Yo! David Maynard! (Was: Rebates -- Best Buy rebate scam)

[DP]

And lets turn your question back on you: How do you know those are the
REAL reasons? You say they are, but I won't believe you unless you can
document.

As for the basis for some of my comments about redemption rates, etc,
well, the stories are out there all over the place.

Here's one, from that commie rag, Business Week:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2005/nf20051123_4158_db016.htm

OK, I've given you partial documentation for some of my claims; now how
about some documentation for yours?
It's your move.

I'm still waiting for your documentation for the "real" reasons for rebates.
Are you looking it up?

 

[Jan Alter]

I'm still waiting for your documentation for the "real" reasons for
rebates. Are you looking it up?

Giggling-

I seem to remember having the same rambling conversation about a year ago
with David when I posted that I'd received a postcard from Symantic
rejecting my rebate information for Systemworks because I had neglected to
send the UPC label off the new version. When I called the number on the
postcard the receptionist said that it was indicated as missing. I said I
had a duplicate form in front of me with a copy of the UPC label I'd sent
and that I'd be glad to send her a copy of it. She immediately (no
exaggeration) said it wouldn't be necessary and that because Symantic knew I
was a "good customer" the rebate would be filled.
When I posted the situation David was very sympathetic towards Symantic
and skeptical as to my belief that this was simply a Symantic scam in the
rebate department. He questioned my suggestion as to how I could possibly
know it was a scam and not just a mistake. He rationalized that it was
simply a mistake and that it was human error. Could I prove otherwise? The
glass of course was half full, not empty, as I suggested.
This banter went on for three or four exchanges before I realized that no
amount of credible evidence would validate that Symantic was attempting to
pull a fast one. David's idea was that even though someone was pulling a
scam it was not really as it seemed. My take is that when a scam is
happening that's exactly what is happening. Enjoy the discourse if you have
the patience.

Jan Alter
(e-mail address removed)
or
(e-mail address removed)12.pa.us

 

[JAD]

the reason this thread always turns into a marathon is because your both
correct. Bottom line is that mail in rebates are not in the consumers best
interest. They are designed for marketing stats and all kinds of sales info.
Corporations know exactly how much they made on the 'lazy ' consumer, so
therefore there is a thought process for profit based on the 'lazy ' guy.

 

[John Doe]

Mail-in rebates also help prevent returns. After you destroy the
packaging to get the UPC code, you can't return the product to the
store.


Path: newssvr21.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.28.186.75.MISMATCH!hwmnpeer01.lga!news.highwinds-media.com!hw-filter.lga!fe03.lga.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "JAD" <kapasitor earthcharter.net>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboards.asus
References: <ZLfog.16077$7K2.11748 bignews2.bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Yo! David Maynard! (Was: Rebates -- Best Buy rebate scam)
Lines: 51
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Message-ID: <bqhog.5399$3d.174 fe03.lga>
X-Trace: idmkcnjgmiagocdeoocbejnahinokcdieohmibampagnohbdckheghcobipagegcmnbfgllodfmicgjmmmobmnhejeihnjjgodgpijnikgaedkdohbgogoljehepljbllgilÙ
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 14:28:39 MST
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 14:28:38 -0700
Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64:11670 alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd:269357 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:469526 alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus:750227 alt.comp.periphs.mainboards.asus:5682

the reason this thread always turns into a marathon is because your both
correct. Bottom line is that mail in rebates are not in the consumers best
interest. They are designed for marketing stats and all kinds of sales info.
Corporations know exactly how much they made on the 'lazy ' consumer, so
therefore there is a thought process for profit based on the 'lazy ' guy.

 

[DP]

'My idea' is that presuming every blip in life *must* be 'someone pulling
a scam' is irrational.

And who, exactly, has said that? Facts, David! Facts!

