Talk:Publishers Clearing House

Consumeraffairs.com

Consumeraffairs.com is not a reliable source. It does no original reporting, and exists only for the sole purpose of capturing SEO searches to monetize through AdSense. Randomyesnomaybe (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"Random - Consumeraffairs.com has a staff of reporters who do write original articles based upon their own research. The link below shows the bios of their journailists and reporters. One reporter (Mark Hoffman) has written over 3000 articles for them, since 2004.

To summarize, your first comment was that this wasn't relevant to the Iowa AG's settlement with PCH about targeting seniors. The quote I supplies from the article states "most recently a warning from the Iowa attorney general who accused the company of targeting seniors with misleading sweepstakes promotions" indicates that it is relevant. You next objection was that consumeraffairs.com is not a reliable source since it does perform any original research. At the link below you will see that they have 1 editor, 3 reporters and 4 contributing writers who combined have generated over 7000 original articles. I'm hoping that based upon this information you'll agree with me that the article is relevant, and that they are a credible source, who performs original research. Hope this helps. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/about/staff/

Bilbobag (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Being written by professional journalists is an easy way to establish whether a source meets a bare minimum criteria of being reliable. I noticed this website identifies themselves as being an advocacy organization[1], which means they don't necessarily have the same editorial mission as Wikipedia's. They report from the consumer's POV, rather than NPOV. And I'm sure they are not as credible as NYT or WSJ, which are some of our more highly cherished sources.

However, I believe it is adequate for now and better than using a press release source. The way to address the source's inadequacies are to (a) provide a better source or (b) balance it with other sources rather than removing it entirely.

On the other hand, a similar discussion took place RE the about.com source. When an editor finds themselves being reverted, it's best to discuss it on the Talk page and avoid the appearance of taking ownership over the article. CorporateM (Talk) 19:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Corp - I think you're right on all counts. While they do original journalistic research, they are an advocacy group. I added this cite simply because I thought it was better than relying upon solely on an AG's press release, and that the combination of the 2 cites added to the credibility of the issue. I also agree taht removing it entirely isn't the best approach.

In the article I referenced, the sentence that follows the quote I use above, does provide a balanced view of PCH when it states "But the company responded quickly to the news that someone was turning the tables and using the PCH name to scam consumers." This was followed by a quote from PCH's Chris Irving about never send money to collect a prize, and if you are asked to "You have not heard from the real Publishers Clearing House". So while I agree Consumeraffairs.com is an advocacy group and is likely to lack a NPOV, this particular article happens to be extemely balanced.

Also agree about the Talk page. I tried to provide a brief explanation/reason for my revision after Random simply deleted the source. I thought my comment might put an end to the discussion.Bilbobag (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

For any particular lawsuit, it would be best to use a source where the lawsuit is the focus of the entire article and is covered in substantial depth and/or where the era of lawsuits are covered in general, rather than briefly mentioned. I think I read somewhere that there were 25? or so lawsuit in all? Naturally we can't write about all of them, so we rely on the weight of the entire body of literature to identify which are most important and provide a reasonable summary of events, POVs and the effect on PCH (layoffs, lost revenue, etc.)

It comes to mind that a consumer advocacy source like this focused on the scams others operate under the PCH name may be better-placed in the last paragraph of this section, which I have not submitted here yet, but covers this issue. Wikipedia is not a consumer advocacy publication, but there is some alignment. There is also alignment in that PCH is very active in educating consumers about these scams and we all want readers to avoid them. CorporateM (Talk) 20:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Corp - Agree with most. The settlement with the Iowa AG in 2007 wasn't a lawsuit - it was a Letter of Understanding. This was signed by PCH to preclude a lawsuit from being filed. So the only source of info was the settlement Release from the AG. To help us move on, I added another cite - DM News, which is a recognized industry publication, that is cited at least once on the PCH page. It states succinctly that PCH agrees to to pay a "$2,500 penalty each time it mails to someone who has been removed from its mailing list. It has also agreed to identify $500 spenders each quarter and attempt to determine their ages. If they are over 65, they will be contacted by phone and the contest rules will be explained to them". So between all 3 cites we've got this covered in detail.

