Back on topic here sorry lads. I've never understood how certain companies have managed over the years to promote there products and sell them as expected reach lengths I feel this is a miss leading and in some ways false advertisement if someone thinks they are purchasing a 21 ft pole and it arrives at 17ft surely this practice is wrong my workmate is 6 foot 5 and I am 5'7" surely his reach is greater than mine would it mean in turn that a 21' pole in his hands be a 22 I think it's time this was sorted
I have considered complaining to whichever government body is responsible (trading standards, trades descriptions act?). Ionics aren't alone in this. I don't know which company first started showing reach lengths rather than pole lengths but it can be quite misleading. If they are all told to just stop doing it under threat of court action it would be a good thing IMO. Maybe a dwarf window cleaner could do it under the disability discrimination act due to having less reach (if dwarfism is classed as disability). In fact I've had enough of the BS. I do wonder if a complaint would stand though. It's possible that it would be allowed so long as it was made clear that the reach length and the pole length were different. I do have an issue though where the length (of reach in feet) is built into the name of the pole. It is misleading and, I believe, is designed to mislead. I do realise that some of the more honourable manufacturer's have been dragged into this as well - though my hunch is that they were only pulled into this because the less honourable ones started doing it.
It seems to have permeated into other areas too. Like the hard drive manufacturers who decided that 1 gigabyte is 1,000 megabytes rather than the 1,024 that it really is - making their drives appear larger (in storage terms). Like the CPU maker who gives its clock cycle count as "Intel equivalent" in order to make its processors appear faster than they really are. Like the RO manufacturers in the UK who still quote US gallons in their production figures.
If we are going to clean up the industry, it's not just about getting shot of the dole cheats etc. It's also about getting the suppliers to clean up their act.
I completely agree with both of these comments. When we joined the industry all of the major suppliers named poles after their reach not the actual length. This can be misleading and years ago caused me to send back a pole to a rather well know supplier as it was just too short for the job wanted (this was actually my fault as I had not read the very small print on the brochure page that stated poles lengths were reach - lost a 20% handling fee 
).
We have always named our poles to match their actual length - however we do also state the reach purely so that a comparison can be made with the majority of manufacturers who name them after the reach length.
Ionics do however put the exact actual length of all their poles in their brochure in metres (as we do as well) which is the measurement that should be used for comparison purposes - we also use metres for the exact length as it is a more accurate representation of the length and is the measurement used for manufacturing purposes.
However, there are other manufacturers that still do not state 'actual length' anywhere in their pole information.
Alex. I'm well aware that you name your poles with the actual pole length in the name (in feet). I'm also aware that you make it very clear regarding the difference between pole length and potential reach. Unfortunately, not all suppliers/manufacturers take the same care as you do.
My personal preference would be to have a situation where only the actual pole lengths came into the equation - thus avoiding any possibility of confusion. However, I believe it has reached the point where no single manufacturer/supplier would go alone on this matter as it could make their products appear to be shorter/more expensive per foot than their competitors'.
The issue has only become prominent because some are making the potential "reach" length appear to be the pole length - and you would have to look damned hard to realise the difference.
I will use Ionics as an example in this - though it could possibly apply to some others.
On their website, the "30 ft Glyder Multipole" has an extended length of 8.1 metres. On a conversion website, 8.1 metres is 26' and 8.9" - a full 3ft 3.1" shorter than you would expect. Even the name of the pole is "GL30M". Even on the same part of the website there is a bit that says "We've improved on the Glyder since then, and as a result of the use of our new transverse clamps
have increased the length to 30ft while not sacrificing the shortness of the sections or rigidity." (highlighting is mine).
Now to me, that's not a misunderstanding. That is fraudulent. Pretty ironic from a company that threatens to throw court writs around like confetti.
If someone from Ionics can please come on here and supply a reasonable explanation, I am a reasonable person and will listen.
After all, honesty is the best policy.
I don't have any gripes against Ionics in particular. Indeed, I sometimes buy their goods - usually via an agent. Unlike some on here, I do have respect for what they have achieved and how they market their business. However, misleading advertising is the sort of thing that can drag even an otherwise OK company down into the gutter. The thing that is worse than being sold a pole that is shorter than advertised though, is being taken for an idiot.
I really do feel that they need to alter their website to show the differences more clearly.
I would ask the mods and admin to please allow this thread to stand as I believe such issues need to be discussed openly.