 

[David Maynard]

Giggling-

I seem to remember having the same rambling conversation about a year ago
with David when I posted that I'd received a postcard from Symantic
rejecting my rebate information for Systemworks because I had neglected to
send the UPC label off the new version. When I called the number on the
postcard the receptionist said that it was indicated as missing. I said I
had a duplicate form in front of me with a copy of the UPC label I'd sent
and that I'd be glad to send her a copy of it. She immediately (no
exaggeration) said it wouldn't be necessary and that because Symantic knew I
was a "good customer" the rebate would be filled.
When I posted the situation David was very sympathetic towards Symantic
and skeptical as to my belief that this was simply a Symantic scam in the
rebate department. He questioned my suggestion as to how I could possibly
know it was a scam and not just a mistake. He rationalized that it was
simply a mistake and that it was human error. Could I prove otherwise? The
glass of course was half full, not empty, as I suggested.
This banter went on for three or four exchanges before I realized that no
amount of credible evidence would validate that Symantic was attempting to
pull a fast one. David's idea was that even though someone was pulling a
scam it was not really as it seemed. My take is that when a scam is
happening that's exactly what is happening. Enjoy the discourse if you have
the patience.

Close but you left out the quotes from the lady.

But no, 'my idea' is not that "even though someone was pulling a scam" it's
not as it seems.

'My idea' is that presuming every blip in life *must* be 'someone pulling a
scam' is irrational.

 

[David Maynard]

And who, exactly, has said that?

Where did I claim someone "said that?"

But the gist is implicit in the argument he made. The lady said the records
showed he had not sent in the UPC label and when he offered to send in a
photocopy of it she said there was no need as they'd take his word for it.

Ah HAH! It's a 'scam'.

Why? Because it appears something didn't go right and... well, it couldn't
possibly be that someone lost the label or miss-recorded the information.
Why would anyone even consider it was an accident simply because they
process thousands upon thousands of rebates with no need for a call or
secondary offer of proof the UPC label was sent, or that your own article
states "errors are rare among the 'tens of millions' of rebates it
processes each year" and that BBC complaints are "3,641" when "some 400
million rebates are offered each year?

After all, he has 'proof' it's a 'scam': She offered to take his word for it.

Facts, David! Facts!

Why? You don't need or use any to make the accusations.

 

[Jan Alter]

Close but you left out the quotes from the lady.

But no, 'my idea' is not that "even though someone was pulling a scam"
it's not as it seems.

'My idea' is that presuming every blip in life *must* be 'someone pulling
a scam' is irrational.

I can agree with that easily. Sometimes mistakes are made, but sometimes
it's relatively easy to deduce an honest mistake from deception.
The hundreds of complaints that I've read on usenet of the same situations
as my own, of folks sending in all their information only to have it
rejected with a postcard, makes it obviously clear (99%) that I was dealing
with a scam. It's kind of like getting an email that's entitled " Paypal
needs to verify your account information". Gee, should I click on that email
to make sure it's correct?

 

[Curmudgeon]

JAD explained :

the reason this thread always turns into a marathon is because your both
correct. Bottom line is that mail in rebates are not in the consumers best
interest.

Sure they are. At least most of them.

They are designed for marketing stats and all kinds of sales info.
Corporations know exactly how much they made on the 'lazy ' consumer, so
therefore there is a thought process for profit based on the 'lazy ' guy.

You see something wrong with that notion? I think that's called "good
business sense"?

With most of these 'mail in rebates', the consumer does very very well
if he/she applies due diligence. If they're too lazy or sloppy with
their rebate info? Tough stroke.

 

[David Maynard]

I can agree with that easily. Sometimes mistakes are made, but sometimes
it's relatively easy to deduce an honest mistake from deception.
The hundreds of complaints that I've read on usenet of the same situations
as my own, of folks sending in all their information only to have it
rejected with a postcard, makes it obviously clear (99%) that I was dealing
with a scam. It's kind of like getting an email that's entitled " Paypal
needs to verify your account information". Gee, should I click on that email
to make sure it's correct?

My point then, as now, was your criteria for 'deducing' is flawed, as the
millions of rebates that go through with no problem at all attest.

Put another way, human fallibility dictates that, given sufficient volume,
there will always be "hundreds" of problems to make your kind of deduction
from.

 

[JAD]

JAD explained :

Sure they are. At least most of them.

no they are not,,,,they are a inconvience and not nessasary. its a 'hook'.

guy.

You see something wrong with that notion? I think that's called "good
business sense"?

rebates are much like your attempt to bait me into an argument that doesn't
exist. Why not just lower the price of the product instead of giving the
USPS 40 cents per piece, and a 4 week wait? thats in the consumers best
interest? Don't bother answering, its was rehtorical. I know all I need to
know about 'rebates'.