While I agree that PCH is very active in educating consumers about scams, there is a body of work that indicates PCH oftens uses discussions/releases about "pay to collect prize" scams to deflect attention from its own marketing practices. This was especially true just prior to the 2010 settlement when PCH was about to be charged with contempt for misleading consumers to believe purchasing magazines and other products will increase their chance to win. So while I totally agree this page should note that PCH does educate consumers about these scams, I don't think we can/should hide the fact that some of this is required as a result of the settlements. But I'm also not suggesting that we use the consumeraffairs.com language "PCH is not a darling of consumer activists". Just that we present a complete picture. Bilbobag (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide sources RE "pay to collect prize" scams that are operated by PCH? I certainly haven't seen that anywhere. There is a lot of coverage about scammers that operate under PCH's name fraudulently. CorporateM (Talk) 21:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This is going to be an awesome page! One of you is a shill for the company and the other clearly is trying to make the company look as bad as possible. Neither of you should be editing this page at all. (and I don't care that I am not supposed to point these things out and give you both the benefit of the doubt.) Randomyesnomaybe (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Corp - I'm not saying that PCH ever, at any time, was remotely involved with any "pay to collect prize" scam. What I said was that PCH oftens uses discussions/releases about "pay to collect prize" scams to deflect attention from itself. By that I meant that for a time prior to the 2010 settlements, when asked about its marketing practices, PCH would deflect the question with press releases or employee interviews stating that it never asks anyone to pay money in order to collect a prize. Sorry for any confusion. Bilbobag (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The DM Marketing source is still not adequate to anchor the Iowa lawsuit, because it is only a one-paragraph blurb in a trade newsletter. It verifies the facts, but does not verify the lawsuit is worthy of inclusion among the dozens of lawsuits that took place. The chapter in the book refers to this period of the company's history as "raining lawsuits" and we have to include only the lawsuits that are most notable, while also summarizing the fact that there were a lot. These are the types of sources we should be using. CorporateM (Talk) 14:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Sweepstakes

Next up is a proposed sweepstakes section. I had originally suggested this as part of the Product section, but realizing that the sweepstakes aren't really a product (it is free to enter), it would be better to give it it's own header and put "Odds of Winning" and "Popular culture" underneath it as sub-heads. The sweepstakes are actually what PCH is best known for. Interested in any feedback. CorporateM (Talk) 22:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this is where we start to become a promotional page for PCH. No problem with naming their websites and games, but listing each (or many) of their individual sweepstakes is blatant promotional advertising. Hope you understand my POV.Bilbobag (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like I used three example sweepstakes. Would you be more comfortable with two? The one awarded to someone doing volunteer work would definitely be the least notable of the three and may be considered the most promotional, because of the CSR-angle, which is an area where COIs often run high. CorporateM (Talk) 23:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm uncomfortable much of this section, such as naming all but the big prize at Super Bowl. We have already mentioned that they acquired abunch of online gaming sites, and then listed the web sites, which (IMHO only) is borderline promotion. With this section we start to expand on what has already been written about the Prize Patrol, which over 3 years has been reviewed numerous times and found to be sufficient. We mention that PCH works closely with authorities but don't mention that part of that is mandated by settlements due to it's advertising practices. I think that overall you've been fair, so I don't want to over react or start a debate. Give me some time to go over this section and I'll provide more detailed, and hopefully cogent, comment.Bilbobag (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I meant to say we would replace the "Prize Patrol" section with this and a future Popular Culture sub-section, though now that I look at it, it could use some merging, which I think could be done without extensive discussion necessarily. The current Prize Patrol section comes off as promotional, though I have a hard time pinpointing why. Sometimes it is difficult to pinpoint if we are being promotional, or neutrally describing the act of promotion itself.

Also, the popular culture issue is hard to tackle. The YouTube videos verify that the company was in-fact featured in the movie, but not the significance of their inclusion. I think this could be trimmed, better-sourced and re-focused only on movies/shows/etc. where PCH was significantly featured.

Waiting a while is not a problem. Let me know when you're ready. CorporateM (Talk) 00:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's my thoughts. First, a suggested re-write below. I added the no purchase line about "to enter or win" because the settlements (and direct marketing ethics/practices) use/require that language.

Next, I believe that over the past 5 years the Prize Patrol section has been honed to it's present state by numerous contributors, editors, and employees of PCH. The last attempt at a change was by KateLVC, a hired PCH contractor, who attempted to add the entire history of the Prize Patrol, making the PP a major focus of this Wikipage. Other than that, this section has been unchanged since July of 2010 (with the exception of 1 incident of vandalism, that was reverted), which I think demonstrates that it has struck the right balance of a NPOV. Based upon that history, I'd be reticent to make any changes to the PP section (unless there is something outdated/updated information).

• Although Publishers Clearing House advertises its sweepstakes along with magazine subscriptions, no purchase is necessary to enter or win.[11][14][15] As of 2012, $225 million in prizes have been distributed and on average two millionaires have been created each year.[7] The largest prize in the PCH sweepstakes is a $10 million prize.[16] In 1995, Publishers Clearing House began the tradition of announcing winners of this prize just after the superbowl.[20]
• Prizes of $5,000 or more are delivered by the Prize Patrol, which arrives in suits and a marked van to deliver the check . (see Prize Patrol section, below)[6][5]
• Sweepstakes scammers often pose as being from Publishers Clearing House, and ask for money before delivering the prize.[22] According to Publishers Clearing House, unless the Prize Patrol shows up unannounced, any other notification for winning a million dollar prize is a hoax.[23].

