Talk:Publishers Clearing House

Third opinion

What is the proper weight and NPOV description for the most recent news item:

(a)"In April 2014, the Senate Special Committee on Aging published a report that said the company's advertising could still be misleading to seniors. In addition, a staff review of consumer complaints against PCH confirmed that many consumers believe the company is still using many of the exact messages previous settlements sought to eliminate. The report concluded that new legislation may be needed to protect consumers from email and online sweepstakes promotions."

(b)"In April 2014, the Senate Special Committee on Aging published a report that said the company's solicitations still "push the limits" of what was agreed upon in prior settlements."

Available sources include:

• Consumer Reports
• TheHill.com
• Primary sources[1][2]

See the full discussion on this issue here for reference (we also swapped some emails). One editor feels a shorter summary is more appropriate, because the limited source material suggests it was not a major historical landmark. The other editor feels it warrants more weight in the article, because it is part of a longer history of similar behavior and controversy.CorporateM (Talk) 22:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion

The whole article is unencyclopedic and concentrates too much on controversies and media and news reports. On that basis I would perfer the shorter version or maybe nothing at all. The article should be about the company and give an overview of major events in its history not mention every controversial event is which it has been involved. Criticicm should, of course, be mentioned but in more general terms. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Martin Hogbin Thanks for your fresh perspective. I think I did not realize how out-of-hand the amount of content on this subject had gotten (it is a genuinely major part of the company's history, but...) Do you think it would be appropriate to combine the Government regulation section with the History/lawsuits section and trim the total length on this subject by about 30-50% to make it more concise? CorporateM (Talk) 01:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM, Third opinion givers do not generally stick around to join in the discusssion because they can be drawn into long disputes. I would suggest looking at Microsoft, which was a featured article (I am not sure why it was demoted) to give some idea of how to handle criticism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok. @user:Bilbobag, this is what I came up with just doing some quick editing down. I think this is generally along the lines of the direction Martin is suggesting (shorter). I also pinged user:John Broughton to see if he was willing to provide an outside opinion on any additional discussion (or if he supports/disagrees with the 3PO). If you are not satisfied with the third opinion or still disagree, we could do a Request for Comment to get input from more editors. Let me know how you'd like to proceed! CorporateM (Talk) 16:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If I were rewriting the article (and I fully agree that it needs major revisions, but I'm not volunteering), I'd reorganize the body of the article into three sections:

• Current products - what the company sells now; no historical information. Pretend the reader has never heard of PCH (say, an Australian), and is thinking of investing in the company. (That the company gets more revenue from merchandise than sweepstakes was a surprise to me; less a surprise, but still quite interesting, is the percentage of revenues from magazine subscriptions that it keeps.)
• Marketing: How the company markets its products: specific online websites, prize patrol, etc. Again, no historical information. [Current section: "Sweepstakes"]
• History - obviously the longest. Move historical information about products and marketing into this section. Split into subsections by era - "Early history", "Competition from American Family Publishers" [1977 to 1999 or so, when AFP when bankrupt], and "2000s", for example.

Putting all the legal matters in the "History" section is, I think, a way to both give them more importance (the history of PCH has, in fact, been mostly about marketing, including excesses) and to reduce, in some cases, the number of words. [For the paragraph that begins "In April 2014 ...", I would personally just keep the first and third sentences, for example.] -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@John Broughton I think having a "Products" and a "Marketing" section is a really common format for consumer companies, however in this case as a marketing company, the company's primary service (historically anyway) is actually marketing, so it's a bit confusing. CorporateM (Talk) 00:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM: The article has a "Products" section, so I used that name. Better names, perhaps, are "Revenues" or "Operations". And if "Operations" is used, there could be separate "Revenues" and "Marketing" subsections. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Corp - I have a major problem with these changes. What started out as a question about the 2014 investigation, and whether it should be 1 sentence or 2, has turned into a complete review of the article. For over a year and a half, you and I (along with input from a number of other editors) banged out, through compromise, what is now the Settlements section. Now, one editor (Mr. Hogpin) gives an opinion, and all the work that we (and others) performed goes out the window! If someone comes to this article seeking info on PCH they should be able to learn about it's legal history - a series of settlements, and then a failure to abide by the settlements, and an apology from PCH. The common thread in these numerous legal actions is that people are being mislead by PCH's tactics. The public should be able to learn what these specific tactics are. And even though PCH signed agreements in 2000-01 to stop certain practices, on at least 3 occasions since then Attorneys General or Congress has seen fit to penalize them or conduct further hearings. Further, these lawsuits in 2000-2001 had a major impact on the way PCH conducted its business. In 2000 it laid off 1/4 of its workforce. If people come to this site, this is information that would be accurate, helpful and beneficial.

