Letters to Editor: Not cost cutting Yeah right

1 comment

Tiny Text

 It's not about cost cutting. Yeah right ...I read with interest Mr Duffill's article on the front page of Saturday's paper regarding the pathetic new offering from Yellow. I spend many thousands annually to have ads in the book so I know exactly what he is saying. The thing that prompted this rant of my own was Yellow's reply to his remarks.

Forget watching re-runs of Friends just pull up a chair with a coffee and read the article and that can be your day's entertainment in one fell swoop ... it's not about cost cutting. It's to make it more user friendly. It's easier to use. It's easier to handle. I've seen it all now.What a crock. In fact I'm writing to the crowd in the Manawatu that brew fizzy brown juice and sell it in vessels with orange labels with birds on them. Their ads are great and as I'm sure most people are aware they start with yeah ... So Mr Yellow I'm suggesting that the ad runs as follows ... It's not about cost cutting! Yeah Right!

Andrew Piper, Hastings

Unwelcome change

In response to Grey Power vice president Ted Duffill's negative comments about the hard to read tiny font used in the 2012 Hawke's Bay White pages, I had already phoned Yellow on 0800 803 803 to complain about the unwelcome change foisted upon me.

When I said that I did not wish to keep the new directory and wanted to know where I could return it to, I was advised to drop it off at my local Post Shop.

I will be returning my copy this week and would encourage other dissatisfied residents to do the same.

There is strength in numbers and while one unhappy customer will make no difference, if several hundred or indeed several thousand copies are returned it certainly would.

The smaller format is nothing other than a cost-cutting exercise.

Given that the number of older people in the community is rising, it defies logic to reduce the size of the print and I imagine that advertisers who have paid good money to publicise their businesses in the Yellow Pages will not be pleased if people recycle the 2012 edition and simply carry on using this year's readable directory.

Jessica Maxwell, Havelock North

Size shrinkage

To those complaining about the size of the new telephone directory, I would point out that Yellow Pages Group Ltd produce this publication, not Telecom. You really have little to complain about compared to those advertising in the Yellow Pages section - a shrinkage of approximately 22 per cent - but hang on a minute - there has been no price increase this year - jolly dee there was no mention of a size reduction upon signing up but a big thing made of the lack of price increase.

One could be forgiven for assuming the size reduction is the equivalent of a 22 per cent price increase based on the original size.

I see nothing in our contract that refers to a reduction in the size of our advertisement which is 1/8th page and not actual measurements. Like everyone we are at their mercy.

It would be nice to see businesses withdraw their support in view of this exorbitant (price increase?) size reduction but, unfortunately, there is no alternative - guess what? - Yellow Pages Group is a monopoly.Tony IvesNapierTrouble readingI have been quietly fuming over the last week in a state of denial as I have trouble reading the print in the new phone book. What really got me going was the comment from communications manager Charlene White.

What a load of gobbledegook. Hopefully, I will be sent a magnifying glass as well.

It's not just Grey Power members who have trouble reading this but middle-aged people too.

Hope Hawke's Bay Today doesn't get any ideas.

Steve Morton, Tikokino

Won't listen

I have been following the correspondence over the new, down-sized phone directory that is currently causing concern for some readers.

It's unlikely Telecom will take any notice of complaints to the point of changing future formats, so my suggestion is that struggling users be done with it and simply refer to the phone book as their phoney book.

Garry Whincop, Napier

Good work council

Having worked with central and local governments in three countries - Britain and Australia as well as New Zealand - I would like to congratulate the planning staff of Napier City Council for the high quality of their work on District Plan Change 5, affecting the Napier Hill Character Zone. Ratepayers and councillors alike should be grateful that we have skilled people available to offer such quality policy advice.

Not only are the planners' summary of submissions brief and lucid, but also their analysis of these, and their consequential expert recommendations to the hearings committee, are clearly related to relevant national and local statutory requirements and interpretations.

I particularly enjoyed the planners' response to A Petersen and School Developments Ltd submission 99/29 that "all councillors who made the decision to proceed with PC5 resign forthwith" - by pointing out, in paragraph 17.2.40, that: "Should councillors choose to resign every time a disgruntled person voiced displeasure at a decision of council, local government in Napier would cease to exist."

I also liked the planners commendably restrained response in the same submission by the same people that "all senior staff who prepared PC5 be dismissed", by noting that this is a decision solely for the chief executive to make in terms of employment law as implemented by Napier City Council, and adding in paragraph 17.2.41 that dismissal of staff "is not a function that can, or should be, actioned simply at the request of a person expressing displeasure at a decision of council".

The planners deserve a bouquet for standing up to those who, through a democratic process, have now revealed more of their true nature than ratepayers might otherwise know.

Geoffrey Whitehead, Napier

- Hawkes Bay Today

Get the news delivered straight to your inbox

Receive the day’s news, sport and entertainment in our daily email newsletter


Sort by
  • Oldest

© Copyright 2017, NZME. Publishing Limited

Assembled by: (static) on production bpcf05 at 24 May 2017 03:41:21 Processing Time: 502ms