With most of these 'mail in rebates', the consumer does very very well
if he/she applies due diligence. If they're too lazy or sloppy with
their rebate info? Tough stroke.

which is what i said

 

[H. Seldon]

JAD wrote:

rebates are much like your attempt to bait me into an argument that doesn't
exist.

Bullshit. There's no argument.

Why not just lower the price of the product instead of giving the
USPS 40 cents per piece, and a 4 week wait?

Must work for them or those companies wouldn't use the rebate scheme.

thats in the consumers best
interest? Don't bother answering, its was rehtorical. I know all I need to
know about 'rebates'.




which is what i said

Then what's your problem? Having difficulty understanding that it's
about business and *not* about customer convenience? If so, the answer
is just don't use the rebate system, go pay full price. Your choice. I
prefer taking the time and getting the deal.

 

[David Maynard]

no they are not,,,,they are a inconvience and not nessasary. its a 'hook'.




rebates are much like your attempt to bait me into an argument that doesn't
exist. Why not just lower the price of the product

Because they aren't 'lowering the price' and if you really want to see
people scream 'scam' let 'em bounce the 'retail price' back up after a
temporary lowering. "Oh sure, raise the price now that I'm 'hooked'."

And bouncing the 'retail price' all over the place would screw up the
entire pricing structure, what with dealer discount programs tied to retail
and such, as well as just about every accounting, inventory, manufacturing,
and product management tool.

Not to mention it's not even possible to 'lower the retail price' but only
if you buy it in conjunction with XYZ, or from dealer A, or in Hackensack.

 

[JAD]

JAD wrote:


Bullshit. There's no argument.

who asked you? and again,,,isn't that what I said????????? rowing around
randomly dropping a hook?

Must work for them or those companies wouldn't use the rebate scheme.

works because of ignorant people...

Then what's your problem? If so, the answer
is just don't use the rebate system, go pay full price. Your choice. I
prefer taking the time and getting the deal.

problem? your the one with tunnel vision, everyone wakes up and stops using
the 'scheme', and the price will be the same at the counter "instantly" as
you would with a 'rebate' and the without INCONVENIENCE. Why can't the store
take care of the paper work and give you the discount? Why? because they
would be diligent in getting that money back, hire a person just to do
this....guess why that doesn't fly. You spend time, and spend money driving
to the store. Deal with lines, parking, traffic, then for your patronage you
get to fill out a form, get a stamp, cut up boxes, and make copies(which is
only for your own show as they won't take copies if they lose the
originals). I have always gotten my rebates when I used them. Is it a 'scam'
? no more than the false advertising you see everyday on the TV or anywhere
else. Is it in the consumers best interest? HELL NO.......!! In the' US '
people think they scored a victory when they raised the speed limit back to
65........more ignorance.

Having difficulty understanding that it's

about business and *not* about customer convenience?

there is so much wrong with that statement I don't know where to begin,
Suffice it to say, things are they way they are because of apathy, on the
business side and the consumer side. lambs to the slaughter.


water clear....troll somewhere else

 

[JAD]

Because they aren't 'lowering the price' and if you really want to see
people scream 'scam' let 'em bounce the 'retail price' back up after a
temporary lowering. "Oh sure, raise the price now that I'm 'hooked'."

Your only looking at one type of product obviously..like what printer
cartridges? Sure I can see that,,,,but then don't tell me there is not a
scam when it comes to that. Until the aftermarket reman companies finally
got going we were STUCK!
What is this,? the 'what's the definition of ' lowing the price'.
simplified ...that's what it is.

And bouncing the 'retail price' all over the place would screw up the
entire pricing structure, what with dealer discount programs tied to retail
and such, as well as just about every accounting, inventory, manufacturing,
and product management tool.

come on Dave, all that can be absorbed easily. the distributors and accounti
ng and all that crap are the company's problem, rebates make it a consumer
problem. It simply makes their job easier, on MANY levels, and dumps the
inconvenience unto the consumer. And who said 'bouncing'? It goes down, and
normally its either a brand new product or one that's being updated or
phased out. One that either has little inventory or is inventory that
distributors would love to get rid of. It's all about accounting, How to
take money from X account and put it into z without any inconvenience and
very little cost to the company and its vendors.