Currently we have 14 paragraphs on PCH history, products, sweepstakes and Prize Patrol. We have 6 on lawsuits and settlements - so there is appropriate balance. Lastly, I believe that as a paid rep of PCH, reaching out to editors that you know or have worked with, can appear to be less than objective. I want to be clear - I am not implying, nor should you infer, that I think you are colluding with any editors. We have worked well together for too long for me to believe that. But I think it would be better gather opinions of other editors withou reaching out to ones we may already know.Bilbobag (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bilbo. Discussions sometimes go in different directions depending on where editors take them. The proposed draft is not a re-write, it's the same content just edited down. I went through official 3PO channels to avoid the appearance of WP:CANVASSING (canvassing is when you notify editors you know will support your point of view). If you are not comfortable just rolling with the 3PO, the next step of escalation would be to start a Request for Comment in order to get more editors involved. I would like to request you perform the RfC, to avoid any future accusations of non-neutral wording, canvassing, etc. An RfC can be done by posting a neutral summary as I have done above and adding an RFC template at the top of your post: {{rfc|econ}}. Does that sound ok? Then we'll go with whatever consensus comes out to be, naturally. CorporateM (Talk) 15:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Corp: First, I don't think you were canvassing, but when you said you were going to "ping" person X, I thought that could give the wrong impression. I'm also not accusing you "of non-neutral wording, canvassing, etc." In fact I think we're closer than we were before. Looking at what you wrote, I propose the following modifications:

To your 3rd para I would add the sentence "Publishers Clearing House apologized in the settlement for its deceptive sweepstakes promotions and said it would contact customers who had spent more than $1,000 on merchandise the prior year".[43] Since this was a significant requirement in the Settlement I believe it needs to be included.

In your 4th para, with regard to the 2010 Settlement I would say: "In 2010 Publishers Clearing House paid $3.5 million to the Attorneys General of 32 states and the District of Columbia to settle possible contempt charges that it had violated the terms of the 2001 agreement. The company denied wrongdoing, but agreed to work with both an ombudsperson and a compliance counsel who would review its mailings quarterly".[19][20][21] I think it's important to let the audience know that the settlement was about "possible contempt charges."

For the last para about the 2014 investigation, I would use John Broughton's suggestion and use the 1st and 3rd sentences only – note, I pared down the 1st sentence: "In April 2014, a Senate Special Committee on Aging conducted an investigation about whether PCH solicitations were continuing to mislead consumers by giving the impression that they won, are close to winning, or that buying products/subscriptions increases the chance of winning. The report concluded that new legislation may be needed to protect consumers from email and online sweepstakes promotions."

Lastly, I'm not married to this, and am NOT proposing that we use this in place of text, but rather to make it easier for the reader to understand the regulatory history, but here's a table that might be helpful.

Year	Settlement	Reason
1994	$490,000	Settlement with 14 States regarding deceptive advertising allegations. PCH agrees to define terms like "finalist" and reveal the chances of winning
1999	$30 million	National Settlement with National Association of Attorneys General
2000	$18 million	Settlement with Attorneys General of 24 states after mailings that used mock personalized checks and said "You are a winner!"
2001	$34 million	Settlement with Attorneys General of 25 states. PCH apolgizes for its deceptive sweepstakes promotions.
2007		PCH reaches agreement with Iowa Attorney General to pay a $2,500 penalty each time it mails to someone who has been removed from its mailing list and to contact customers over 65 that are spending more than $500 a quarter
2010	$3.5 million	Settlement of possible contempt charges for violations of previous agreements with Attorneys General of 32 states. PCH agrees to work with both an ombudsperson and a compliance counsel who would review its mailings quarterly
2014		Senate Investigation Your thoughts? Bilbobag (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)