Have you ever felt so embarrassed about a financially damaging mistake that you tried to blame everyone except yourself to cover your tracks? If so, you can always count on a network morning show to back you up.
That's what NBC's "Today" show did August 26 in a segment attacking online dealmakers. Co-host Meredith Vieira warned shoppers could find "mysterious and unwanted charges on their credit cards."
"Kathy Danzer wanted to reconnect with old classmates, so she bought a subscription on a popular high school reunion Web site," correspondent Natalie Morales reported. "But when she got her credit card bill there was another unexpected charge: an additional $12.99 for something called ‘GREATFN.'"
With all the complaining - not to mention the foreboding soundtrack the segment featured - a viewer might think Danzer and others like her had trouble getting refunds for the money they mistakenly spent. But that wasn't the case, as the company refunds money to unsatisfied customers, Morales admitted at the end of the segment.
"Kathy Danzer, the person you saw in that piece, was able to get her money completely back," Morales said. "It took a couple of weeks and a lot of persistence on her part." Perhaps a couple weeks of persistence taught Danzer a lesson in reading the "fine print."
As it turned out, "Great Fun" was a membership rewards club that offered online shopping discounts for a monthly fee, according to Morales. Danzer had signed up for the program via www.Classmates.com to get $10 off her subscription fee.
"This offer may look great, but it's actually a marketing tool," Moraled said. "And here's the catch: by just filling out this survey, you're actually signing yourself up for a rewards program that you may neither want nor need, but you'll be paying for it every month on your credit card."
But the "catch" was clearly outlined as a seven-day free trial of the subscription-based program. And a disclaimer - partly cropped out by the "Today" video - warned customers that, "By typing your email address below, it will constitute your electronic ..."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Personal Responsibility
August 26, 2008 - 12:24 ET by dmntd1Due to an illness in the family, I've been spending an inordinate amount of time with my moonbatty sisters. I almost spewed my coffee when one of them said the Democrats are for personal responsibility. It was all I could do NOT to nose-spray it...
I will say, although, as moonbatty as she is, she screens for SSI-Disability claims and I would NOT want her as my screener. Most of her claimants don't either. She's known as a tougher-than-nails screener. But Obama was too conservative for her. *shrug*
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his imminent relationship with a superior law and with an objective will that transcends the particular individual - Mussolini
"Kathy Danzer wanted to
August 26, 2008 - 12:27 ET by Killgrave"Kathy Danzer wanted to reconnect with old classmates..."
Nope. She was probably trying to stalk ex-boyfriends who dumped her back in highschool. That would explain the lack of guile of our little protagonist.
Seriously, who the hell goes to these sites except to stalk?
(And, with all due respect, THIS site is acting more buggy than John Edward's marriage)
I find it hard to defend
August 26, 2008 - 15:02 ET by niner-four-whiskeyI find it hard to defend some of these really shady web outfits. I also do not find evidence of bias in this coverage either.
I've had trouble with an outfit that calls themselves, "Trident Marketing" or "Trident International". I just checked, and "Trilegent" as mentioned in the news report is yet another DBA for Trident Marketing.
After clearly saying NO to certain web offers after booking a flight, these guys proceeded to telemarket me on my office line, with phone calls that start, "We're calling about your Visa card ending with xxxx". They had the last four digits of my card. The scam starts with them offering a "free gas card". Despite many requests and listing on the do not call list, they still call. They even went so far as to authorize a charge on my credit card, which I promptly cancelled and filed a written complaint with the card issuer. They could do nothing about these guys, since they didn't actually charge the card, just authorized a small charge to see if it was good.
So, I do not see this coverage as "anti-business" or "non-personal responsibility". They're covering a different business than the one I ran in with, but it is a borderline and quite shady biz that I am very, very familiar with.
So hurrah for the news actually shedding some light on these cockroach scammers.
Some of these companies go to great lengths to obfuscate what you are saying yes or no to, such as the "no" box on the pop-up actually signing you up for something with lots of fine print.
I find nothing conservative about defending deceptive business practices.
The bias is clear
August 26, 2008 - 16:11 ET by Nathan BurchfielThe offer included with the Classmates.com subscription is clear about the fact that it's an offer for a seven-day trial of the subscription-based service. (Free trial periods that roll over into paid services are pretty standard -- Netflix is a pretty popular one.) There is also a disclaimer noting that providing an e-mail address meant the customer was agreeing to the terms. (You can see both if you pause the "Today" report when it's showing the computer screen.)
The bias is evident in the fact that Morales completely ignored the clear notices and disclaimers, instead painting the offer in question as deceptive and misleading. Anyone who took time to read the offer rather than get caught up in the chance to get a $10 refund could see that and weigh the pros and cons of accepting the offer.
So what's the problem? Danzer signed up for a subscription service without reading the terms of the agreement. When she realized she'd made a mistake, she contacted the company and got her money back. Problem solved. Lesson learned -- we hope.
There's nothing conservative about defending deceptive or illegal business practices. And it's probrably true that there are some people operating online using deceptive and illegal practices. But that's not the case here. NBC simply went after a legitimate business -- without offering any evidence the practices were unethical or illegal -- because a consumer failed to exercise personal responsibility (i.e. reading the terms of service) in online shopping.
Seriously, these guys are
August 26, 2008 - 17:30 ET by niner-four-whiskeySeriously, these guys are known shady operators. The fine print today on these "surveys" is more clear than it was months ago, when this person probably actually ran afoul of Trilegent or whatever they are calling themselves these days.
They've been warned by several state attorney general offices to change their practices.
These stories as presented on the news may originate with events that happened a year or more ago and may have originated with web forms that did NOT, repeat, did NOT disclose any terms or conditions.
Here's some background on Trident Marketing:
http://www.callercomplaints.com/SearchResult.aspx?Phone=866-530-3503
Here is some more info on Trilegiant:
http://www.consumera...
I'm sorry Nathaniel, I am as conservative and pro-business as they come, but you FAILED to research your story.
For that sir, you should be ashamed and are as guilty as many of the mainstream media of doing the same sloppy reporting.
Get your act straight, or we're going to dog your blog so the stupid libs don't have to.
More evidence of sloppy
August 26, 2008 - 17:49 ET by niner-four-whiskeyMore evidence of sloppy research on your part Nathaniel.
http://www.consumera...
Trilegent
August 26, 2008 - 17:20 ET by david999I had my trouble with "Trilegent"
I bought a plane ticket at Travelocity and they had many boxes checked.
It was a maze to get thru their system. Trilegent put a charge on my account of $6.95 which was not authorized.
I looked up their name at google and discovered they will keep charging you for non existing items. Many many complaints with people having to cancel their card because this company will wait and charge you 6 months later.
I called up my credit card company and they cancelled my card and gave me a new one.
Bank of America had some scam like this using a 3rd party. I saw a charge on my statement and the company was connected back to BofA. I called the bank and the rep was not very helpfull until I mentioned what I found out. She immediatly cancelled the charge
These companies know that they will get complaints but they will still make a fortune from those that miss the charges
Whole lot more of them
August 26, 2008 - 17:55 ET by niner-four-whiskeyWhole lot more of them here.
http://www.consumera...
Gee Nathaniel, didja even Google it?
My article posted above is
August 27, 2008 - 09:19 ET by Nathan BurchfielMy article posted above is about the "Today" show segment and (unlike the "Today" segment) doesn't claim to be an investigative piece on Trilegiant or other online marketing companies.
It's quite possible that other people have experienced legitimate problems with Trilegiant or some other company.But regardless of how many people have complained about other matters, the "Today" segment focused on Kathy Danzer's case. And as I described in my report, her case appears to be one of flimsy merit.
The offer on the Web site she used (Classmates.com) is pretty clear in its intent and requires consumers' consent to enroll. As I've said twice now, the offer has at least two disclaimers explaining itself -- a fact visible in "Today's" video, but ignored by Morales in her report. These sorts of "cash back" or discount offers are common when making online purchases ... and it's quite simple to check the "No, thanks" box.
And, as I've said twice, Danzer got her money backwhen she realized she'd made a mistake.
If there are so many other legitimate cases showing actual impropriety or unethical or illegal behavior by Trilegiant, "Today" did a pretty sloppy job of investigating. They've should've used an example (or two, or three, or four ...) of someone who was actually victimized by deceptive or unfair practice, rather than someone who just complained when she signed up for something she didn't mean to sign up for.
Again, I'm not saying Trilegiant has never done anything misleading, or that there aren't people with legitimate complaints about their dealings with the company. I'm just saying the "Today" segment did a pretty sloppy job of proving wrongdoing in the Danzer case.
Also, my name is Nathan, not Nathaniel.
quote: "Also, my name is
August 28, 2008 - 02:11 ET by niner-four-whiskeyquote: "Also, my name is Nathan, not Nathaniel."
Noted.
Quote: "The offer on the Web site she used (Classmates.com) is pretty clear in its intent and requires consumers' consent to enroll. As I've said twice now, the offer has at least two disclaimers explaining itself -- a fact visible in "Today's" video, but ignored by Morales in her report. These sorts of "cash back" or discount offers are common when making online purchases ... and it's quite simple to check the "No, thanks" box."
Nathan, there's no telling how far back the events in the report actually happened. As recently as a few months ago, Trilegiant's practice was not so clear at all, and LOTS of people were duped into signing up for things they didn't think they were.
Or so say a line of State Attorney's who successfully went after them.......and NOW they've made it somewhat more clear that you're signing up for something. Believe me, it was NOT like that before, or why would there be so many thousands and thousands of complaints and oodles of lawsuits against the company in question?
Sloppy and flimsy, I'll give you that. Emotional and hypey too. But the underlying story to my eyes, is completely legitimate. Shady company dupes this lady and thousands of others into signing up for crappy stuff they didn't realize they were signing up for. That much is true, supported by fact in deed.
But I'm still taking you to task for your report. I say you were sloppy and didn't dig into the background well enough.
And I'm one of the friendlies. Some of the libs are a lot meaner and better at fact checking than I am. You guys are here to criticize the media so you damn well better have your i's dotted and t's crossed and all your footnotes in order. Otherwise, your work ain't worth the electrons it is printed on.
It can be a mine field
August 27, 2008 - 09:31 ET by Cool ArrowI've come close to a similar trap.
Went to freecreditreport a couple of years ago, and backed out when I found myself on a page asking for credit card info.
The real route to the free report was there, but there were opportunities all over the site to stray off course, and they seemed to be the suggested direction.
I ♣ my seal