Announcing our new scam alert service

As well as reporting existing scams, maybe we should try educating people in how to spot and avoid scams in a general way. New scams will always claim victims before we have caught up with, and reported them.

I’m wondering if something on the lines of a simple flowchart would help? Most the attempts I’ve seen to warn folks about scams fail because they rarely, if ever, talk in absolutes. “Probably” and “maybe” don’t work well, since social media these days does talk in absolutes, often utterly wrong and misleading absolutes but absolutes nonetheless.

A flowchart is visually appealing, simple to use and right to the point. I’d be happy to take a crack at one, with Alfa’s help to put it into a diagrammatic form.

Yes, I’m aware of what Which? does but it has a limited audience. We need reach a much wider audience. TV would seem to be the best medium to do this. However the material needs presenting in a well thought through way to ensure the content and presentation is both understanding and appealing.

I have suggested that it would be useful if Which? had a presence on TV to raise awareness of consumer issues, beyond what Watchdog does when the series is being broadcast. It would cost the BBC less than paying for TV shows featuring celebrities. I’m suggesting that appearing on TV could be a source of revenue for Which? rather than an expense and it might increase the number of members.

Hasn’t the BBC’s flagship consumer strand Watchdog gone off watch now and been given a run on the Unnecessary Show at 7:00 pm on Wednesdays?

I have a passing interest in consumer affairs but would rarely watch Watchdog [only if there was likely to be something interesting on]; I am even less likely to watch such third-rate drivel in its new kennel surrounded by mongrels and misfits.

What Which? needs is its own TV channel funded by advertising or sponsorship from companies like CPCW, Amazon, VW, Whirlpool, and other consumer culprits.

A certain Mrs Robinson was responsible for ensuring that I stopped watching Watchdog. If I hear of an interesting topic I sometimes watch it on iPlayer.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of the population has never fallen for a scam. I don’t believe I have ever parted with money as a result of an unsolicited phone call or email. I may have lost out on some genuine bargains but that’s a small price to pay.

Scams are costing consumers a great deal of money and I appreciate the efforts of Which? Most people associate Which? with product testing but it does a great deal more.

George: I agree the three Which? sites are full of interesting information. I don’t want you to think I’m being overly critical about your work in creating the wealth of helpful stuff on scams. But they do, in fact duplicate points, and the total word count exceeds 2750 words.

I don’t find them quick and easy to read, and that’s for a number of reasons. For example, let’s look at the scam email page.

The banner header is enticing, with “How to spot an email scam” in gigantic font size, then “Use our top 10 tips to safeguard yourself”. Which is great.

Then not so much. The “In this guide” section takes a fair bit of space and, while I recognise they’re all linked for speedy access, not everyone is au fait with hyperlinking.

Then there’s an ad, urging us to “Sign up for a Which? Scam alert to get what you need to know about the latest scams,”.

Okay; now I’m getting a little impatient. I want to see the promised top ten tips. But the next obstacle to surmount is a large, orange rectangle about a sextortion scam.

Well, I assure myself, the top ten tips must be next. But they’re not. The next is a paragraph about Email scam awareness. Guys—by this time I’m feeling a bit like a marathon runner that keeps seeing signs promising drinks in the next fifty yards, but they’re not there.

Then there’s a bit on Action Fraud, a widely discredited organisation from what most are saying. Never mind; top ten tips must be coming soon.

Gosh, no. Instead it’s an image of a BT cyber breach letter scam.

In short, there are more than 400 words and three images after the promise of the top ten tips before the reader finally gets to see them.

What I’m saying is that it needs greatly simplifying and made far punchier.
But there’s another issue: are there common aspects to all scams? Because I suspect there are and by not flagging those common aspects W? might be missing a trick.

Just off the top of my head, without brainstorming I suspect these might be common to most scams:

1. Contact out of the blue.
2. Unexpected contact.
3. Unusual contact.

They’re certainly things folk should be wary about.

4. Request / demand / require / transfer money
5. Follow a hyperlink in an email.

I appreciate you tell folk about this, but I don’t believe that how you say it is sufficiently strong. The time when we could safely follow links in emails is long gone. Hyperlinks in emails should be regarded in the same light as an apple in a supermarket that’s had someone coughing and sneezing over it.

I’m not denigrating the efforts you’re all putting in, but I suspect I’m not alone in believing it could be even better. Anyhow, that took a bit of time, so I now need a whiskey.

Hi Frank,
I am going to reply to your post under your original post here as there appears to be more to this and I think you need to be very careful.

If you log in to post, you will be able to find your posts again.