Discussion:
Yo! David Maynard! (Was: Rebates -- Best Buy rebate scam)
(too old to reply)
DP
2006-06-27 19:35:20 UTC
Permalink
But still, if the main reason for rebates is trickery --
That's the main problem, your assumption even in the face of being given
the real reasons.
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.
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
2006-06-27 21:02:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by DP
But still, if the main reason for rebates is trickery --
That's the main problem, your assumption even in the face of being given
the real reasons.
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.
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?
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
***@verizon.net
or
***@phila.k12.pa.us
David Maynard
2006-06-28 03:20:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Alter
Post by DP
But still, if the main reason for rebates is trickery --
That's the main problem, your assumption even in the face of being given
the real reasons.
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.
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?
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.
DP
2006-06-28 03:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Maynard
'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
2006-06-28 04:29:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by DP
Post by David Maynard
'My idea' is that presuming every blip in life *must* be 'someone pulling
a scam' is irrational.
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.
Post by DP
Facts, David! Facts!
Why? You don't need or use any to make the accusations.
Jan Alter
2006-06-28 09:41:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Maynard
Post by Jan Alter
Post by DP
But still, if the main reason for rebates is trickery --
That's the main problem, your assumption even in the face of being
given the real reasons.
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.
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?
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.
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?
--
Jan Alter
***@verizon.net
or
***@phila.k12.pa.us
David Maynard
2006-06-28 12:51:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Alter
Post by David Maynard
Post by Jan Alter
Post by DP
But still, if the main reason for rebates is trickery --
That's the main problem, your assumption even in the face of being
given the real reasons.
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.
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?
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.
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.
t***@yahoo.com
2006-07-04 06:58:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Maynard
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
2006-07-04 07:07:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Maynard
...
'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.
Post by David Maynard
Path: newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!sn-xt-sjc-04!sn-xt-sjc-08!sn-post-sjc-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: David Maynard <nospam private.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
Subject: Re: Yo! David Maynard! (Was: Rebates -- Best Buy rebate scam)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 22:20:09 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <12a3t0othhmi9f0 corp.supernews.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ZLfog.16077$7K2.11748 bignews2.bellsouth.net> <A1hog.2223$TC1.1859 trndny08>
In-Reply-To: <A1hog.2223$TC1.1859 trndny08>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 70
Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64:11680 alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd:269366 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:469575 alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus:750241 alt.comp.periphs.mainboards.asus:5690
David Maynard
2006-07-04 09:46:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Doe
Post by David Maynard
...
'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.
Not even close, but it's a good example of a non sequitur.

JAD
2006-06-27 21:28:38 UTC
Permalink
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.
Post by DP
But still, if the main reason for rebates is trickery --
That's the main problem, your assumption even in the face of being given
the real reasons.
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.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2005/nf20051123_4158_db016.htm
Post by DP
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?
John Doe
2006-06-27 21:36:56 UTC
Permalink
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: idmkcnjgmiagocdeoocbejnahinokcdieohmibampagnohbdckheghcobipagegcmnbfgllodfmicgjmmmobmnhejeihnjjgodgpijnikgaedkdohbgogoljehepljbllgilĂ™
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" <nospamxx xyzddd.com> wrote in message
Post by DP
"David Maynard" <nospam private.net> wrote in message
But still, if the main reason for rebates is trickery --
That's the main problem, your assumption even in the face of being given
the real reasons.
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.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2005/nf20051123_4158_db016.htm
Post by DP
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?
Loading...