No Social Responsibility, Just a Marketing

I have to put it to you social "responsibility" campaign is actually as ****. As a mother, I am deeply disappointed by what appears to be misleading advertising by your organisation regarding free eye tests for children under the age of 13. Since April, I have been trying to book an eye test appointment for my 12-year-old daughter after her teacher raised concerns about her struggling to see the board at school. When I searched for providers, SpecSavers was prominently listed as offering free eye tests for children, which I found reassuring. However, my experience has been extremely frustrating. When I visited your Lenz Quarters branch, I was advised to book the appointment online. Since then, I have consistently tried to secure a booking across multiple nearby branches, including Clearwater, Maponya, Jabulani, Weltevreden Park, Southgate, and Florida. Over the past several months, there have been no available slots at any of these locations. Today, I contacted the Maponya branch directly and was informed that appointments are in fact available—however, only for paid consultations. This raises serious concerns about the integrity of your booking system. It appears that while paying customers are accommodated, those seeking the advertised free service are effectively blocked from accessing it. This situation leads me to question: How is it possible for the online booking system to show no availability across multiple branches for months, yet paid appointments are available when calling directly? Are paying customers being prioritised over those seeking the free eye test service? How accurate is your online booking system if it reflects full capacity daily until December? Additionally, I have personally visited some of these branches and observed periods where there were no customers present, which contradicts the reality suggested by the booking system. This further reinforces the impression that the "fully booked" status may not reflect actual demand. In a country where a significant number of children experience visual impairments—many of which remain undiagnosed—this type of practice is particularly concerning. Advertising a service that is not realistically accessible to those who need it undermines trust and raises serious ethical questions. I strongly urge your organisation to review this practice. If the free eye test service cannot be consistently provided, it should not be advertised in a way that misleads the public. Transparency and fairness should be central to your social responsibility efforts. I would appreciate a clear explanation for the discrepancies in appointment availability and the apparent lack of access to the advertised service. Regards

Nomhle