My wife and I don’t watch TV, or at least we didn’t until Lost came around. Now we are eagerly awaiting the beginning of Season 4. For Christmas, I bought her a Tivo box so that we can tape the show without commercials. The box was advertised for $99, but it turns out that you have to pay $250, and if you can figure out how to submit a rebate request (I’m a lawyer and I could hardly wade through the fine print), Tivo will send you $150 in 8 weeks.
What a scam! Tivo makes a windfall from every purchaser who fails to request the rebate, and it gets the use of my money for eight weeks.
Let’s say Tivo earns 8% on its money. Then it makes $2 from the use of my money for two months, assuming I follow through on the rebate. Multiply that by the number of units sold, and you get a big number. Plus, as Tivo itself says in its most recent quarterly filing with the SEC, it estimates that only 50% to 65% of customers even bother to request the rebate. No wonder these rebate programs are so popular with manufacturers’ shareholders!
Fortunately, we can do something about this. There is a bill pending in the legislature that would require retailers to provide customers with the rebate amount at the time of sale, on the spot. It’s House Bill 345, introduced back in January 2007. According to the House’s website, it seems the bill was sent to the Committee on Consumer Protection and has since been languishing.
Are you as upset by this scam as I was? Call your representative or senator and ask him or her to push for enactment of this bill. Make the call particularly if your legislature is on this list of members of the relevant committee.
TedF
Cool, this seems like a good way to get rid of rebates. The only people who benefit from rebates are rich dweebs with too much time on their hands. They know that they are taking advantage of lazy or unorganized people, I think they actually derive pleasure from this, perhaps they are jealous that other people actually have lives and see this as a way to get even.
<
p>It doesn’t seem like it would be too hard for the retailers to process all the rebates themselves, and if they have to hire some more people, then hey – it creates jobs too.
It shows you the bill text and status on one page. Here is that bill*. And, if you email your rep, you can cc openletter@openmass.org and it’ll be right there on that page too! That’s the best part, if you ask me, since there is no public record of letters sent to reps right now, they can’t just ignore them, if openmass takes off. So, use it!
<
p>*Though it seems to be downloading the pdf of the bill now, instead of the html version, which is a pain in the butt, popping open a download window and requiring me to clean it off my desktop. Can it go back to downloading the htm version?
<
p>
only 50% to 65% of customers even bother to request the rebate.
<
p>And then if you manage to send off for it, you have to remember, 8 weeks later, to watch your mail for it. They make them look like junk mail, so I bet half of them never get cashed, even if someone manages to send for it. Grrrrrrrrr.
If someone is SO FRIGGING STUPID that they pay 250 bucks for a 99 dollar thing and then they actualy forget to mail in the rebate … the government should step in and protect them from their own stupidity?
If anyone is that stupid or careless with their money than they wont have it for long anyways, no matter what the government does. You cant pass enough laws to prevent people like that from stepping into something sooner or later.
The government should busy itself with more consequential matters than nannying the careless by patrolling the retail malls. If they cant find more consequential matters to busy themselves with than they should disband themselves and get their frigging paws out of my pockets..
I suppose I should have expected that someone would be insulted. Yes, the government should step in to protect people that are so frigging stupid they forget to collect on the rebate. You would still get your rebate, you’d get it on the spot. Yes, there would probably be smaller rebates if 100% of them were actually paid out, but I would much prefer to actually get that much than have to go through all that crap just to have a chance of getting more, 8 weeks later.
<
p>Face it, they only benefit the rich out in the suburbs who have permanant addresses, reliable mail delivery, stamps and envelopes on hand all the time, time on their hands, and who get off on being smarter than everyone else.
Are you kidding me?
Poorer people live in apartment buildings that often have mail problems. Poorer people tend to move a lot more than rich yuppies that own a home, and not have permanant addresses. Poorer people don’t always have stamps and envelopes around. I don’t have a stamp in my apartment at the moment, I’d have to go to the post office to buy more if I had to mail something (all my bills and rent are autopay, the only time I ever have to mail something is when my auto excise tax is due, once a year.)
<
p>It is really amazing that people are opposed to this bill. You don’t want to get your rebates on the spot? You want to mail off for it? wtf?
If you dont like the terms of the sale then by all means dont buy it.
I currently shun things with rebates, but I think my boycott doesn’t have much of an effect.
<
p>This law would give you your rebate at the point of sale. You wouldn’t have to mail anything, you wouldn’t have to wait. Why don’t you want that?
…spend US$250 for a virtually useless device such as a TIVO, it strikes me that they have enough money to buy a postage stamp and envelope and enough time to go down to their local mail box to put the refund request in the mail.
<
p>Or they could use the money to buy a VCR.
<
p>I’d sympathize with your position if the rebate was merely a token (US$5 or US$10), but a rebate on the order of US$150? That’s very difficult to sympathize with.
But I would think that this pro-consumer, pro-poor people progressive bill would find some support from the few people that care for other people here.
…You aren’t really going to suggest that someone who can afford to plunk down US$250 for a luxury item such as a TIVO can’t afford to plunk down a few dollars for a page of stamps and some envelopes? If you are suggesting that, you really should have your head examined.
But if we did a little survey, don’t you think that yuppie professionals, or make that old suburban professionals, would have a roll of stamps in every desk in their house, whereas renters who work at Burger King probably don’t have a stamp. They also probably have a harder time reading English, and more on their mind when they get home from work. And most people would put the Tivo on a credit card, if they have one. And they can’t afford $250, that’s why they were sucked in by the rebate.
If the purchaser has a credit card to put his or her TIVO on, they can also use the same credit card to charge their stamps (yes, the US Postal Service takes credit cards) and the envelopes. Moreover, people can buy postage stamps at more than a few ATM machines.
<
p>Your complaint makes no sense.
Even if they do have stamps, maybe they had to drive their father to the doctor, unclog the toilet, and watch Lost, and they just plain forgot to fill it out and send it in. Or, maybe they never see the check in the junk mail and toss it out.
<
p>Why don’t you want to get the rebate on the spot? Why do you want to wait eight weeks and go to all that trouble? It’s mind boggling. Unless you know that it’s other people’s foibles and problems that allow you to get a bigger rebate at their expense, so you want to make sure you maintain your genius advantage. Your are so darn proud of your ability to take full advantage of all the perks for smart, capable people, it makes you feel superior knowing that lots of other people got screwed and you didn’t. Nice of you.
Plus, as Tivo itself says in its most recent quarterly filing with the SEC, it estimates that only 50% to 65% of customers even bother to request the rebate.
<
p>the request rate is that high. I had read a number of years ago that the request rate for most rebates was well under half those numbers.
<
p>I’m not sure, though, where the scam comes in. I’m a lawyer, too, and as long as you are informed how to get your rebate (we always have been by the retail outlets) there is no “scam” involved.
<
p>I’m a little surprised by the size of the TIVO rebate, but I am not sure of their current business model. From what I had read a number of years ago, their business model included not only a purchase of hardware, but also a subscription to a service that required a connection to a phone line so that they could get information as to your viewing habits.
<
p>If that’s still the case, it is likely that the size of the rebate indicates that they are basically giving the hardware away (with the price largely what they are charging the stores) and making their money off the subscription.
<
p>BTW, you can probably rent DVDs of you favorite shows from Blockbuster or Netflix.
not only rots your brain but acts as a sociopolitical tranquilizer. Opiate for the masses in the form of major distraction. Unplug it; pick up a book instead. Sorry, that’s my .02 cents.
but I would say you haven’t seen Lost. What can I say? I was hooked.
…William Shatner has become a good comic actor in his old age. Something akin to a latter day Leslie Nielson.
<
p>30Rock is somewhat funny, too. Alec Baldwin is also a fairly good comic actor.
<
p>30Rock (NBC) is available over the Internet, but, for some reason Boston Legal (ABC) is not.
Early last year, I bought a memory card from buy.com which was supposed to be free after a $50 rebate. I sent back the rebate forms with plenty of time. A few weeks later, I got an email telling me that my rebate should be mailed 6-8 weeks later. About 12 weeks later, I called the information phone number, but it had been disconnected. It turns out that the manufacturer was insolvent. Enough other people fell into this that PC World did a story on it. Buy.com is pursuing litigation, but I doubt I’ll get anything.
<
p>Anyway, I think this is definitely a good idea.
If a person purchases merchandise from a reliable supply place that offers a rebate (and there are plenty of those), then it’s probably safe to assume that it’s not a scam. I think that one has to be careful about where they buy their merchandise, and, if the rebate offer seems a bit suspicious or odd, don’t buy into it–don’t trust it. Go by gut instinct.
Bought a Sony monitor from Circuit City. I received two $30 rebates, and completed them both (with the staff’s help), mailed them simultaneously. The third party offering the rebate honored one rebate, not the other. Their story changed repeatedly, but their clear strategy was to wait me out.
when I had my kitchen renovated almost 2 years ago, I bought new appliances from Yale Appliance and Lighting, which offered a rebate. I filled out the rebate application(s) and I got a total of four hundred dollars as a rebate. It took six weeks, but it came.
From what I have read, the rebate instructions say something to the effect of “one rebate per household.” Maybe the rebate offeror was confused when you submitted to rebate certificates virtually simultaneously.
Right on the price tag…two $50 rebates.