Bilbobag (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Sweepstakes

Sweepstakes The Prize Patrol delivering an over-sized check to a sweepstakes winner for $1 million plus $5,000 a week for life Although Publishers Clearing House advertises its sweepstakes along with magazine subscriptions, no purchase is necessary to win. As of 2012, $225 million in prizes have been distributed and on average two millionaires have been created each year. Some of its prizes include a vacation home, car or cash prizes; the largest being a $10 million prize. The Good as Gold prize awards $10,000 to ten individuals that contributed to their community through volunteer work and the "Fast 50s" award gives $50,000 to early entrants. In the Facebook Superfan sweepstakes, prizes are given out based on how many fans the company gets on Facebook. Prizes of $5,000 or more are delivered by the Prize Patrol, which arrives in suits and a marked van, with a camera crew, flowers, balloons and an over-sized mock check to surprise winners. In 1995, Publishers Clearing House began the tradition of announcing winners of its $10 million prize just after the superbowl. Sweepstakes scammers often pose as being from Publishers Clearing House. The company works closely with the authorities and operates a Publishers Clearing House Abuse Team, where scammers can be reported. In 1998, a group of five were convicted for running a scam targeting the elderly, where they posed as Publishers Clearing House employees and asked for money before delivering the prize. According to Publishers Clearing House, unless the Prize Patrol shows up unannounced, any other notification for winning a million dollar prize is a hoax.

Arbitrary break

No problem. Although the durability of content is not a valid argument (I've deleted spam that was up for years), the "Prize Patrol" section is "good enough" and my only intention was to clean our own house of any promotion. How's this? I think this incorporates your feedback, save I kept "Some of its prizes include a vacation home, car or cash prizes" as this gives a general idea of some of the other prizes. CorporateM (Talk) 14:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Question - not taking a position, just asking: If we change last sentence in the Prizes section to quote below from Chris Irving, would we being making PP less promotional? We would still be educating readers about scams, and would still have the PP picture, as well as the PP section.

"If you are contacted by anyone claiming to represent Publishers Clearing House and they request payment of any amount to collect a prize, do not send any money, said Christopher L. Irving, the Senior Director of Consumer Affairs for Publishers Clearing House. You have not heard from the real Publishers Clearing House." Bilbobag (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and inserted the quote here. I prefer to avoid quotes, but many editors use them extensively. Just a matter of editor preference.

The quote borders on "how-to" with this aspect: "do not send money" but not enough to be concerning. I think this would go in the Prizes section where such scams are covered though rather than the Prize Patrol section. Unless you want to move the Scams paragraph to the Prize Patrol section, which would be an equally acceptable spot for it. CorporateM (Talk) 16:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That works. Bilbobag (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Article Flow

CorporateM: What do you think of the following: Take the last paragraph of Products section (Publishers Clearing House sells magazines) and make it the 4th paragraph of the Early History section. Most of the last paragraph of Products section talks about 1993 and selling magazines. Just thought it was a bit better flow.

In reading the Online Development and Products section does it make sense to combine them? If we took the first paragraph from the Products section (Publishers Clearing House is a direct-marketing company) and made it the first paragraph of the Online development section there would be a nice flow sequeing from magazine sales to merchandise sales.

Lastly, I'd suggest combining the following to read: In December 2010, Publishers Clearing House acquired Funtank and its online gaming site Candystand.com.[22] In 2011, Publishers Clearing House promoted a "$5,000 every week for life" sweepstakes in TV ads and the front page of AOL.com.[12][23] The following year the company acquired a mobile marketing company, Liquid Wireless.[24] Publishers Clearing house [insert "now"] operates eight websites, including PCH Search and Win, PCH Lotto, PCH Games, PCH Save and Win, and Candystand.[12][1][26] According to The New York Times, Publishers Clearing House's websites are used to "collect information on Web users, show them advertisements and use the registration information for PCH’s mailing lists."[25][12]

I'd welcome your (and other) thoughts. This uses all the sentences we've agreed upon, but sequences them so that it's a better flow. Bilbobag (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

When something is in the History section, it should therefore be "historical," but most of the content you suggest moving there is both current and (somewhat) timeliness. The exception may be the 1993 data point, but the best way to fix this is to find the most up-to-date source available and add a more recent number.

Perhaps the thinking was that it would be less promotional, as many editors with a COI create huge Products sections and a tiny History section (that's not true here), but actually it's not quite right to move the negative stuff to History either, if it's still true.

