Jump to content

Talk:Publishers Clearing House

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.86.191.179 (talk) at 23:11, 26 December 2012 (→NPV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

NPV

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

This article appears to be heavily weighted toward making a company look bad, which is not the point of Wikipedia. Citations are being used out of context in many places. Summation of content results in original research as the summations are and have been in contention it appears. The regulation section is quite large and overbalances the entire article. Assuming the company is really giving away the prizes, and there appears to be plenty of news articles just in the past year alone on big winners, editors should put at least as much effort into citing those articles as they do the negative ones. Wikipedia articles should not be attack pieces on a company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.157.155 (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Bilbobag (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC) This article is the subject of numerous deletions of factual, though possibly unflattering, comments. It is also subject to numerous additions that attempt to turn this into a promotional site for PCH. This article is also prone to vandalism - August 16, 2012; March 2, 2012; January 10, 2012; February, 2011; September 3, 2011; etc. You will note much of this activity takes place within 60 days of a PCH sweeps drawing. At one point many of the unsigned deletions come from IP addresses that are within very close proximity to Port Washington, NY, PCH's headquarters, for the past 20 months or so, all the unsigned changes come from Dynamic IP addresses (skip down 4 paragraphs for detail).[reply]

This entire article has been reviewed and edited by a number of other third parties over the past two years: 

- Kennfusion in August 2010 (a complete revision), and in Oct 2010 (a revision of 
  the 'regulation' section), and in January 2012 (modified for a more neutral voice). See "page 
  Revision" and "Kennfusion Edits" on the TALK page
- Wikieditman in December, 2011

The user above wishes to disregard, discard or delete these edits.

The comments made above by user 64.131.157.155, about lack of NPV, do not cite any specific content, thus it is difficult to refute. As to the comment about the 'Regulation' section, the company has a long history of being fined for misleading consumers and/or failure to abide by existing regulations or governmental agreements. If the article is going to talk about PCH's history, then you have to include it's 12 year history of governmental actions against it, and payment of $55 MILLION in fines. Further readers should be informed about Sweepstakes rules that the Federal government specifically requires PCH to include in all its offerings.

User 64.131.157.155 has also changed the article based upon incorrect information (AFP is not out of business...) October 2012‎. American Family Publishers is in fact out of business, (and has been for more than 10 years) - see Wikipedia for detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Publishers

Lastly, note that all of the (almost) monthly deletions (as well as the above NPV comment) are unsigned, and most come from Dynamic IP addresses. That means that the user is assigned a different IP address each time they log on. Thus, a single user can mask their identity, by appearing as numerous IP addresses. Please also note the amount of deletions made, or attempts to add promotional material, during January - just prior to PCH sweeps drawings. 

-64.131.157.155  Earthlink, Brooklyn, NY (Oct - Dec, 2012)
-76.105.77.131   (Nov. 27, 2012)    Dynamic IP address
-67.86.191.123   (Oct. 18, 2012)    Dynamic IP address
-68.12.24.232    (Sept. 29, 2012)‎ ‎  Dynamic IP address
-50.47.140.157   (August 16, 2012 cited for possible vandalism...Also on 4/1/2012)
-184.177.99.149  (July 17, 2012)    Static IP  Cox, Oklahoma City, OK 
-76.97.82.63     (March 2, 2012)    Dynamic IP address
-71.202.181.88   (Feb. 17, 2012)    Dynamic IP address
-24.47.137.68    (Jan. 15, 2012)    Dynamic IP address 
               Post was town 10 miles away from PCH HQ. Attempted to add PCH promo material
-174.96.28.145   (Jan. 10, 2012)    Dynamic IP address 
-24.166.118.11   (Jan. 6, 2012)     Dynamic IP Address  
-216.255.103.250 (Jan. 4, 2012)     Post from PCH's server, adding promotional copy
-72.89.246.104   (Aug. 19-21, 2011) Dynamic IP address 
               Post was town 22 miles from PCH HQ, attempting to turn article into a PCH promo 
-173.12.32.174   (Feb. 20, 2011)     Static IP Address   
          Attempt to remove 15,000 words. Was reverted by ClueBOT due to possible vandalism. 
-72.89.246.104   (Jan. 7, 2011)      Dynamic IP address 
        Post was town 22 miles from PCH HQ, adding PCH promo mat'l just prior to sweeps drawing 
-216.255.103.250 (Sep. 9, 2012)     Post from PCH's server, attempting to add PCH promo copy
-139.142.214.193 (Jan 10, 2010)       Post from Archway Marketing Services, a PCH vendor (hardly  
         objective), attempting to remove 800 words. See link below
         http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Archway+Marketing+Services(R)     
         +Awarded+Contract+Extension+With...-a0122786197
-24.79.209.139 (Jan 10, 2010)      Dynamic IP address     Cited for possible vandalism 1/13/2010

