Will Rebate Wonders Never Cease?

[Jan Alter]

Today I just got a postcard from Symantic saying that my submission for
a $30 rebate upgrading to Systemworks 2005 was rejected. In the corner of
the card it said my "Proof of Purchase" was missing. I could have sworn I
had sent everything in that was required: a copy of the receipt, my old
Systemworks 2002 CD, and the little green flap on the inside of the box that
said "Proof of Purchase"
I went to the computer where I'd scanned a picture of everything I'd
sent in and sure enough the little green flap, the CD and the receipt all
showed up on a scanned picture of the three items they'd required.
I called the toll free telephone number and went through a lengthy list
of options and buttons to push depending on which rejection postcard one had
received. Finally, the button to get a human.
Her name was Sofie. I gave her the number assigned over top my name on the
postcard. Then I quickly added that I had made a scan of all the materials
that I had sent to Texas and I had a copy of the little green Proof of
Purchase flap. "Just a moment sir," she said. About ten seconds passed. Then
she said,.."As a one time courtesy, because you are a valued customer, your
information has been updated to show you have sent in all the required
information. You should receive a rebate check in 6 to 8 weeks". "But don't
you want me to send you a copy of that Proof of Purchase flap?", I said. "No
sir, that won't be necessary," Sofie nonchalantly added. "Thank you," I
said.
And I thought it was the companies that had to protect themselves from
the scam artists.

 

[larry moe 'n curly]

Today I just got a postcard from Symantic saying that my submission for
a $30 rebate upgrading to Systemworks 2005 was rejected. In the corner of
the card it said my "Proof of Purchase" was missing. I could have sworn I
had sent everything in that was required: a copy of the receipt, my old
Systemworks 2002 CD, and the little green flap on the inside of the box that
said "Proof of Purchase"
I went to the computer where I'd scanned a picture of everything I'd
sent in and sure enough the little green flap, the CD and the receipt all
showed up on a scanned picture of the three items they'd required.
I called the toll free telephone number and went through a

"As a one time courtesy, because you are a valued customer, your
information has been updated to show you have sent in all the required
information. You should receive a rebate check in 6 to 8 weeks".

That's a lot better than Best Buy, which will lie and deny a rebate
even when handed proof of their mistake (wouldn't pay when I met their
deadline, because they had misprinted the deadline).

Thanks for proving that I'm not crazy for scanning all the included
items. I also attach everything together lightly with glue and write
my name, address, rebate amount, and rebate offer number on every piece
submitted.

 

[larry moe 'n curly]

Today I just got a postcard from Symantic saying that my submission for
a $30 rebate upgrading to Systemworks 2005 was rejected. In the corner of
the card it said my "Proof of Purchase" was missing. I could have sworn I
had sent everything in that was required: a copy of the receipt, my old
Systemworks 2002 CD, and the little green flap on the inside of the box that
said "Proof of Purchase"
I went to the computer where I'd scanned a picture of everything I'd
sent in and sure enough the little green flap, the CD and the receipt all
showed up on a scanned picture of the three items they'd required.
I called the toll free telephone number and went through a

"As a one time courtesy, because you are a valued customer, your
information has been updated to show you have sent in all the required
information. You should receive a rebate check in 6 to 8 weeks".

That's a lot better than Best Buy, which will lie and deny a rebate
even when handed proof of their mistake (wouldn't pay when I met their
deadline, because they had misprinted the deadline).

Thanks for proving that I'm not crazy for scanning all the included
items. I also attach everything together lightly with glue and write
my name, address, rebate amount, and rebate offer number on every piece
submitted.

 

[David Maynard]

Today I just got a postcard from Symantic saying that my submission for
a $30 rebate upgrading to Systemworks 2005 was rejected. In the corner of
the card it said my "Proof of Purchase" was missing. I could have sworn I
had sent everything in that was required: a copy of the receipt, my old
Systemworks 2002 CD, and the little green flap on the inside of the box that
said "Proof of Purchase"
I went to the computer where I'd scanned a picture of everything I'd
sent in and sure enough the little green flap, the CD and the receipt all
showed up on a scanned picture of the three items they'd required.
I called the toll free telephone number and went through a lengthy list
of options and buttons to push depending on which rejection postcard one had
received. Finally, the button to get a human.
Her name was Sofie. I gave her the number assigned over top my name on the
postcard. Then I quickly added that I had made a scan of all the materials
that I had sent to Texas and I had a copy of the little green Proof of
Purchase flap. "Just a moment sir," she said. About ten seconds passed. Then
she said,.."As a one time courtesy, because you are a valued customer, your
information has been updated to show you have sent in all the required
information. You should receive a rebate check in 6 to 8 weeks". "But don't
you want me to send you a copy of that Proof of Purchase flap?", I said. "No
sir, that won't be necessary," Sofie nonchalantly added. "Thank you," I
said.
And I thought it was the companies that had to protect themselves from
the scam artists.

