Budget Apologies!

[Guest Moderator]

We are sorry that the recent Budget Mailer has caused offence to some of you. We are a little surprised at this because we have been undertaking selective mailings for a number of years. We only agree to these on the basis that they are relevant to motorhomers and that they may prove to be of value and interest. We do take great effort to ensure that if anyone has opted out from receiving mailers they are not entered on any prospective list. We also run any list through the Mailing Preference Service to ensure we don’t upset anyone. As a further security measure we never release names to third parties and as you can see in the case of the Budget mailing all non delivered items are returned to ourselves. On a further point of clarity we have no financial connection with Budget Insurance.

Should you not wish to receive selected mailers in the future and you think that our records need updating, please click on the following link to inform us of your preferences.

[Guest Brian Kirby]

Thank you for your kindly ear, Mr Moderator. It is good to know that someone was, after all, listening. My observation would be that had Warners added Budget's guff to the normal magazine circulation as a "blow in", there would probably have been little outrage. Instead there is a palpable sense of betrayal by subscribers to a magazine that many seem to see more as a friend than a commencial venture. You have emphasised care and effort above, however it seems that what was really flawed on this occasion was the judgement, not the effort. Thanks again Brian

[Guest Dave Newell]

Hello Mr. Moderator, As a voluntary contributor I have never been asked if I wished to receive mail/phone solicitations, my "subscription" is by way of remuneration for my efforts as a consultant to MMM Interchange. I wasn't offended by the mailshot but I was surprised as I have engaged the services of the mail preference service. I have in the past had quotations from several of the insurance companies who do these mailshots but as yet have not found one who could "save me money" as they always claim. I can only echo Brian's comment that the error was one of judgement, I run my own business and if I sold/passed on my customers details to any company for this type of mailshot I'd soon wind up with no customers. Thanks for "listening" and responding so promptly. Dave.

[Guest Yorkshire Tyke]

Like Dave Newall above I have not found any of the so called "cheaper" insurance quotes to be able to save me money My quotes (3) came from this site. Withut any doubt Unfortunately I cannot use the preference form until the next issue of MMM as the insert with my details on are now shredded I am also registered with the Mailing Preference Service and the Telaphone Prefference Service If I require ant services I would look in the adverts in MMM and use those

[Guest keith T]

Thnak you, Mr Moderator - at least it shows that the forum has it's benefits.....and is read by the appopraite people. The inclusion of the opt-out link is very useful and sensible. Also this does now infer that Warners do not appraer to be going into the insurance business themselves, so they will, hopefully, continue to be impartial!

[Guest Basil]

Thank you for answering from me also. I have to say that I do not know if they are competative or not, my objection was that I ticked (or not ticked) whichever meant I did not wish to recieve third party mailings when I first subscribed and I am registered with MPS and TPS as well as being XD, so could not understand how my details had been used. This was the basis of my concern.