We did it!!!!!!!!! We bloody did it!

After 24 years, we finally managed to win the Rugby World Cup again, thereby ending years of underachievement as consistently the number 1 team in the world throughout the history of rugby, yet only managing to win the world cup on one previous occasion.

The mastermind behind taking our number 1 team in the world to... number 1 in the world? Graham Henry, now Sir Graham Henry.

Really?

So a man who is paid to coach the All Blacks to success, achieves what should be regarded as "par", and in the hysteria of Rugby World Cup glory he is awarded a knighthood?

No disrespect to the man himself, but I thought knighthoods were to recognise outstanding service to the community rather than just serving in paid employment.

If Henry had for years of his life dedicated himself to improving rugby at the grass roots, establishing meaningful programmes that enriched the lives of young rugby players in communities, and used his celebrity status to do further good in our society then I would fully back the honour. But after reading a full article about Henry's knighthood that focussed entirely on his lifelong dream to coach the All Blacks and the trials and tribulations of his AB coaching career, his achievements seem to pale in comparison to the pages of biographies I read detailing the community service that others recognised in the New Year Honours list have performed over many years of their lives.

Those that know me will know that I am a passionate supporter of football/soccer. Don't take this blog post as an anti-rugby post though. Had the All Whites advanced even further in South Africa in 2010 beyond any reasonable expectation, and coach Ricki Herbert had been knighted on this alone, I would be equally perplexed by the decision.

I'm not against sportspeople receiving knighthoods. Dame Susan Devoy is the most recent sporting Knight/Dame I can recall, and her contributions to society as well as her sporting achievements seem at face value worthy of this recognition. I just don't know how Graham Henry (or Richie McCaw who was offered the same Honour but declined) have contributed to New Zealand above and beyond doing their paid jobs. Perhaps you can enlighten in the comments if you know better.

I love Kiwibank. I really do. They've been great to deal with for a long time, and any small problems have always been dealt with to my utmost satisfaction. But small things have irked me, like the introduction of $2 fee for self-service online automatic payments. Tonight was the last straw when I found out about the $5 fee for establishment of direct debits.

Really? How could a previously free service get hiked to $5? What could possibly justify that? And what can I do about it?

Rant on @twitter of course, and who should pop into the discussion at 10:31pm other than the best Social Media Banking Team in New Zealand* - @ASBBank.

Their accounts may or may not suit you. I'm not sure if they are going to suit my personal needs. But they sure as hell have the most responsive, friendly, and awesome team behind their social media.

I remember when ASB Bank first opened their virtual branch on Facebook. I popped in as a non-customer. Not to enquire about anything. But just to say hi! The response was warm and left me with exactly the sort of "buzz" that businesses are aiming to generate via Social Media.

Well done ^SM and all the team at ASB Bank. You guys really are the most "social" bank in New Zealand* and whether I eventually move my accounts to you or not, I just wanted you all to know that you are the best. Don't take my eventual decision personally because I'll continue to recommend that people look at your services and shift if it makes sense for them.


*as awarded by me

When I went to cast my vote today, I had a slightly awkward experience. I know that appointed "scrutineers" are allowed to be present at some polling booths, and that they are allowed to wear clothing in their political party's colours as well as a "rosette", lapel badges, streamers, ribbons, etc. I did not, however, expect to see several scrutineers wearing t-shirts with political slogans on them.

Now the Electoral Law in New Zealand is quite clear that to wear a t-shirt on Polling Day which has a political party slogan on it is illegal (eg. "Vote for a Brighter Future", or "Own Our Future"). However it appears to be much less clear when it comes to political slogans which potentially influence a voter's choice but is not directly affiliated to a political party (but clearly steers a voter in a particular direction).
Under the Electoral rules (http://www.elections.org.nz/rules/electorate-candidates/electorate-candidate/election-day-rules.html):

• Clothing (such as T-shirts) promoting the party or candidate must not be displayed on polling day.
• Scrutineers and other persons (other than electoral officers) are permitted under the Electoral Act 1993 to wear party lapel badges on Election Day.
• A candidate’s name cannot be displayed on a lapel badge.
• Party lapel badges (a badge or rosette to be worn on the lapel) may be in party colours and contain the party name, emblem, slogan or logo.

Furthermore, the Electoral Commission's "Information for Scrutineers" (http://www.elections.org.nz/files/E6_Information_for_scrutineers_final.pdf - this is from 2008, I cannot find the 2011 version online but I would imagine that there would be no drastic differences) says "Please do not wear clothing promoting the candidate or party. You should bear in mind the need to exercise restraint when displaying party paraphernalia on election day as there are often complaints from voters."

What I saw today was not clothing such as t-shirts that contained a slogan from a political party, but it was very definitely a slogan which any reasonable person would consider as one that would potentially influence a person's vote.