I have this radical new theory that companies are actually a collection of
people and that some of them screw up from time to time.

 

[Jan Alter]

I have this radical new theory that companies are actually a collection of

people and that some of them screw up from time to time.

With that theory in mind and the number of stories I've read over the years
I'd suggest that those folks either need retraining or they are some of the
most incompetent workers in the country.

 

[Gary C]

With that theory in mind and the number of stories I've read over the
years I'd suggest that those folks either need retraining or they are some
of the most incompetent workers in the country.

Jan:

Have you only "read" the stories, and never experienced them first hand?

Retraining is NOT the answer, basic education is. If not for automatic
cash registers telling the cashier how much change is due, American
companies
would go broke from the losses. American cashiers can NOT do basic math.

Classic example:
A seafood chain had a sale on shrimp, 25 cents a piece. I asked my elderly
father
if he was very hungry, because for $10 we could buy 40 pieces.

The cashier told me, Oh no, for $10 you'll get a lot more than 40 pieces!

Well, I was sold then.
OK I said, here's $10, give me more than forty!!!!!!

It took him more than 10 minutes to figure it out how many pieces he should
enter
as the purchase, because I refused to tell him how many I wanted. I kept on
telling
I wanted $10 worth, more than forty.

The old lady at the hardware store used to add up the screws and washers you
bought with a #2 lead pencil on the side of a brown paper bag.
She never had problems. Never made a mistake, either!

 

[ToolPackinMama]

FWIW, I am one person who can count change backwards. I guess it's
becoming a lost art!

 

[Jan Alter]

Have you only "read" the stories, and never experienced them first hand?


I'm in agreement with you on your point. I've dealt with poor sales people
too many times at this point to count. I was responding to David Maynard's
theory that someone simply screwed up. On that view I am in complete
disagreement.

I have this radical new theory that companies are actually a collection of
people and that some of them screw up from time to time.

If Sofie had said, "Oh, I see there's a mistake here. I do see that you sent
the proof of purchase flap. Let me correct that little error and I'll get
that check right out to you." But instead her almost immediate response was
that she would do me a favor and update my information so that it showed I
had turned in the proof flap, not because I was telling her there was a
mistake but as "a one time courtesy because you are a valued customer". I
think it's all a load of crap and this particular rebate house has every
intention of avoiding payment to whoever doesn't respond to the invalid
rebate postcard.

 

[David Maynard]

With that theory in mind and the number of stories I've read over the years

And that would be how many problems over how many years over how many
billions of rebates done?

I'd suggest that those folks either need retraining or they are some of the
most incompetent workers in the country.

I'm not sure which ones you're referring to. The high paid envelope opener
or the data entry operators?

 

[David Maynard]

I'm in agreement with you on your point. I've dealt with poor sales people
too many times at this point to count. I was responding to David Maynard's
theory that someone simply screwed up. On that view I am in complete
disagreement.

I obviously can't 'know' one way or the other but I see no reason to
'presume' an ulterior motive.

If Sofie had said, "Oh, I see there's a mistake here. I do see that you sent
the proof of purchase flap.

And what makes you think that 'Sofie' has any way to KNOW if you sent it in
other than looking at the data on her monitor that says you didn't? You
think she keeps a 15 ton box of the things sitting there so can look them
up, not to mention so well organized that she could instantaneously find
YOURS even if she did?

Let me correct that little error and I'll get
that check right out to you." But instead her almost immediate response was
that she would do me a favor and update my information so that it showed I
had turned in the proof flap,

You would have preferred she ask you to send in the proof and feed it on up
to the resolution department for a few more weeks of review?

not because I was telling her there was a
mistake but as "a one time courtesy because you are a valued customer".

Of COURSE it was because you were "telling her there was a mistake." The
courtesy was she accepted your word for it right there on the spot and
adjusted the records accordingly.

I
think it's all a load of crap and this particular rebate house has every
intention of avoiding payment to whoever doesn't respond to the invalid
rebate postcard.

That's because people these days just automatically ASSUME there's some
'devious plot' and don't even bother to consider anything else.

And my evidence, in this case, for saying so is that you have no data
whatsoever as to how many people may have had a 'problem', nor out of how
many rebates, but you had one so, by golly, it's a 'company plot' even
though it was instantly corrected based on nothing more than your 'word'
and without having to send in any 'proof'.