This appears to be a concerted effort by one or more individuals to modify this page to meet their own purpose(s). Bilbobag (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No sources

Each year around Super Bowl time, when PCH begins to air a lot of TV ads, their employees attempt to remove factual information and sourced material that is unflattering to PCH. They also attempt to add PCH promotional material, typically about the Prize Patrol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilbobag (talk • contribs) 16:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PCH emplolyees are at it again. They removed info from "Controversies" section once again. User 216.255.103.250 who added Christopher Irving and Rick Busch to the "Key People" panel, removed new, factual, information, that while unflattering to PCH (especially as it now as a load of TV commercials running), contained sources and citations. Bilbobag (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Users 162.84.138.17 and 69.113.10.115 have repeatedly and continuously removed or edited any information about Publishers Clearinbghouse that, while true and documented with references, is unflattering to the company. Have also attempted to turn this article into an advertising page for the company. Bilbobag (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This entry has no sources, yet it makes some pretty strong claims about the company. --Maande10 06:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be rewritten so that it isn't a company puff piece. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This entry is lifted directly from the Publisher's Clearing House Web site. 13:08, 1 March 2006

Chances of winning

The rules say:

A limit of one online entry per day is allowed per individual and per e-mail address for each separate online promotion unless otherwise specified. Subsequent entries determined to be submitted from the same email address or from the same individual using multiple email addresses in violation of this rule will be declared ineligible.

Is one e-mail from them to me considered an online promotion, or is the entire campaign considered an "online promotion"? Hackwrench 17:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also,

Write-In Entry Instructions. You may write in as often as you like to enter our ongoing Publishers Clearing House sweepstakes at the address below. Sweepstakes eligibility will be based on date the write-in entry is received. Just mail each entry separately. We do not accept entries from a third party or entries sent in bulk.

Does that one per day rule apply to mail? Hackwrench 17:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those paragraphs aren't about "chances of winning", but my query is. I want to know what are the chances of winning $10,000,000 for various classes of contestants, and how much the company actually has paid out and does pay out over time. A friend of mine, not very savvy, is all excited and convinced his chance of winning is very likely! I'd like to point him to some realities. Unfree (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the last paragraph in History section; "In 2009, the odds for the top prize in Publisher's Clearing House Giveaway #1400 (a prize of ten million dollars) were 1 in 1.75-billion, the highest the odds have ever been for a PCH giveaway." Bilbobag (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any source that shows that the odds on the PCH website that are referenced are the worst ever? Without a source, I think that should be removed. Additionally, this does not seem to fit into the history section of the document. Perhaps a new section should be created for odds? But in order to make the statement that these are the worst ever, we kind of need some historical odds to show how they have been at other points in time? Also, it seems that on the website you can enter daily to win, so are those the worst odds, or the worst odds per single entry? Big difference because I think I used to get like 2 mailings a year, so I could enter twice. So even if the odds were 1 in 10 million than it would be like 1 in 5 million if I entered twice or .00002% chance. But if I can enter 365 times online and 2 by mail it is about the same at .000021%. So it might not be the worst odds ever, they might be better now. (but I am guessing here, these are not real numbers) Kennfusion (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the odds of winning section into a new section titled Odds of Winning, since it belongs there and not in Company History. I also have removed the line about worst odds since, as that is an editorialized statement. I think this section needs to be built out more though to show the differences between individual odds and odds for many entries. I have to research their rules more though and get some clarifications. Kennfusion (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charitable Giving

