BT is categorised as ‘Slow internet’ - Suggest changing it


(Richard varga) #21

it really is slow though…


(Jeff puckering) #22

I think it’s just personal preference, I see

As a good thing, it’s those quirky, clever people that find something different that the proffessional ‘the way we have always done it’ people never get close to.

All in all this thread seems to have the consensus of, please carry on injecting humour but avoid saying anything negative that the company in question would argue with (gap would quite happily say they sell jeans for dads!)


#23

I’m not saying that at all. Having a more relaxed, conversational tone is great. Making silly, snarky comments and jokes about the investments they offer doesn’t present a professional image. Making negative comments about a company’s products (such as saying BT internet is slow) could be interpreted as advice not to invest, as somebody has said above.

All I’m saying is that descriptions should be neutral and offer basic information on what the company broadly does as a precursor to users doing their own research.


(Chris) #24

Slow internet is an accurate description though.


(Dave Smith) #25

I have BT fibre and it’s as fast as anything else available round here, not the cheapest though, I really should switch to a cheaper one


(Chris) #26

I had BT for a while. Terrible, would get fixed for a couple of weeks and then start playing up again.
Now with a smaller ISP who use BT as their backbone. Totally fine. Stable and as fast as it could be.
The other reason I say slow is the lack of true investment in the national network.


#27

I would also like to see this description changed. Have BT fibre and it’s the fastest I can get in the area I live. 64mb is not bad for a remote village. It’s not cheap though.


#28

I really think it should be changed. No connection to BT and haven’t had internet from them for yonks, but I honestly think it just comes across as overly juvenile. Not that I don’t find it funny and there’s nothing wrong with a bit of whimsy, but if there is any I think it should be at least be erring towards positivity. Case in point: Aston Martin’s description is ‘Fancy cars’. Not ‘Hyper expensive vehicles for Bond wannabes’.

The old adage ‘If you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything’ seems to have been applied elsewhere — BAT’s ticker isn’t ‘Cancer causing products made with child labour’, it’s ‘Cigarettes’. Maybe their lawyers are scarier than BT’s, but even still. I think the house style for this sort of thing (assuming there is one) needs to be settled before the wider rollout lest it give a bad impression of the so far excellent platform.


(Alex Sherwood) #29

Just a quick reminder to vote for this suggestion too :raised_hand:

Some users removed their votes after the discussion so the total number of votes is a good way to see people’s current opinions, rather than just basing them on the comments in the thread..


#30

Agree with jaffa it does come across as a tad immature, or ryanair-esque. The Freetrade business model also depends on people going long on equities to generate revenue, and if you’re going to make targeted swipes at selected companies, does that really increase the likelihood of someone hitting the buy button?


(Joao Barros) #31

Any update on this one? Would love to see this removed (together with any other examples of derogatory descriptions).

A few people are mixing up “boring” with “serious”, and I think Freetrade can be serious whilst fun, without being derogatory.


(Viktor) #32

Hey Joao, it’s been good to hear everyone’s opinions!

We’ve also had lots of people mention how much they appreciate this specific description, from Reddit to Twitter to customer chats.

At the same time, we have 15 votes here :point_up: :eyes: , more than what we have for e.g. displaying withdrawals in the activity feed or ethical investments.

The way we think about short titles is that that’s your primary way of getting a first, quick understanding of the stock or ETF. It should reflect what the given company does, and serve as a kind of shorthand for the average consumer. It should be unique, and if possible, fun.

Any suggestions for a new short title for BT? :slight_smile:


Should Freetrade use only neutral descriptions of stocks?
Suggest US stocks descriptions
(Joao Barros) #33

Hey Viktor, I get that, there will always be people that enjoy “anti-establishment” propaganda. I just don’t think this is the place.

I would prefer to have the description in balance with most other stocks (e.g. United Utilities - Water Utility) and put something like “Telecom” or “Broadband, Mobile and TV services”.

I would also change Unilever from “Soap” to something more informative, as not everyone really knows Unilever enough to understand the joke :slight_smile:

Cheers!


(Viktor) #34

Not sure what you mean by “anti-establishment propaganda". :eyes:

Have you seen what we consider a good short title? :thinking: :point_down: I think BT, being BT, could use a more unique title.

Also,

I would also change Unilever from “Soap” to something more informative

Not happening.


(Emma) #35

“Owner of a big tower”?

Probably doesn’t get the understanding across though


(Viktor) #36

I quite like this direction. :smile:


(Joao Barros) #37

Yes, I have seen what you consider a good short title, here are a few examples from your own list: “water utility”, “Mobile and Data”, “Advertising”, “British Fashion”, etc.

Regardless, after the “not happening” for Unilever I rest my case. I just voiced my opinion, together with a few other users. Up to you guys to decide what you prefer.

Cheers!


(Chris) #38

Incumbent keeping the UK behind the rest of the world with regards to connectivity.

:thinking:


(Emma) #39

“Initial victim of Thatcherite short sighted privatisation policy”?

Yeah, that one probably will annoy everyone :grin:


(Matteo) #40

Ex telecom monopolist, not exactly short but tells you everything.

I like the idea of brainstorm for the stock short title. Could be potentially be used also for those that the team finds difficult/ don’t find agreement on what to use.