 

[Dave H.]

Today I just got a postcard from Symantic saying that my submission for
a $30 rebate upgrading to Systemworks 2005 was rejected. In the corner of
the card it said my "Proof of Purchase" was missing. SNIP

Staple or tape all of the rebate materials together. Machines open the
envelopes and loose bits get lost. I've had good luck with rebates, but
always retain copies just in case (Soyo took 10 months to pay a mobo rebate)
..

 

[Jan Alter]

See below

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

I obviously can't 'know' one way or the other but I see no reason to
'presume' an ulterior motive.


And what makes you think that 'Sofie' has any way to KNOW if you sent it
in other than looking at the data on her monitor that says you didn't? You
think she keeps a 15 ton box of the things sitting there so can look them
up, not to mention so well organized that she could instantaneously find
YOURS even if she did?

I know from living awhile and listening to the way people phrase things and
the way the facts stack up in this particular case. When Sofie (Sophie)'s
answer came so quickly and was laid out as to be doing me a service as " As
a one time courtesy because you are a valued customer..." and not asking me
to send further proof that it was sent in the first place I was surprised
because every company I have dealt with for rebates holds the consumer to
the letter of the law the way they have written it out. How do I know? Well
I can't be 100 % but I will generalize; from a time that I sent in a copy
of the UPC label when another company insisted that it wanted the original
for me to get a rebate, and from the many times I've read of others having
gone through this rebate dance and the companies mysteriously rejecting
their claims even though all criteria for the rebates were fulfilled.
Is this particular time with Symantic a different deal and Sofie just
trying to be a sweet darling to make it easy? Could be. I'll give that a 5%
possiblity. And if you want to argue this that this is the 5% you go right
ahead and enjoy it. After you're done go read a newspaper and see the
practices that companies continually come up with to save a buck at the
expense of the consumer. Or for that matter take a poll of how many people
have been burned by not receiving rebates. Of the top of my head I can think
of CompUSA going to court over unfulfilled rebates and Best Buy offering to
come up with the money themselves to pay off people who were not receiving
rebates from the companies whose merchandise they were selling.

You would have preferred she ask you to send in the proof and feed it on
up to the resolution department for a few more weeks of review?


Of COURSE it was because you were "telling her there was a mistake." The
courtesy was she accepted your word for it right there on the spot and
adjusted the records accordingly.

I see this conclusion as preposterious without her getting approval
from someone else with just my say so.

 

[David Maynard]

See below

Your posting method screws up the reply quote so I had to paste it all back
in. And since that screws up the quote indenting I've marked yours inside
of ----------.


-----------

I know from living awhile and listening to the way people phrase things and
the way the facts stack up in this particular case.
----------


I also know from "living awhile and listening to the way people phrase
things" plus how companies set policies and procedures.



----------
When Sofie (Sophie)'s
answer came so quickly and was laid out as to be doing me a service as " As
a one time courtesy because you are a valued customer..." and not asking me
to send further proof that it was sent in the first place I was surprised
because every company I have dealt with for rebates holds the consumer to
the letter of the law the way they have written it out. How do I know? Well
I can't be 100 % but I will generalize; from a time that I sent in a copy
of the UPC label when another company insisted that it wanted the original
for me to get a rebate, and from the many times I've read of others having
gone through this rebate dance and the companies mysteriously rejecting
their claims even though all criteria for the rebates were fulfilled.
------------


You mean from other like minded folk who instantly blame a 'corporate plot'
every time something goes awry? And out of how many rebates?

Your reading of something 'sinister' into her 'instant' reply could be
explained by a quite rational policy. Mainly that the company has offered
you more trust than you're willing to offer in return. I.E. She looks at
the screen and sees you are a repeat customer, have claimed you sent it in,
and she also notes there is no record of you ever having made a prior
similar claim under similar circumstances so, with that record, company
policy allows her to amend... And for good reason. Odds are probably good
you're telling the truth since it's a 'one time' thing and with the odds in
favor of that it's less expensive to risk trusting you, once (and she noted
the 'one time' courtesy), than go through the more complex, read costly,
mail in and review procedure.

I, of course, can't know for sure but it's imminently rational and good
policy for the company on both economic terms and customer relations.
Except for the perpetually paranoid conspiratists who see a 'corporate
plot' in even instant, painless, resolution in their favor.



---------------
Is this particular time with Symantic a different deal and Sofie just
trying to be a sweet darling to make it easy? Could be.
----------------



No, my theory is it's policy and she's just following it. And what
'allowed' it was precisely what she said: Your customer record of multiple
buys with no indication of prior 'confusions' to raise a red flag. So, as a
courtesy to a good customer the company extends it's trust and amends on
your word. It's "good business," meaning profitable.