The page cites Crain's NY Business as stating the company gives 50% of profits to charitable causes. There's nothing in the Crain's site when Publisher's Clearing House is searched to indicate this is true. There are no sources to confirm the statement about 50% of profits going to charity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilbobag (talk • contribs) 21:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the company gives any money to charity, it can't, by definition, be considered profit. Perhaps you didn't pay close attention to the wording. Unfree (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to this page

March 7, 2009: Anonymous individuals (some/many of whom have IP addresses from a Publishers Clearing House server) consistently delete any information they feel is detrimental to PCH. This occurs even when the info deleted is 1) Accurate, and 2) Referenced with source material. This has occurred at least 4 times in the past 2 years

That comment doesn't carry much credibility without a signature. Unfree (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was my post...sorry for forgetting to sign. Bilbobag (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-channel

I don't know what that means. Is it that their commercials run on more than one television channel? That hardly seems worth mentioning. Unfree (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From a marketing perspective "multi-channel" means that they use multiple communications channels; i.e., TV, internet, print, radio, direct mail, etc. Bilbobag (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mailing list

Page Revision

In addition to notation on this page that the controversy section should be integrated into the main body, there are serious problems with the sources also. All quotes in the controversy page do not actually exist in the sourced material, and some of those sources just do not exist, despite some heavy research. There are plenty of our sources out there though that do provide the same essential meaning. I have taken the time over the last couple weeks to re-write the history section to integrate the information in the controversy section in a linear/time line presentation. I have found new sources and have now properly quoted them. I am not sure if this is customary, but I will post the new proposed page here and see if there are any suggestions before taking the time to update the live page: Kennfusion (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, there were no comments in the past week on the proposed revision of the page, so I have made it live. This was the first time I have done anything on here that was not minor and anonymous, so if I made any mistakes please let me know so I learn. Kennfusion (talk) 12:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kennfusion Edits

Jan 9, 2011 Most of your edits have been undone by individuals with IP addresses in the vicinity of PCH HQ. This typically happens as they ready a new sweeps drawing. I have tried to undo many of these changes, but am not as proficient as you. Their version reads more like a "puff" or promo piece for PCH, than a factual, objective overview of the company. Bilbobag (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Overall I like the changes. Good job!

I think it reads/flows much better. I made 1 minor change, but again, good job. Bilbobag (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the one section from the first AG agreement to be more in line with the exact format from the press release. Kennfusion (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remaindering

I distinctly remember that at one time PCH carried a great many book titles at low prices. I would suppose these were remainders and the like. Is my memory wrong, or did PCH sell books? If they did sell remainders, then someone who remembers the details better than I do should incorporate the facts into the history section. Jm546 (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

upset that pch site dosent work right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.197.47 (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New section Prize Patrol as proposed by LVC on behalf of Publishers Clearing House

Publishers Clearing House and its Prize Patrol are part of Popular Culture, which is easily sourced in the media and on You Tube. As Wikipedia is a source of information from individuals and the media, we believe that there should be a Prize Patrol section. As such, we would like to propose the section below be added to the page. We are happy to discuss this here on the talk page first of course, so will wait a week for discussion. In accordance with Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest), Larkin/Volpatt Communications would like to disclose that we are the B to B PR agency for Publishers Clearing House and declare an interest in the Publishers Clearing House Wikipedia page.


The PCH Prize Patrol The company has come to be known for its Prize Patrol that surprises winners at their homes, work or other locations with prize awards captured on video. [1] Since their introduction in 1989 these reality-TV style winning moments have been prominently featured in the Publishers Clearing House commercials and, more recently, in the company's online acquisition efforts, websites and social media communications.[2][3][4] The PCH Prize Patrol has made in-person appearances and prize awards on such popular TV shows as The Oprah Winfrey Show[5][6] and The Price is Right.[7][8] Their surprise winning moments have been spoofed by Jay Leno,[9] Conan O'Brien[10] and the cast of Saturday Night Live,[11][12] woven into the plots of movies like Let's Go to Prison,[13][14] The Sentinel[15] and Knight and Day[16][17] and the subject of good-natured cartoons from cathy[18] to Ziggy.[19]