The History section should be for history and the Products section should describe their products. Why would we describe their products in the history section? Unless of course it was historical information about the products. CorporateM (Talk) 22:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Understand about the History section and leaving iot history - makes sense. But I think that much of the Online Development and Products section overlap. Think it's a better flow, just a suggestion. Bilbobag (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sweepstakes section

I think (if there are no additional objections), we've worked out a sweepstakes section, which adds some good material and improves the structure, while leaving the Prize Patrol section untouched per Bilbo's comments. Or if there are additional objections, we can keep discussing/improving it.

I would like to request we implement the additional content here or for permission to do so from an impartial editor. CorporateM (Talk) 17:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Could clarify the specific proposed edit, e.g.:

1. Say what would go in. (Example: the hatted "sweepstakes" material just above)
2. Where would it go?
3. What, if anything, would come out / be replaced by it?

Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Request is to a add a "Sweepstakes" section with a "Prizes" sub-section as follows:

Extended content

The Prize Patrol delivering an over-sized check to a sweepstakes winner for $1 million plus $5,000 a week for life Although Publishers Clearing House advertises its sweepstakes along with magazine subscriptions, no purchase is necessary to enter or win. As of 2012, $225 million in prizes have been distributed and on average two millionaires have been created each year. Some of its prizes include a vacation home, car or cash prizes. In 1995, Publishers Clearing House began the tradition of announcing winners of its $10 million prize just after the superbowl. Sweepstakes scammers often pose as being from Publishers Clearing House and say that a cash payment is needed before they can deliver a prize. According to Chris Irving from Publishers Clearing House "If you are contacted by anyone claiming to represent Publishers Clearing House and they request payment of any amount to collect a prize, do not send any money... You have not heard from the real Publishers Clearing House."

Then move the current "Odds of Winning" and "Prize Patrol" sections into sub-sections of "Sweepstakes" by adding an "=" on both sides.CorporateM (Talk) 00:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I'd be happy to put it in on a BRD basis. If anyone feels otherwise, please feel free to revert me. I'd need one or two minor changes for me to be comfortable with it. I'll make those in place. North8000 (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I put it in. One phrase that I'm not yet comfortable with is "and on average two millionaires have been created each year.". Could you check that that is what the source said? Maybe also give a page #? I tried but only the intro is on line. "Create a millionaire" is a further reach than "awarding a million dollar prize".North8000 (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I just took it out. It's sort of anecdotal, like how Gigs removed anecdotes regarding the odds of winning. CorporateM (Talk) 13:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced Contentious Material

I would like to start the controversial material by contesting unsourced/poorly-sourced content. Here's the first one I noticed:

In September 2010 it violated these previous agreements, and paid $3.5 million to settle contempt charges (see "Government Regulation" section below).

This sentence makes some very serious contentious claims that would require a very strong source, however it has no source at all in the Lawsuits section or under Government Regulation. When I do a Google News Archives search[2] all that comes up is a press release and blurbs. In comparison, other more notable lawsuits are covered by The New York Times and the Associated Press.

I would like to request we delete this sentence and that we merge "Government Regulation" with the "Lawsuits" section. CorporateM (Talk) 13:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Corp there is a source in the Government Regulations section - see cite#30 from Chicago Breaking News Sept 9, 2010 which discusses this issue. I also added 2 new sources that use the wordings shown below, which I think is illustrative and should be included, as they discuss PCH compliance to the prior agreements. "The states' recent investigation raised concerns that PCH was not fully complying with the prior agreement" The second source, quoting the CO AG states the following "Then, in 2006, attorneys general in most states notified the company that its practices continued to violate the 2001 settlement, Suthers said. This time, according to Suthers, Publishers Clearing House has agreed to stop suggesting in its consumer mailings that the more consumers spend with the company, the more likely they are to win prizes."

As to the "contempt" wording, I thought we agreed a month ago that it should be removed. Lastly, this section was re-written a little over a year ago by an experienced neutral Wiki editor (Kennfusion), who toned down the section so that it presented a more neutral, yet factual history of PCH's legal issues.Bilbobag (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see it now. ChicagoBreakBusiness says it's authored by journalists at the Chicago Tribune. This is an acceptable source and a couple sentences could be written based on it. I'm presuming these other quotes you are providing are from press releases? I have annotated the press release sources with "Better source needed" templates. These sources are not acceptable here on Wikipedia, because the sources must be "independent from the subject" but in this case they are published by the plaintiff. Having a paragraph and five bullets that are anchored by only a single source and written from the POV of the plaintiff is problematic.

What I would suggest then is we need to re-write just a couple sentences that more accurately reflect the appropriate secondary source. Naturally, anything I author will be open to speculation of slanting, but I can write a proposed version if you like that is more reflective of what's reported in the single secondary source. CorporateM (Talk) 23:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Both other sources are business publications not press releases. These publications report business news in their respective states and are legitimate secondary sources. 67.86.191.179 (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)