Can you call it a scam? No. Is it illegal? No. Does it walk the line on
occasion? Yes. Is every company honest about their rebates? No. Does it
serve the consumers best interest? No. Does it serve the company's best
interest? Yes, otherwise it wouldn't exist. Its an acceptable practice now,
like the legal ease you can never read at the bottom of your TV screen
during Car or drug commercials. As a younger man I shopped 20% 40% off
retail prices, I had not even heard of mail in rebates then....didn't seem
to collapse the human race.

Not to mention it's not even possible to 'lower the retail price' but only
if you buy it in conjunction with XYZ, or from dealer A, or in Hackensack.

Dave, the retail prices of things are changed all the time. And may I say
that it RARELY GOES DOWN, so you can raise it but not lower it? Someone
should tell Wal Mart to quit cutting those prices, tell them its not
possible.

 

[Curmudgeon]

JAD formulated the question :

water clear....troll somewhere else

You're just another childish jackass who insists on labeling everyone,
who doesn't agree with his take on the world, a troll.

This is an open NG and I'll bloody well respond to posts if and when I
wish, whether you *ask* me to or not. Further, whatever my opinion is,
I'm entitled to it and it certainly doesn't have to agree with yours
and that sir definitely doesn't make me a troll.

You however, are most definitely a very arrogant and ignorant excuse
for a human being as you have proven many times in many posts
throughout this NG.

Any further response from you will result in no reply from me. So piss
off.

 

[JAD]

JAD formulated the question :



You're just another childish jackass who insists on labeling everyone,
who doesn't agree with his take on the world, a troll.

\]\]\

you don't fish? trolling you know small motor fishing pole.. a 'troll'
lives under a bridge. which are you?

 

[tcsenter]

My point then, as now, was your criteria for 'deducing' is flawed, as the
millions of rebates that go through with no problem at all attest.

Put another way, human fallibility dictates that, given sufficient volume,
there will always be "hundreds" of problems to make your kind of deduction
from.

Here's another article that bolsters your position, which is backed by
several retail/marketing research firms and the Merchandising Chief of
a large retailer known for having one of the most prolific rebate
programs in the retail industry (which is now ending mail-in rebates):

--Only about one-third of national retail consumers who buy merchandise
with mail-in rebates actually send away for the refunds and take
advantage of the sale price, according to America's Research Group.
"That statistic means that 70 percent of shoppers who thought they were
purchasing a bargain actually cheated themselves out of the 'sale'
price," notes Vero.--

OfficeMax Ends Mail-In Retail Rebates

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060703/cgm010.html

Notice a common theme? (hint: it doesn't say consumers are getting
cheated by retailers or rebate processors...but themselves)

There is virtually no evidence supporting deliberate fraud or
conspiracy to deny rebates, except for personal anecdotes and baseless
speculation. Years of data showing up to 70% of consumers reliably
fail to submit rebates is more than enough to make rebates profitable
for the manufacturer, retailer, and rebate processor without any need
or impetus for deliberate deception or fraud. Why 'cheat' someone out
of their money when you don't have to?

Even the computer technician in the Newsweek article who redeems more
than 100 rebates per year feels that rebates translate into significant
savings for him and does not say he has ever been defrauded. He files
complaints automatically when rebate checks don't arrive in the stated
timeframe, which may or may not influence his success. I don't start
rattling chains or threatening to file complaints until the rebate
check is overdue by at least one month. I rarely have to do either, a
fair percentage of checks arrive late but they arrive without any
additional action on my part.

Rebates may not benefit consumers as a whole, but when the blame for
this falls onto those consumers, who cares? Credit does not benefit
consumers as a whole, either, because of the growing number of
consumers who load-up on revolving debt in pursuit of instant
gratification through conspicuous consumption and material worship.

Many of my friends don't blink at the thought of charging $2000 for a
new widescreen television or spending $10,000 over and above what they
need in safe reliable transportation when buying a car
(luxury/performance options, trim packages, more expensive models,
aftermarket accessories, prestige factor, et. al.), then complain they
'can't afford' to buy a home, go to the doctor, or build any savings
(after $300 ~ $600 or more goes out every month for credit card debt,
payments and insurance on their upscale vehicle, premium cable or
satellite television service with every option/upsell, et. al.).

