When I watch those commercials, I always assumed the scam was that they were sending you a "free CD", but charging a good price for it with their "shipping and handling charge".
Agree. I've seen those ads more times than I can count, and never thought they'd be sending 30 CDs, and billing me if I didn't return 29 of them.
The ads clearly lead you to think they'll send 1 CD, possibly charging S&H, and it will prove its merits thereby leading you to purchase further products. I believe he even says as much.
I think the main kudos should go to Arrington, since it is basically his personal fight with scammers - WP only syndicates Techcrunch articles. I'd say Michael has an advantage that he is a lawyer, so he knows the boundary of what he can and can't write, so it is hard to intimidate him with letters from companies lawyers.
A few years ago, this company's TV ads said something to the effect of, "You too can learn to RUN a computer." I always thought the word "run" was odd -- kind of like I was going to learn to run a cement mixer or something. Now, I wonder if it was an attempt at selection bias; perhaps there's a correlation between those who respond affirmatively to the notion of "running" a computer are those least likely to read the fine print or return the CDs on time.
Exactly, there is no incentive to hand down bad ratings to the people giving you all your money. Way OT but lack of proper incentive is a huge problem everywhere and played a major part in the banking collapse.
On television, the company offers a promotion for a free computer learning cd. Consumers taking advantage of the free cd are offered upsells. If accepted, they require the consumer to return products to avoid being billed. If consumers do not return the products, they will continue to receive additional products and be billed for those products.
I've joined in order to be able to display the seal on my own ecommerce site. As a single-person company, it isn't terribly expensive (it is priced per employee).
I don't have any hard evidence (such as an A/B test) to support my decision, but I'm selling monthly subscriptions to businesses and felt the impression of credibility was worthwhile.
I like to think that the vermin preying on the gullible elderly today will one day themselves be old, gullible, and the victims of the next generation of scammers.
Looking at it from the other side, could it be that some of the current victims were themselves scammers in their youth, and are only receiving a little bit of karmic payback?
Honestly, it doesn't seem that scammy. I always thought it was quite obvious it's a trial offer. I guess it depends on whether or not those CDs are good to justify the price.
Not that scammy? Nowhere on the site are any of the extra charges declared. If someone bills your credit card without expressly telling you that they're going to then it's a scam.
Are you seriously trying to tell us that tricking unwary customers is not scammy?
> Nowhere on the site are any of the extra charges declared.
Be careful of what you are claiming. The http://videoprofessor.com homepage says "After your 10-day free trial, if you decide to keep the complete set, we'll conveniently bill your credit card just $289.95."
Thanks for catching that. I looked but couldn't find that notice (I'll admit I didn't look super hard...)
I think that if you're going to charge a customer X number of dollars, you really need to make sure they understand that. It's obviously a bad business practice, but I think that regulators should take the extra step and make hiding charges in fine print illegal...
The sample videos show comprehensive tutorials. I think they deserve a more comprehensive look before jumping to a quick conclusion.
You and I may be computer literate, so to us it may seem like worthless crap to us, but the videos aren't too shabby quality. It's probably why it's drawing so many scam criticisms because to us it doesn't seem worth $300.
The problem: they don't openly disclose that it costs $300 - their customers value the cost at free or ~$5 for S&H, while the charged cost is buried in fine-print on another page.
If it was explicitly offered at $300 and people still bought it nobody would be calling it a scam even if it was viewed as "worthless crap to us."
They only get charged after the trial. I thought it was quite clearly stated that it's a trial! Their pricing is quite odd, because if you click on the offer details, it says it's a a $20 something monthly charge after the trial.
I'm only saying this merits a little more investigation than just a quick glance by Arrington and everyone else being yes-men.
I hate scammers, but it's not a fine line between scamming, and sly marketing.
Nowhere that I can see do they sell a ~$300 product. They sell "trials" and subscriptions, and hide the full price in fine print. A legit business would at least show a real price tag for the real product. (For example, ads for products with a rebate usually show the after-rebate price in a large font, but the before-rebate price is always adjacent to it, not in a sidebar or at the bottom of the page, and never on a separate page.)
Type in your email and a password. While you'll see the monthly price clearly listed, you'll also see Free Trial Offer Details in really tiny text on the left. If you click on it, it tells you how you will be charged unless you cancel.Those sly bastards
This is a similar model to the video professor.
On the video professor page it does tell you, after you click to get the free trial, that you can avoid a full charge by canceling. It also says this on their home page. In fact, it's on the right side of the page on every page of the order process up until the credit card entry (which is where I stopped).