As a result of my enquiry to the Electoral Commission, the wearers of the t-shirts later covered up the slogans. Please note that this is not an official Electoral Commission ruling, nor do I know whether the people wearing those t-shirts agreed that there was any breach - I was simply informed that they would be covering up the slogans).

I'm interested to hear from others - did you see any scrutineers at your Polling Booth wearing any t-shirts or other clothing with slogans which could potentially influences a person's voting decision?

Please note that I have deliberately not mentioned the slogan and which political party it was in support of at this stage.

Last year I wrote about How not to treat your customers. It was like a textbook lesson on how to piss your customers off only it was played out step-by-step in real life. Looking back, I can't think of anything that went right with the launch of iPhone 4, and I'm sure that many of those affected by the shenanigans that day will not easily forget.

To summarise, last year Apple and Vodafone launched the iPhone 4 but gave inconsistent and fluid information to customers who were interested in the phone and/or contracts with Vodafone. The lack of clear information (and the ever-changing nature of what little was given) quite understandably frustrated customers, some of whom queued outside stores in the middle of Winter without being informed one way or another whether this was going to actually achieve anything.

Today Telecom announces the arrival of iPhone on XT's "Smartphone Network". Apple might not have trusted the iPhone on XT previously but after a year of solid uptime XT has apparently proven itself as being worthy of officially supporting the iPhone.

Here's what's GREAT about today:

• Telecom has announced, in a formal press release 3 days prior to the launch:
• WHERE it will be available
• WHEN it will be available (and giving people an upfront heads up as to possible delays)
• HOW MUCH it will cost
• HOW MUCH the plans will be
• Furthermore - you have to OPTION of PREPAID, OPEN TERM, or 24 month (and even 12 month) contracts

No more cloak and dagger. No more logging into internet forums for the latest updated rumour on where it will be available. No more waking up in the middle of the night to order it on the Apple online store, rushing around like a madman the next day trying to buy it, and then phoning Apple to cancel your online order after securing one.

It's pretty much the perfect launch so far. If I had to nitpick then the 300 TXTs included is completely pathetic in 2011, especially considering you might be paying upwards of $80 for a plan. But that's completely overshadowed by all the other aspects of today's announcements.

So wonderful that a company in the business of COMMUNICATION can actually communication with their customers and intending customers in such a clear fashion. Sure they are just doing what you'd expect but the alternative makes Telecom XT just such a far more appealing proposition.

Today is Day 1 and it's a good day. It's a day where Telecom understands and wants to cater to their customer's needs and wants. But it's only the start of the relationship, and I hope they can keep it up with their customer support. Too often as a Vodafone customer with an iPhone *I* have been blamed when things aren't working right. Inevitably I've then gone on to discover other people with the same problems, who were also told that no problem exists.

I get the feeling that Vodafone doesn't really value the iPhone and that it's a pain in the butt for them. Perhaps one company's pain in the butt will turn out to be another company's treasure trove of high-spending accounts.

I don't know how many people check their supermarket dockets for anything other than the vouchers on the back. Perhaps I'm anal (actually I really am) but I always check that items in my basket scanned at the correct/advertised price. (As an aside perhaps you'd like to tell me in the comments whether you check prices or not).

I will always raise price discrepancies unless the difference is in the order of 10-20c and I can't be bothered. But I will always tell a checkout operator that the price scanned incorrectly as I make my way for the carpark.

I know what you are saying. It's only a few cents! And I'm making a mountain out of a molehill (again). But once again it's the principle at stake here, not my 20c.

Multiply the 20c pricing "error" by 100 and that's $20. If 1000 items are sold that's $200. The most important thing to note here is that that's YOUR money and not the supermarkets'.

What irks me is that when I raise these pricing discrepancies with staff, I am inevitably refunded but what about those that will follow after me? I once bought tomatoes advertised instore at about $5/kg which scanned at $9/kg! I felt extremely sorry for those that followed me due to inaction from the instore staff the pricing error was not corrected in their POS system.

Some supermarkets used to have a policy whereby if an item scanned higher than the shelf price you would be refunded the full price for that item. That was good because there was a financial incentive for the supermarket to correct the error ASAP. But alas these policies are no longer found in any supermarkets I've been to in the last decade. In my opinion this sort of policy encourages ethical behaviour when it comes to POS pricing.

It's not illegal to make a pricing error. For example if you walk into a store and the price tag says $10 but when you take it to the counter the staff realise it was a mistake and tell you it should be $20 then they aren't legally bound to let you have it for $10. But surely once the pricing error has been pointed out then it breaches the Fair Trading Act for the item to be returned to the shelf with a price tag of $10.

I'm not sure what can be done about it but your thoughts on the matter would be welcomed :)