References [1] “They are known for the PCH Prize Patrol where employees travel to the winning recipients’ locale and record the awarding of the sweepstakes prize with balloons, champagne, flowers and a big check.” http://luckysweeps.wordpress.com/2007/09/19/publishers-clearing-house/ [2] "For years, Publishers Clearing House has supported the television campaigns for its sweepstakes with a robust advertising presence online. For its current sweepstakes, offering “$5,000 every week for life,” the online component is being stepped up with a promotion on Tuesday. Publishers Clearing House will take over the AOL home page, at aol.com, on Tuesday with a rich-media ad unit that mimics the company’s Prize Patrol van pulling up to a home and dropping off balloons and a check." http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/prize-patrol-heads-over-to-aol/ [3] http://www.aol.com/video/pch-mega-prize-winner/517218074/ [4] "As PCH marketing efforts incorporate more media, the company is beginning to identify synergies. For example, the July campaign that involved the AOL Web page takeover also received support from FSIs, print space ads, TV, mobile messaging and online display ads. The integration of media, which appeals to a multichannel customer, drove strong response across all channels, Princiotta explains, sharing that consistent branding across channels is another area where they've seen 'one plus one equals three.'" http://m.targetmarketingmag.com/10334/show/93cffdb2b44aa84aa757e4cbb885147e&t=1934a2f7746a20a2ce2db83d7a18c356 [5] "The Publisher's Clearing House Prize Patrol has been surprising Americans across the country for 20 years. Stephanie Gornichec, the most recent winner, had just lost her job, was on the verge of bankruptcy and had a home in foreclosure when her doorbell rang. " http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Million-Dollar-Moments_1/4 [6] "The Prize Patrol has more money to give out—this time to an Oprah Show audience member. Each person in the audience filled out a form when they arrived to Harpo Studios, and David Sayer of the Prize Patrol picked one lucky winner of $25,000 at random: Sue Draper." http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Million-Dollar-Moments_1/5 [7] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-ybcsVv9Cc [8] "'The Price is Right' welcomes the Publishers Clearing House Prize Patrol for a weeklong giveaway event Monday, April 9, to Friday, April 13 (11 a.m.), on the CBS Television Network. With five days in a row of everybody's favorite "TPIR" game, Plinko, contestants will get a big surprise each day when host Drew Carey informs them that the PCH Prize Patrol is in the house and will double their winnings for every Plinko chip that lands in the coveted middle spot." http://www.wnypapers.com/news/article/current/2012/04/18/106064/full-week-of-plinko-chance-to-win-100k-when-pch-prize-patrol-visits-the-price-is-right [9] Jay Leno: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nE8V7Q3QzI [10] Conan O’Brien: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxHq8A15jqU [11] Saturday Night Live: http://www.hulu.com/watch/277757/saturday-night-live-publishers-clearing-house-giveaway [12] "The Prize Patrol has been parodied on late night television shows such as Saturday Night Live and The Tonight Show and referenced in numerous network sitcoms." http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-it-called-when-people-bring-a-big-check-to-your-door-because-you-won-a-contest [13] "The movie takes the perspective of John Lyshitski (Dax Shepard) who has spent most of his life in prison, serving three different sentences (starting when he was eight, when he stole the Publisher's Clearing House van)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_Go_to_Prison [14] Movie Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7pNiELcZsg [15] "Right before Pete Garrison meets with his snitch, Walter Xavier, we see a van go by on the street. Xavier even mentions the van. What company does the van belong to? Publisher's Clearing House. The van is a Publisher's Clearing House Prize Patrol van. Xavier says his mother tells him to fill out his entry every year but he never does. Later in the movie we see Garrison use this information in approaching Xavier's mother." http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/The-Sentinel-322367.html [16] "And Miller is a man of supernatural abilities: unlocking and firing up any car he wants; outgunning dozens of well-armed men; piloting a commercial airliner; leaping back and forth across the roofs of speeding autos; rigging the lottery and Publisher's Clearinghouse - these are just a few of his gifts, all exercised with a merry twinkle in his eye and that winsome Cruise grin." http://www.sungazette.com/page/content.detail/id/545445/Movie-Review---Knight-and-Day-.html [17] "If you aren't convinced of the implausibility of the events in this film yet, before the conclusion you'll be introduced to Frank and Molly Knight, who've won the Publishers Clearing House sweepstakes twice and a lottery." http://www.lariat.org/AtTheMovies/nora/nitenday.html [18]

