@jamespa Yup! 😉 Toodles.

Posted by: @toodles

↑

I rather felt that you were demonstrating your suspicions and your scepticism of Zero Disrupt type schemes - or were you just playing ‘Devil’s Advocate’ perhaps?

🤣 I’m afraid my acting skills are about as convincing as a builder’s “I’ll be there at 8am.”

So no, not playing devil’s advocate. I’m genuinely sceptical… just without the poker face to hide it.

As I agreed with earlier in this thread, I think the concept of providing customer choice on compromises they can make to reduce the install cost and complexity is a good one. The recent podcast reinforces that for me.

At the same time, the early comment about “ZeroDisappointment” is shrewd. The idea of choice AS LONG AS compromises are made clear is rather undermined by the superlative name. The marketing is all wrong. If it were renamed to highlight the concept of chasing “good enough” as decided by the customer, I’d be far happier.

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

At the same time, the early comment about “ZeroDisappointment” is shrewd. The idea of choice AS LONG AS compromises are made clear is rather undermined by the superlative name. The marketing is all wrong. If it were renamed to highlight the concept of chasing “good enough” as decided by the customer, I’d be far happier.

I take the point but who is ever going to do that?  Do you expect Ford to market their cars with the slogan "does the same as a Porsche but not so swish and doesn't go as fast'?

Also your comment implies that "good" is solely defined by performance, which is back to the "one size fits all" concept.  Price and disruption are part of what defines goodness.

When I looked at the website it clearly communicated options for lesser or greater efficiency, surely that's the point?

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

When I looked at the website it clearly communicated options for lesser or greater efficiency, surely that's the point?

It is… in theory. But after some rather painful conversations with installers, the lack of clarity really worries me.

My issue with Heat Geek isn’t about quality… it’s about transparency. Despite what the website ‘journey’ suggests, homeowners don’t actually get to choose between greater or lesser efficiency.

For example, say I select ZeroDisrupt (no radiator or cylinder changes) and click “Proceed.” The installer then visits, does a survey, he can tell me I need half my radiators replaced and a new cylinder. That’s the quote you get, not the one you thought you’d chosen at the outset with ZeroDisrupt. So, in reality, it’s no different to any other installation process really.

I’ve spoken with several ZeroDisrupt installers, and even they seem unclear on how the process is meant to work. It just feels messy, like it’s been rolled out too quickly.

If anything, it comes across more as a marketing exercise to get Heat Geek installers through the door and compete with the likes of Octopus, Aira and other volume installers.

To me this feels like a marketing ploy from Heat Geek to attract more business.

Heat Geek have quite quickly built a brand, and in the large part a collection of good quality installers.

However, they have to compete with the likes of British Gas and Octopus who are installing significantly more (up front) cost effective systems, quite often at comparable quality.

Once the early adopters have bought their heat pumps, just like the first wave of electric car owners who would have bought one anyway, they need to persuade the rest of the population to switch from their trusty, reliable gas boilers.

In reality, trying to persuade people to invest the best part of £20,000 (minus the BUS) is going to be a very hard sell and I think they know it, unless they can get a grip on the (often excessive) installation costs.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

At the same time, the early comment about “ZeroDisappointment” is shrewd. The idea of choice AS LONG AS compromises are made clear is rather undermined by the superlative name. The marketing is all wrong. If it were renamed to highlight the concept of chasing “good enough” as decided by the customer, I’d be far happier.

I take the point but who is ever going to do that?  Do you expect Ford to market their cars with the slogan "does the same as a Porsche but not so swish and doesn't go as fast'?

Except Ford don’t market their Mondeo as a Porsche alternative. People buy a Mondeo knowing what they’re getting for their considerably lower price. The marketing doesn’t imply the Mondeo is zero- anything (or maximum- anything either).

To switch analogies, Tesco’s “value”  brand does very well with the “good enough but much cheaper” brief. It can be done.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Also your comment implies that "good" is solely defined by performance, which is back to the "one size fits all" concept.  Price and disruption are part of what defines goodness.