Any decently intelligent individual would know there will be some charge at the end of the trial. It is quite clearly stated as a trial. And because it is a trial, it doesn't matter what the full price is, just as long as you know you can cancel. Which you can, by the way.
So sure, it's very likely that a legitimate business would not be so tricky. So the odds are, maybe they do have bad intentions.
I don't have enough evidence, and Arrington didn't seem to have tried to procure much either.
It does notice users on the site. And people can return the products afterwards. On their BBB profile it says most of their issues are resolved.
Why is everyone taking Arrington's word for it. It doesn't even seem like he did any research besides a quick glance at their site.
For all you know video professor makes it's money by tricking people to try, only to have people realize it was worth the 300 dollars.
I don't deny any tricking on their website, but they do have a return and refund policy that seems satisfiable. It just doesn't add up. How can they sustain their business if people can refund.
The trouble with the Video Professor website is once you drill past the homepage you don't see anything about the $289.95.
Consider someone who arrives via deep link. To that person it appears as if all they are risking is $9.95 - even through checkout. They might click User Agreement during checkout but the only charge that reveals is...$9.95. If the visitor clicks into How it Works they will see the wrong price: $189.95. (Check for yourself: https://www.videoprofessor.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=shopping...). Only the skeptical and curious who arrive via deep link can know what happens after the 10 day trial, and even they will be overcharged by $100.
We can debate whether the product line is worth $289.95 but that is irrelevant to this issue of checkout fraud.
It says $389.95 on that page you gave the link to.
I don't think there is checkout fraud. You checkout and you are provided enough information to know that you are purchasing a trial, you will be charged some fee (what it is is hard to determine) if you don't cancel. I think that information is provided clearly.
However if they turn out not to honor cancellation requests, that's a whole other story.
That's really weird. I'm still seeing $389. Also that page at one point for me today said there will be a monthly fee of $20 something dollars instead of what it says now.
They must be updating their site today or something, but that doesn't explain why we see different prices.
No it is accurate. You are only paying for the shipping and handling. That's why it's the only thing being shown on that page.
How many people would get hooked onto their wonderful product if they thought it costs 300 to begin with. That's why they get the trial, then decide they like their tutorials, and then possibly be willing to buy it at that price. But unfortunately no one has cared whether or not the video tutorials are actually good. If they are good, then it is not a scam.
So are magazines. If you don't opt out they keep sending you stuff and bill you. But that initial charge is for purchasing the trial. If you don't cancel, you get billed. Not satisfied, you get a refund. This is pretty common, and not all are necessarily scams.
What magazines do you subscribe to? All the magazines and newspapers I read sell time-limited (typically annual) subscriptions, and as the year draws to a close they get more and more annoying about asking for a renewal. They are typically advertised along the lines of "10 issues for $60", and that's what they bill you for. Consumers generally only tolerate opt-out billing for ongoing services that aren't delivered in discrete units: things like electricity, water, cable TV, and WoW. A library of n videos is, on the other hand, simply n items.
Before we go into a long argument, I would like to state my intentions.
I want to convince people here that if Mr. Arrington, a person who obviously hates scammers, visits a website and prematurely concludes that it's a scam is not necessarily correct.
I hate scammers, and I'm pretty sure most people here have strong feelings about scammers too, because they are the anti-thesis of the hard worker.
But I want people who have decided, to undecided. Because I find it quite surprising how you all can so easily conclude and accuse them of being a scam from the paltry information provided in the article.
They're sly, but what profit-seeking corporation isn't sly. Are they in the gray area? I'm certainly not saying they are not a scam.
It may feel like a scam, but that does not necessarily mean it is one.
Now, to answer your question: I've subscribed to magazine subscription trials. They work like this. It is a fact. They also sell subscriptions, as you have shown.
Is their return policy really 10 days? For this not to be a scam people need to explicitly know that if they don't return it within that timeframe, they'll be charged $300. Most people surely aren't aware of this, find out once they open up their credit card bill at the end of the month, and are told that their 10-day return period has expired.
In their USER AGREEMENT (available from the Home page), they only mention there is a "purchase fee" but do not tell you what it is. Once you start to order, they only mention the fee under the TESTIMONIALS section (and also do not tell you what it is).
In fact, the only place I see a fee stated explicitly is in the HOW IT WORKS link, but this is not even available until you are entering your credit card information ... and the hyperlinks pointing to it do not mention a purchase fee!
I wasn't nearly cynical enough it seems.