-----------------
I'll give that a 5%
possiblity.
------------------


I give it a 0% because it's absurd to even postulate that Sophie was "just
trying to be a sweet darling" even though I'm sure she is.


-------------------
And if you want to argue this that this is the 5% you go right
ahead and enjoy it.
---------------------


Like most conspiratists you frame the 'only possibilities' to be between an
absurdity you invent vs a 'conspiracy'.


-------------------
After you're done go read a newspaper and see the
practices that companies continually come up with to save a buck at the
expense of the consumer. Or for that matter take a poll of how many people
have been burned by not receiving rebates. Of the top of my head I can think
of CompUSA going to court over unfulfilled rebates and Best Buy offering to
come up with the money themselves to pay off people who were not receiving
rebates from the companies whose merchandise they were selling.
------------------


And I can think of lots of other problems but Company A doing a bad thing
says nothing about Company B.



I see this conclusion as preposterious without her getting approval
from someone else with just my say so.
-----------

You see it as 'preposterous' because that's what you are determined to see.

I see it as plausible because it's good corporate policy and there's
nothing 'preposterous' about good policy.

 

[Jan Alter]

See below

Your posting method screws up the reply quote so I had to paste it all
back in. And since that screws up the quote indenting I've marked yours
inside of ----------.



-----------

I know from living awhile and listening to the way people phrase things
and
the way the facts stack up in this particular case.
----------


I also know from "living awhile and listening to the way people phrase
things" plus how companies set policies and procedures.



----------
When Sofie (Sophie)'s
answer came so quickly and was laid out as to be doing me a service as "
As
a one time courtesy because you are a valued customer..." and not asking
me
to send further proof that it was sent in the first place I was surprised
because every company I have dealt with for rebates holds the consumer to
the letter of the law the way they have written it out. How do I know?
Well
I can't be 100 % but I will generalize; from a time that I sent in a
copy
of the UPC label when another company insisted that it wanted the original
for me to get a rebate, and from the many times I've read of others having
gone through this rebate dance and the companies mysteriously rejecting
their claims even though all criteria for the rebates were fulfilled.
------------


You mean from other like minded folk who instantly blame a 'corporate
plot' every time something goes awry? And out of how many rebates?

Your reading of something 'sinister' into her 'instant' reply could be
explained by a quite rational policy. Mainly that the company has offered
you more trust than you're willing to offer in return. I.E. She looks at
the screen and sees you are a repeat customer, have claimed you sent it
in, and she also notes there is no record of you ever having made a prior
similar claim under similar circumstances so, with that record, company
policy allows her to amend... And for good reason. Odds are probably good
you're telling the truth since it's a 'one time' thing and with the odds
in favor of that it's less expensive to risk trusting you, once (and she
noted the 'one time' courtesy), than go through the more complex, read
costly, mail in and review procedure.

I, of course, can't know for sure but it's imminently rational and good
policy for the company on both economic terms and customer relations.
Except for the perpetually paranoid conspiratists who see a 'corporate
plot' in even instant, painless, resolution in their favor.



---------------
Is this particular time with Symantic a different deal and Sofie just
trying to be a sweet darling to make it easy? Could be.
----------------



No, my theory is it's policy and she's just following it. And what
'allowed' it was precisely what she said: Your customer record of multiple
buys with no indication of prior 'confusions' to raise a red flag. So, as
a courtesy to a good customer the company extends it's trust and amends on
your word. It's "good business," meaning profitable.


-----------------
I'll give that a 5%
possiblity.
------------------


I give it a 0% because it's absurd to even postulate that Sophie was "just
trying to be a sweet darling" even though I'm sure she is.


-------------------
And if you want to argue this that this is the 5% you go right
ahead and enjoy it.
---------------------


Like most conspiratists you frame the 'only possibilities' to be between
an absurdity you invent vs a 'conspiracy'.


-------------------
After you're done go read a newspaper and see the
practices that companies continually come up with to save a buck at the
expense of the consumer. Or for that matter take a poll of how many people
have been burned by not receiving rebates. Of the top of my head I can
think
of CompUSA going to court over unfulfilled rebates and Best Buy offering
to
come up with the money themselves to pay off people who were not receiving
rebates from the companies whose merchandise they were selling.
------------------


And I can think of lots of other problems but Company A doing a bad thing
says nothing about Company B.




I see this conclusion as preposterious without her getting approval
from someone else with just my say so.
-----------

You see it as 'preposterous' because that's what you are determined to
see.

I see it as plausible because it's good corporate policy and there's
nothing 'preposterous' about good policy.

I can appreciate your take that Symantic is attempting to make
ammends for an honest error, as from time to time I am an idealist myself.
However, in this case I don't think it's probable, by the tone, speed, and
phraseology of the response. My point in posting was to see if anyone else
may have experienced this event from Symantic along with my take on it.
Although I have probably sent in for more than fifty or more rebates
in the last five years and received all but one of them I attempt to be
meticulous in each one's preparation. I think of it as a game, in that the
company receiving the rebate will look for any flaw in the delivery to form
an excuse for not paying out.
Believe it or not I'd rather be on your take of the event, but I
think this is simply a new way to deny payment. Why on earth do you think
these companies offer rebates in the first place instead of giving the
consumer a price cut?

 

[John Weiss]

.."As a one time courtesy, because you are a valued customer, your
information has been updated to show you have sent in all the required
information. You should receive a rebate check in 6 to 8 weeks".

OfficeMax refused my rebate several months ago, but sent me notice something
like 3 months after I sent everything in. They persisted until I told them to
send a copy of my e-mails to OfficeMax HQ (with a suggestion that I might have
already done so) that included my decision to never set foot in an OfficeMax
again. Several weeks later I got the rebate...

I haven't gone back to OfficeMax anyhow, since and Office Depot opened up, and
is closer...

 

[David Maynard]

See below

I can appreciate your take that Symantic is attempting to make
ammends for an honest error, as from time to time I am an idealist myself.
However, in this case I don't think it's probable, by the tone, speed, and
phraseology of the response. My point in posting was to see if anyone else
may have experienced this event from Symantic along with my take on it.
Although I have probably sent in for more than fifty or more rebates
in the last five years and received all but one of them I attempt to be
meticulous in each one's preparation. I think of it as a game, in that the
company receiving the rebate will look for any flaw in the delivery to form
an excuse for not paying out.

I submit that your presupposition of how the 'game' is designed to get you
is why you're primed for an instant accusation and so finely honed to even
the slightest bipple in the "tone, speed, and phraseology of the response"
even though the one issue out of over 50 flawless transactions was resolved
in your favor with the most desirable of terms; namely none but your word
for it.

I'm meticulous in the preparation too because, humans and the systems they
design being what they are, I'm concerned that, sooner or later, someone,
or something, is going to make a mistake. Unfortunately, the only one my
finely honed system has detected, so far, was mine and my only defense for
it is I'm human too.

Believe it or not I'd rather be on your take of the event, but I
think this is simply a new way to deny payment. Why on earth do you think
these companies offer rebates in the first place instead of giving the
consumer a price cut?

Because, for one, a 'price cut' leaves the actual price at the discretion
of the seller who might decide, for example, with a $30 'cut' to pass $20
on to the buyer and keep 10. After all, they have their own business
analysis and considerations too.

But, more to the point, they provide much more flexibility in business
strategy. They can be a 'package' deal, affecting more than one product,
and can be worked in conjunction with partner deals. They can be targeted
to particular markets, geographical areas, and stores. They have better
timing flexibility and are obviously a 'temporary deal' that avoids the
buyer angst of 'the price was lower but NOW THEY RAISED IT" when the intent
WAS a 'temporary deal' and not a price change. Not to mention what the heck
does one do with tons of sales literature, price sheets, discount
contracts, web pages, and all the rest for a "price change" that will
revert to the original again in 90 days?

Plus, they work.

The biggest problem is when business analysis get preoccupied with, and
overly focused on, narrow 'performance' statistics (as Twain noted, there
are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics) seeking to 'improve'
individual departmental costs.

Because it's simpler I'll give you an example of a different type, but
illustrative of the 'narrow focus' meaning I'm talking about. At one
company they hired a particular salesman on a mutually desired low base
salary with sales bonus arrangement and it worked like a charm. He was a
real go getter and sales, his in particular, skyrocketed. The sales manager
then began complaining they were going to have to change the arrangement
because his commissions were "costing them a fortune," neglecting to
consider that all those commissions came from the increased sales they had
made the deal for in the first place so they were also "making a fortune"
from the cost it. But, you see, the 'commission budget' was getting out of
hand and the accountants were not going to like that one bit. Btw, they did
kill the golden goose for that sake of proper budgets and sales suffered
accordingly. But at least it all added up right.

The point is, a 'problem' doesn't necessarily mean that the 'game', itself,
is designed to get you. It can easily be a mistake, ignorance, or simple
stupidity.