Talk:Rebate (marketing)

message: One thing I'm wondering about is what constitutes fraud for rebates?  Nokia's N900 had a $50 rebate advertised.  but one condition was signing up for an app store that did not exist until after the rebate needed to be postmarked.  Are there other examples where manufacturer's have advertised rebate programs that they knew could not have been redeemed?    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.128.94 (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nokia N900

message: A good example of why wikipedia sucks.  Whoever wrote the lead sentence had no idea of what they are talking about (clue: it's not a civil rights issue) and puts in their made up idea of what PD is, and casts doubt on the real meaning of the economic term. 68.160.179.201 (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm...it seems to be written in the same usage as the source (R. Avila and T. Avila "Rebates: An ethical issue?" Ball State University) which doesn't make any reference to any civil rights issue so I'm sure where your "clue" is coming from. I'd probably take your complaint up with the source and/or suggest prose with a different reliable source. AgneCheese/Wine 03:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Price discrimination

message: It seems a bit cumbersome to me. I'd like to do some work on it to help it conform to WP:LEAD but would like an extra set of ideas on the best way to trim it down. It seems like we could almost craft a new section from it but I'm not sure what to call it. Any other thoughts? AgneCheese/Wine 00:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section

message: The last section discusses instant rebates, which are I suppose, offered by the manufacturer to immediately lower the price of the item.  But this could use some clarification, as to why they would do this, since obviously the advantages of the mail-in-rebate are lost.  If everyone gets the same discount immediately, they can't hold on to the money during processing, there is no forgetting of rebate forms, etc. that are essentially free money for the manufacturer.   What is the purpose of an instant rebate then, aside from being another way to say the price has been lowered?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.237.185 (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What are instant rebates for then?

message: I removed the Hoover offer reference: In 1992, mail in rebates were not usual in the UK, the so called 'Hoover Free Flights' Angela Chan Hoover's free flights fiasco recalled 5/13/2004 perhaps giving evidence of its pitfalls.
This is because this is not a rebate but an offer for free flights that were worth more than the cost of the product.  Therefore it is not relevant in this context as a pitfall or a reason why the UK does not use rebates. 207.145.86.2 (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoover Offer

message: I think Beer rebates should be merged into this article. It is only an example of this general phenomenon. LadyofShalott 15:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me as that topic is unsourceable and even a brief mention would be UNDUE. Bongomatic 20:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah. Just redirect it then. LadyofShalott 03:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully I don't concur. See rationale at AfD discussion. Bongomatic 07:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beer rebates 

message: I'm a little dubious of the 18th reference used on this page.  It doesn't seem like it would be an unbiased source.
18.  ^ Arlene Hauben Modernizing Rebates: Paper Checks to Prepaid Cards The Prepaid Press | May 15, 2010  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.101.100 (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The more I read this article the more I think that either Cashback Websites should be merged into it or have at least have a link to the wiki article, they are becoming major forces in the UK which should help balance the article a little Rickb (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cashback/Rebate Websites? 

message: I've removed two points from the "Rationale" section. Both have been around since this article was started back in September 2005, still have no sources to back them up, and strike me as very dubious. First:
* Extended warranties and other price-dependent factors always use the initial purchase price, not the price after the rebate. This is normally because if the company has to refund the customer the "replacement value", it would be the before rebate "in-store" price.
This is true, but it is not clear why a retailer would see this as an advantage. In fact, it seems to plainly be a disadvantage, since it reduces sales on extended warranties. A handful of customers would pay $10 for an extended warranty on a $50 product, but pretty much no one's going to pay $10 for an extended warranty on an item whose price after rebate is $10!
* Once the UPC has been removed from the box, retailers can refuse to accept a return of the item.
This point originally appeared in the (since-removed) "Caveats" section; it was only later that an apparently paranoid editor decided that this is an intended benefit of rebates. Anyone who has worked in retail knows that the prime goal is to make the customer happy so that they come again, make more purchases, and don't eat up employee hours with long complaints; the idea that a retailer would deliberately piss off customers by setting them up to get caught on a technicality of the return policy is beyond absurd.
I also removed one line from the following bullet point: 'Rebate processing companies even pride themselves for "returning the least amount of money".' This is WP: Unverifiable, since the source of the quote is not clearly identified.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced content 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Rebate (marketing). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/18/BU142549.DTL&type=printable
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified