me know to buy you a drink ;o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 17:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Moved from article: Current Crisis

I've moved the following new information here for discussion. Without any sources, I don't think it belongs in the article per WP:V and WP:NPOV.

uSwitch has been one of the original ideas in the dot com industry of UK but until recently has been loosing money on a consistent basis. As a result, there we many redundancies made in 2006 and 2007. Financial analysts think this is because of the company's arrogant approach towards the market.

--Ronz 00:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible advertising material

I have added Template:Advert to USwitch#Business_model, due to content like "uSwitch.com is dedicated to helping consumers save money".

It seems as if some contributions made by 93.96.143.154 may not have been NPOV; and while some actions, such as removing references to competing price-comparison services, have already been reverted, this seems to have slipped through.

Some sentences appears to be identical to content on the company's LinkedIn page.

I'm not quite sure how to fix the article now, so I'm leaving this comment... Sorry.

BCMM (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 23 January 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Events have turned most opposition into support. BD2412 T 04:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

USwitch → Uswitch – The company has had a re-brand and no longer refers to themselves as USwitch but as Uswitch. This needs correcting in the title. IwFergusson (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose : Wikipedia uses WP:COMMONNAME. And regardless of that there seems little sign of the claimed rebranding; the company website still largely uses the previous style, uSwitch. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  IwFergusson claimed in an edit summary today: "the new branding has fully been rolled out on the website today", but on the front page of the company website the name appears 9 times as uSwitch. The only occurrence of any new branding is in the logo. Per WP:COMMONNAME let's wait until general usage changes; currently the vast proportion of mentions, whether by the company or elsewhere, are to uSwitch. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose the company still uses uSwitch on its website and they company is still uSwitch Limited.– BrandonXLF (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The website now fully uses the new "Uswitch" name, they released a press release [1], and the news and other sites are using the new name now [2][3][4], but I'm not sure if it's the WP:COMMONNAME yet, but since it's a small changes, that might not matter since it is still the name name, just spelt a little differently.– BrandonXLF (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as per David and Brandon - There's nothing at all on this supposed rebrand and as such IMHO (BrandonXLF) the logo should be reversed to the current one. –Davey2010^Talk 21:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Davey2010, that's odd. The logo was on their website when I uploaded the photo, that's where I got it from. I've undone my edit. The new logo can stay uploaded because it's PD. – BrandonXLF (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Now it looks like they are only using the new logo on some pages like https://www.uswitch.com/gas-electricity/ and https://smart-comparison.uswitchforbusiness.com/.– BrandonXLF (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Hey BrandonXLF, Ah okay in that case I assume someone their end has either pressed the wrong button and reverted back to the old website branding or the rebrand was meant to be for a specific date...., I assumed you uploaded it via FFU without checking the link so sorry about that,
    • No problem with the logo remaining on Commons as if and when they do rebrand it can be replaced :), Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Well that is bizarre!, I assume it's a website glitch then, In that case I guess the new one can stay I dunno lol, –Davey2010^Talk 21:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I think they were rolling it out on their site. It should now be fully visibile and everything on the page should now be changed to their new branding so the content is not outdated, IwFergusson (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Company has since rebranded and has since dropped the capital S, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.