Internet – Page 70 – Mouse Print*

Updated every Monday! Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Avis: $30 Off Your Next Rental?

September 24, 2012 by Edgar (aka MrConsumer)

Mouse Print* reader Marc D. recently got a mail offer promising $30 off his next Avis rental if he would give them his email address.

What he didn’t realize until after he received his $30 coupon was the offer was really $30 off a weekly rental.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Since Marc’s “next rental” was not going to be a weekly one, he felt hoodwinked.

Mouse Print* wrote to Avis, asking what happened, and whether they would honor the no-strings-attached $30 offer for those who received the original offer.

“As a result of a printing error, the promotional insert did not specify that the offer was for a “weekly” rental. However, “weekly” is mentioned in several other places, including the outer envelope (see attached), the website/page where the customer provides his/her information to redeem the offer (www.avis.com/email) and the subsequent email offer. The erroneous promotional inserts have been discarded. New inserts have been printed and are currently being used.” — Avis spokesperson.

Fair enough, the disclosure WAS on the webpage where consumers had to sign-up, but was not on the offer sheet they received by mail. Some consumer protection advertising rules, however, state that the subsequent disclosure of the actual terms of an offer does not diminish the deceptive nature of the original offer that did not disclose those terms.

And what will Avis do for consumers who felt mislead about this offer?

“The $30 offer is being accepted on weekly rentals.” — Avis spokesperson.

In other words, nothing.

Updated every Monday! Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Oh Gee, Cell Carriers Fudge 4G Claims

August 27, 2012 by Edgar (aka MrConsumer)

If you just landed here from Mars and needed data service to phone home, you would be confused because most cell companies each make you think they have the biggest 4G data networks. Actually, earthlings might be experiencing the same confusion.

AT&T claims:

Verizon claims:

T-Mobile claims:

How in the world can AT&T claim that its 4G network has 2000 more cities than Verizon at the same time that Verizon claims to have more 4G LTE coverage than all other networks combined?

The answer is simple (and deceptive): they all define 4G differently.

*MOUSE PRINT:

On AT&T’s website, they disclose that the company calls two different technologies “4G”:

AT&T defines 4G as including its HSPA+ and LTE networks, while Verizon only counts its LTE network. Which one is fudging the numbers? According to the Wall Street Journal, it’s AT&T:

*MOUSE PRINT:

AT&T Pins 4G Label to Existing Network

AT&T Inc. flipped a switch and turned on its 4G wireless network Wednesday. The switch, however, was in the company’s marketing department.

By relabeling its existing 3G network, the country’s second-largest wireless carrier joined the noisy fray over so-called fourth-generation wireless technology, which promises mobile Internet speeds so fast that huge files can be downloaded in minutes and streaming video can be watched without the interruptions of earlier-generation technologies.

As recently as September, AT&T executives had referred to the company’s current network, which runs on a technology it calls HSPA-plus, as 3G. — WSJ, January 5, 2011

So, AT&T is making people think their 4G network is larger by simply rebranding its 3G network as 4G, and adding the 53 markets it offers 4G LTE to it. (LTE is commonly viewed as the truly faster 4G network, and the future of 4G.) Verizon, on the other hand, only counts its 4G LTE cities as part of its 4G network.

Our advice: forget the marketing labels. Find out what actual speeds the various networks in your area provide, and make your cell service choices based on real numbers. (Use SpeedTest.net at cell stores to check actual speeds.)

Note: MrConsumer is a member of Verizon’s Consumer Advisory Board (and often criticizes them for advertising missteps).

Updated every Monday! Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

The Straight Poop About Online Product Reviews

August 20, 2012 by Edgar (aka MrConsumer)

A friend is constantly annoyed by seeing help wanted postings on Craigslist where business people are looking for common folks to write and post favorable reviews about their products and services in return for compensation.

Since so many shoppers read and rely on product reviews written by actual purchasers when deciding whether to buy a particular product, no wonder sellers are eager to display positive reviews. The problem, of course, is that the reader cannot tell whether the review is genuine, fake, or possibly tainted because the reviewer has been paid for his or her comments.

Enter the Federal Trade Commission.

Under their revised testimonial guidelines, even bloggers are required to disclose in their reviews if they have been compensated for their review or received the product free that they are reviewing:

“When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed.” — 16 CFR 255.5

Now how often have you seen a blogger make such a disclosure?

Enter MrConsumer.

bidet Last week, I received an email from the company that sells the bidet that I recently purchased from Amazon. (This bidet is an attachment you install on an existing toilet to rinse your heinie with a narrow jet of water.) They asked if I would write an “honest review” of the product and post it on Amazon. (Seriously, I was NOT asked to write a positive review, but rather an honest one.) In return, they would send me a second bidet free.

Since I was intending to write a review anyway (I love the product), this was the prompt I needed to actually do it. And of course, who wouldn’t want another bidet for nothing?

I wrote the review “So Long Toilet Paper”, and included the following disclosure that I dare to say no other poster has ever included in their review:

*MOUSE PRINT:

“NOTE: As required by Federal Trade Commission guidelines, I am disclosing that I was promised compensation for posting an honest review. And the review is just that — my honest opinion — something I would have written exactly as you see it irrespective of any future compensation that I might receive.”

Upon hitting the submit button, Amazon flashed up a notice that it may be up to 48 hours before the review is posted because they have to examine it first. Well, I said to myself, they will never approve this. Funny thing, later that night, they did.

I then notified the bidet company of its posting. Well, I said to myself, they will never send me the free bidet. Funny thing, almost immediately, they thanked me for my “wonderful review.”

I guess no one reads anything thoroughly anymore. In any event, at least shoppers who read the review will be put on notice, as required, that I was promised compensation in return for the review.