Talk:Rebate (marketing)/Archive 1

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support per my comment --Lox (t,c) 21:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: I wonder if it's worth mentioning, from my own experience at a rebate processing company, that there are some legitimate uses for mail-in rebates that couldn't be accomplished another way:
* Some rebates on products require that a service contract be established after their purchase - e.g. for cellular phones, satellite dishes, etc. - which can be verified when the rebate is processed.
* Some rebates are for variable amounts - e.g. a delivery or installation fee of a product - or otherwise depend on the purchase of some complimentary product.
...I do agree however most are pointless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stewacide (talk • contribs) 09:13, 28 January 2006.
:Sounds like a good addition to the article, though I imagine a new (sub)heading would have to be created! --Lox (t,c) 10:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legitimate Reasons For

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support - The term rebate is used in Australia (and elsewhere) in place of Rabbet. SilentC 23:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple for who?SilentC 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: I'm removing the confidence tricks category from this article.  I realize that people have been burned by them, but they're really not confidence tricks. Aaronw 19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for letting us know! --Lox (t,c) 20:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confidence tricks 

message: There is quite a bit that can be done to this article to make it more NPOV. It's written from a view that Rebates are always scams and you will always loss your money. Anyone who has dealt with rebates frequently know that this is not the case. While there are unscrupulous Rebate processing centers, there are twice as many legit ones and some of the valid reasons behind rebates have already been posted.
We need to maintain the compliants (and the "Rebate tips" section is really good), we need to keep it under a "complaints" section and not let it over run the entire article. Have more citations and sources will also give those complaints a more solid footing. Right now it just looks like ranting. I'm going to do some tweaking to article over the next day or so. Some "Wish list" items for the article would be 
*An image of a what a UPC looks like
*Listing of some of the more popular rebate centers and major mfg/retailers they are linked with
*Sources cited for lawsuits filed against fraudalent rebate centers or news articles
*Maybe an expanded history section of how rebates evolved to be so popular. (it is lighted touched on) Agne27 01:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job of cleaning up the article Agne. One other thing that I wonder about is whether these rebates are a disincentive to purchase. I don't know of any data on the topic other than some strongly phrased anecdotal viewpoints to the effect that "I wouldn't buy x if it had a rebate." Since the rebate is a marketing tool it would be nice to know if it was in fact reducing the overall marketability of an item.--gargoyle888 18:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that would be an interesting angle. I looked a little on google and I couldn't find any published sources. (I'm curious as to what actual marketing literature would have).Agne27 02:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overtly Negative POV

message: I would like to ad some images but I'm not sure if it's possible to get a "generic" enough copy of a Rebate form or a Rebate check that won't appear as advertizing something. Any thoughts? Agne 07:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images? 

message: The price discrimination section has a problem where the word "discrimination" is used in both the social and the economic sense (which are very different) without making a distinction between them. A policy that discriminates against a lower economic class is in fact the opposite of what is usually called "price discrimination" since those who have less ability to pay incur a higher price. I looked at the article from the Mid American Journal of Business and it correctly avoids the term "price discrimination", in order to forestall this confusion. Hence, the reference to this article should be moved elsewhere in this entry because technically speaking it has nothing whatsoever to do with price discrimination. Sparohok 07:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price discrimination?? 

message: Right now it looks pretty heave on the OR side and I think it's getting to the point where we need to either add some refs to it or it needs to go. I'd hate to lose it because it does have valuable information but it is hard to deny the OR look to it. Agne 21:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need more Refs in the "Consumer caveats" section 

message: While the section could be rewritten, I objected to the wholesale reversion for a couple of reasons. 1.) It messed up the reference format which made it inconsistent the referencing. 2.) Second, it gave the false impression that mail in rebates are completely eliminated from Office Max, while they are actually in the process of eliminating them. Take a look at yesterday's paper with their sale ad and you will see while a lot of items don't have them, they are still around (like in software). The reverted editions more accurately portrayed that this was a process elimination. 3.) It explained WHY Office Max was eliminating there rebates and in POV fashion. This article has to tip toe a fine POV line between presenting the benefits to retailers and customers that rebates give versus the negative sterotypes and disadvantages that rebates have consumers. In this case, the negative feedback from OMax customers cause them to move in this way. Again, I have no problem with the section being rewritten in order to better cover the info but the 3 points above should be addressed in some matter with the revision. Agne 19:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: while I understand your points and agree to some degree to what you say, I still believe there is too much focus on OfficeMAX overall and I believe a little trimming is still in order. Payam81 00:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omax section