Consumers who fail to submit rebates are making choices based on their
own priorities (they have better things to do than rebate paperwork),
just as those consumers who load-up on unsecured revolving debt at the
expense of savings, retirement, and even their own health (e.g. I have
$2000 to spend on that cool television but not to pay that stupid
doctor bill). Should we eliminate credit because a disturbing [and
rising] number of consumers fail to keep their materialistic desires
in-line with their means, choices based on their own priorities?

As far as consumers finding rebate submissions as 'complicated' - lol!
I have never dealt with a rebate submission I would characterize as
'complicated'. Different rebate promotions have slightly different
requirements and instructions. Some require the original UPC, some
accept a copy. Some require the original invoice/receipt, some accept
a copy. Some require a signature, some do not. Some require
alternative proof of purchase such as the screen capture of a competing
software program, some require the competing program's installation CD.

Sorting through these slightly different requirements doesn't require
an advanced degree. High school equivalent reading skills and an
attention span longer than a flash bulb is all that is required.

 

[John Doe]

Jan Alter wrote:

'My idea' is that presuming every blip in life *must* be 'someone
pulling a scam' is irrational.

Too frequently you claim that another is promoting a conspiracy
theory, it's like your own little conspiracy theory.

 

[David Maynard]

Your only looking at one type of product obviously..like what printer
cartridges? Sure I can see that,,,,but then don't tell me there is not a
scam when it comes to that. Until the aftermarket reman companies finally
got going we were STUCK!
What is this,? the 'what's the definition of ' lowing the price'.
simplified ...that's what it is.

I see how you get that impression from my colorful, limited, example but,
no, I'm speaking of products in general because, while people are sanguine
about 'sales', 'special offers' and 'rebates', they generally expect price
stability, or feel something's amiss.

My example was just one embodiment but the general effect doesn't need a
purchase. Say someone is 'thinking' about buying a computer but it's one
price this week, higher a month later, and then something else a month
after that. Bouncing prices on something not even bought won't sit any
better than the 'hooked' example and the prospective buyer would be
screaming "well, if it's a 'temporary' price then why the hell didn't you
SAY so?" and it doesn't take much imagination to envision the 'sneaky
motives' consumers would ascribe to the price changes.

A rebate "says so."

come on Dave, all that can be absorbed easily.

That's easy for *you* to say, when you don't have to do it.

the distributors and accounti
ng and all that crap are the company's problem, rebates make it a consumer
problem. It simply makes their job easier, on MANY levels, and dumps the
inconvenience unto the consumer.

No, what gets 'dumped on the consumer' isn't precipitated for 'easy
accounting'. It's to reduce fraud.

And who said 'bouncing'? It goes down, and
normally its either a brand new product or one that's being updated or
phased out. One that either has little inventory or is inventory that
distributors would love to get rid of. It's all about accounting, How to
take money from X account and put it into z without any inconvenience and
very little cost to the company and its vendors.

No offense but you apparently haven't looked at what motivates rebates
because it's seldom just to move some obsolete product.

Got no idea how you come up with the 'accounting' bit or what it means.

Can you call it a scam? No. Is it illegal? No. Does it walk the line on
occasion? Yes. Is every company honest about their rebates? No. Does it
serve the consumers best interest? No.

Hard to imagine how you can so definitively assert that a discount doesn't
serve the consumer's interest.

Does it serve the company's best
interest? Yes, otherwise it wouldn't exist.

Of course. But the problem I see with your analysis is a presumption the
two are incompatible, especially when most reputable companies operate on
the theory that the first leads to the second.

Its an acceptable practice now,
like the legal ease you can never read at the bottom of your TV screen
during Car or drug commercials. As a younger man I shopped 20% 40% off
retail prices,

Which is routine today, before the rebates.

I had not even heard of mail in rebates then....didn't seem
to collapse the human race.

Living in caves didn't collapse the human race either but that's hardly a
reason to go back to them.

Dave, the retail prices of things are changed all the time. And may I say
that it RARELY GOES DOWN,

Inflation is another matter entirely.

so you can raise it but not lower it? Someone
should tell Wal Mart to quit cutting those prices, tell them its not
possible.

First you say they don't and then you cite an example of them doing so?