…the fine print? (j/k)
I actually find the Staples Easy Rebate system to be pretty good. They give you a code on your receipt, and rather than mailing away a rebate form with a receipt and UPC, you can go to a website and enter the code. This way they can’t just tell you that your claim must have been lost in the mail. It isn’t as convenient as getting cash on the spot, but it removes some of the potential for things to go wrong. I suppose the check can still get lost on its way to you, though.
<
p>I guess my point is that I think the real problem with mail-in-rebates is that it’s lacking in accountability. I think mail-in-rebates are stupid and annoying, but I don’t think they should be illegal if the retailers or manufacturers are reliable in delivering on their promises.
I’m interested to learn that many don’t seem to consider this a scam, so I thought I’d explain exactly what I find objectionable about it.
<
p>The first problem is the forced loan inherent in the scheme. In retail sales, it’s customary for the goods to be exchanged for money at the time of the sale. If the buyer pays by check or credit card, there is some delay in payment to the merchant, so the merchant is in a sense extending credit to the buyer. Here, Tivo has turned this on its head–now the customer is extending credit to Tivo by lending money that will be returned in 8 weeks. But do Tivo’s advertisements make this clear? Far from it. Instead, they make it seem that the customer is obtaining some sort of advantage–a “rebate,” which sounds like a sale or some other benefit.
<
p>The second problem, in my view, is that the manufacturers know in advance that many customers will not claim the rebate. Is this illegal (yet)? No, of course not. But in my opinion relying on your customer’s stupidity or apathy as a source of profit is shady. This is not a case in which the manufacturer can point to some benefit the customer obtains by failing to claim the rebate–this is not the invisible hand of the market working for the benefit of all participants.
<
p>TedF
How do we know that Tivo intends for consumers to regard the rebate as something beneficial to them rather than to the company? Because it says so:
<
p>
Obviously this is just another marketing scheme and since it is a SCHEME it should be frowned upon.
But is legislation needed?
If noone bought the scheme wouldnt it just go away and be replaced by the next scheme?
You do understand that there is always a NEXT scheme, dont you .. Its called marketing .. and not likeing it doesnt make it go away.
So should we demand legislation against each scheme individualy or maybe seek an omnibus sweeping anti scheme bill that would cover all schemes, or just grow up and learn to read the fine print and not step in the BS which is everywhere and everyone should know that by now …..
But is legislation needed?
<
p>Yes, damn it! They use rebates to take advantage of people. No, we don’t need an omnibus anti-scheme law, we use the power of government to protect people from the powerful. How the heck would this hurt you?
When you stop the rebate scheme you also should stop the “cash this check and agree to this service” scheme and the endless credit card schemes or the payday advance shceme or any wall street investment scheme which is a great big ponzi scheme or …..
America as a whole is widely noted to be a giant GET RICH QUICK SCHEME.
You can not legislate corporate morality.
You can only educate the consumer.
It is time better spent.
I don’t like rebates. I recently received a check for a $14 rebate on a memory card and I couldn’t even tell you when I sent in the paperwork it was so long ago.
<
p>I also sent out another one just this AM to Sprint for a $50 rebate for my daughter’s new cell phone. The paperwork indicated it would be 10-14 weeks before I would see the money.
<
p>So yes, they are a pain, and I can see them being somewhat of a scam, but enacting legislation to rectify this problem is just plain stupid. As someone else said, if you don’t like the terms of sale, don’t enter into the agreement with the merchant.
<
p>And claiming that rebates prey on the poor due to their lack of stamps and envelopes is absolutely ridiculous. A stamp is 41 cents and an envelope is maybe half a buck. If someone can’t bear that expense to realize a much larger amount in the rebate, their problem isn’t being poor, it’s being stupid.
Good thing you’re so smart. I’m sick of little advantages for smart people who know they are taking advantage of other people. You’re like the landed gentry, not aware of your advantages, and feeling completely entitled to them. You’re smart, we’re dumb, and so you win and we pay for it. Good for you and thanks a lot.
<
p>You probably like shopping for car insurance now, too. The only people who will benefit from that are rich people with internet connections and a calm and stable and dweebish enough life to sit around comparison shopping for an evening every six months. Fun for you, maybe, but not for me. I don’t see why I should have to do that now just to not be taken advantage of by you.
<
p>In fact, the regulatory agency rejected a few company’s plans because they gave discounts to people who bought extra bodily harm insurance, and that is a proxy for income. They want to compete for the rich people, not for the poor people, so the rich people get better deals. (And, note that we still apparently need a regulatory agency just like we did before, so we don’t gain anything in that regard.)
<
p>Tell me why you think the law would be stupid. Why would it be stupid to make them give us any rebates on the spot?