When even good intentions backfire...

So LOCOG (the organisers of the Paralympic Games) have been accused of discriminating against disabled fans by making them use a premium rate 'helpline' to order tickets.  On the LOCOG website, disabled people are told: "If you require a wheelchair space, you will be able to purchase one, subject to availability, by calling 0844 847 2012."  Able bodied customers don't need to contact the helpline and can instead buy tickets online from the website.

Disabled customers are understandably upset at being forced to pay 41p per minute to make these calls and a Facebook protest group has already attracted many supporters.

So have LOCOG discriminated against disabled customers by preventing them from using the same process and by focing them to pay the additional telephone charges?  On the face of it they have - although I suspect it's unintentional and accidental rather than by design.  In truth my guess is that they decided it would be a good idea to do something to provide them with additional facilities, to do something specifically to help them.  It would seem that the problem is twofold:

1. The implementation of the idea has been poor and;
2. The quality checking of implementation failed to identify the issue.

Could it have been prevented?  Undoubtedly.

And what's the lesson to be learned?  Involve customers.  Had part of the process been to involve some disabled customers in the design and implementation of the idea I don't think we would have been reading criticism of LOCOG in newspapers over the weekend.

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: (0044) 07906650019