IF that’s what I’ve implied then I haven’t expressed well enough. I agree with what you’ve said. However, the new model is about accepting some compromises to get an install that works well enough for the customer, and my point is simply that the slogan it’s been given seems to me to hide rather than sell that fact.

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

However, the new model is about accepting some compromises to get an install that works well enough for the customer, and my point is simply that the slogan it’s been given seems to me to hide rather than sell that fact.

I do agree, but surely that's what we expect from marketing.  If you are trying to sell things it's normal practice to stress the upsides and leave the customer to work out the downsides.  Almost everything you buy has compromises (or trade offs, which is perhaps a better term).  I don't see how we can reasonably expect anything else given the common practice.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

I do agree, but surely that's what we expect from marketing.  If you are trying to sell things it's normal practice to stress the upsides and leave the customer to work out the downsides.  Almost everything you buy has compromises (or trade offs, which is perhaps a better term).  I don't see how we can reasonably expect anything else given the common practice

I think we all have a healthy skepticism when it comes to marketing; that’s true.

Perhaps I’d be more comfortable if Heatgeek rebadged their two streams so as to work together. Black Label means nothing and Zerodisrupt is disingenuous, and neither distinguishes from the other. Something like “MaxPerformance” vs “MinimalChanges” (not my snappiest effort, but you get the idea) would highlight the strengths of each approach whilst also highlighting the difference in focuses. No customer obfuscation and plenty of opportunity to discuss, which is what both Heat Geek and customers ultimately want.

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

Perhaps I’d be more comfortable if Heatgeek rebadged their two streams so as to work together. Black Label means nothing and Zerodisrupt is disingenuous, and neither distinguishes from the other. Something like “MaxPerformance” vs “MinimalChanges” (not my snappiest effort, but you get the idea) would highlight the strengths of each approach whilst also highlighting the difference in focuses. No customer obfuscation and plenty of opportunity to discuss, which is what both Heat Geek and customers ultimately want.

I could definitely go with that.  Two distinct options with two distinct marketing terms.  

Thanks, @jamespa. Of course, it’s irrelevant unless Heat Geek move in that direction, but if they do then I’d personally find my objections largely evaporating as a result of transparency to the consumer.

@majordennisbloodnok I wrote an extremely erudite and comprehensive response to all the above this morning - it was so good, the server lost it for me and just gave me a curt error message. I have been too busy since and of course now, I have forgotten all those pearls of wisdom lost to the ether.😉

What follows will of course be an impoverished relation to that which I wrote the first time!

I understand Mar’s feelings about providing an on-line quote that when looked at by an actual engineer is just not realistic; as has since been written, this is down to proper honest marketing of the various products and options - these would need to be explained in the earliest stage. If an explanation of the options is offered, then surely it is down to the individual homeowner to weigh up the options and then ‘cut their coat according to their cloth’ so to speak.

My savings allowed me to opt for almost all emitters to be replaced and opt for a DHW system that I had room for but would still comply with those dreaded MCS guidelines. I ended up with a good heat pump system that is quiet in operation, keeps us at a level of comfort we require and is very economic to run.

Had I not been able to afford such an installation but I had been offered the option of ZeroDisrupt, keep my old radiators and DHW tank but pay slightly more for a less efficient running system using a higher flow temperature, I could at least have looked at the options available. My feeling is that, with my convictions I would still have wanted to dump the gas boiler and fossil fuel burning in favour of a much cleaner renewable energy heating system.

Whether if I did not have such strong convictions about going green, maybe the price differential would still have taken a lot of swallowing - I would like to think I might still be attracted to renewables though and any move from installers that is backed by a solid guarantee of a working system that fulfils their promises should be commended.

Honesty and a full and frank setting out of the options with their advantages or disadvantages is key to this policy working - and of course, we needn’t worry ourselves about this as we have the MCS looking after our interests haven’t we? What could possibly go wrong?!😉 Regards, Toodles.