[19] KateLVC (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on the History page for this article in 2006, neither this page (nor any (Wiki page) is supposed to promote a product or a company. Nor is it supposed to be a "puff piece", using the language from 2006. This article is about the company PCH, a minor aspect of which is their Prize Patrol. Bilbobag (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than being a minor aspect of PCH, the Prize Patrol is the public face of the company and the most recognizable aspect of the brand. The numerous and sustained references to the PCH Prize Patrol in pop culture (samples of which are referenced in this article) demonstrate high public awareness that the Prize Patrol is an integral part of Publishers Clearing House. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KateLVC (talk • contribs) 20:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kate: First - If the Prize Patrol is "the public face of the company" (which is arguable, but for the sake of discussion let's assume that's the case), then an entity of this magnitude and cultural significance, deserves it's own separate "Prize Patrol" page. Secondly - "the most recognizable aspect of the brand" is the multi-million $ prizes that are given out - not the prize patrol. To demonstrate, ask the average person "what/who is Publishers Clearing House?" and their answer isn't going to be the Prize Patrol. It's going to "million dollar sweepstakes" or "chances to win millions of dollars". Lastly - I agree that the Prize patrol is a part of PCH and deserves to be, and should be, mentioned in that light. Just as it is on the current Wiki page.Bilbobag (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Online Development section as proposed by LVC on behalf of Publishers Clearing House

Online development The company launched its first website, PCH.com in 1999, providing an online means to enter the company's sweepstakes and shop for magazine and product offerings. In July 2006, the company acquired Blingo Inc., a company-sponsored website that offers search results to marketers. Blingo was later re-branded as PCH Search and Win[4] and promoted as "the only Search Engine that gives you the information you need AND chances to become a Publishers Clearing House Millionaire." [35] Like other search engines, the site's revenue source is inclusion of paid search results.[36]

As reported by The New York Times, late in 2008 the company expanded its traditional direct-mail and online offers to more youthful channels including Twitter and iPhone applications. According to a December 22, 2008, Times article, the objective of these new offers was to use the registration information to increase PCH’s mailing lists.[5]

In 2009, it partnered with Arkadium to launch PCHGames.com, an ad-supported site with both display and video ads.[6] This was followed by the acquisition of online casual-gaming sites and other online properties.

In January 2012, the company acquired mobile marketing company Liquid Wireless. Terms of the deal were not released, but it is in line with their recent increase in focus in digital and social platforms. [7]

Online and mobile advertising in the company's online game network provides income in addition to the sale of magazines and merchandise.[37][38]

In 2012, Publishers Clearing House was the recipient of the Online Trust Alliance (OTA) Honor Roll, reflecting its adherence to self-regulatory efforts and adoption of security and privacy best practices. [39][40]

This shift though to web based and email marketing has not come without its share of problems as witnessed by complaints from consumers on such sites as Pissed Consumerand Rip off report.com. Consumers complain about such things as daily PCH email merchandise offers received after entering a sweepstake; inability to have email address removed from PCH files; ordered items not being received; billing complaints; and the inability to enter certain sweeps via the website. ."[8]

[35] http://search.pch.com/about [36] http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2066421/How-Search-Engines-Make-Money [37] http://info.pch.com/about-publishers-clearing-house/publishers-clearing-house-overview [38] http://www.pchgamesnetwork.com/ [39] https://otalliance.org/resources/2012HonorRoll/2012HonorRollData.html [40] https://otalliance.org/news/releases/2012honorrollrelease.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by KateLVC (talk • contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kate: You can't state that websites such as Pissedc onsumer can't be used and in the next sentence use a website like otalliance do hype it's own awards. At least pissed consumer is objective. Otalliance is notBilbobag (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PCH sends you stuff you didn't order then bills you for it.

If you enter any PCH contest, drawing or sweepstakes you WILL get cheap (but not inexpensive!) merchandise and books mailed to you with the expectation that you'll pay for it. Don't open any of it, take it back to the post office and have them stamp REFUSED on it. Bizzybody (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Publishers_Clearing_House&oldid=529895074"