Jump to content

Talk:DirectBuy

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

DirectBuy Consumer Complaints Section

[edit]

The Wikipedia is not a tool for companies to advertise their services. It is intended to provide all relevant and true information about the company. There have been many complaints about the company and some organizations are involved in investigating DirectBuy's misleading representations and deceptive practices.

How much truth is in there on the infomercialscams.com site that states that ICA has reviewed DirectBuy. Which ICA reviewed DirectBuy? And what is the CPP seal? I cannot find this seal on any other site. Can anyone give this statement validation? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.119.26 (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complaints

[edit]

While I agree that there should be a complaints section, it should be written from a neutral point of view (as hard as that may seem). Therefore, I have restored the complaints section and will be rewriting it as to contain links backing the statements. To whomever is removing it: I am watching this page and will change it back instantly. While I agree with you that Wikipedia is not made for bashing companies, it is made for presenting the two sides of every coin. Cmcfarland 06:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following statement is untrue... "all purchased items incur a processing and shipping fee, which is not included in the original price quote. In many cases, these additional costs usually bring the total price to that above what can usually be found at many traditional retailers."

At a minimum it should be changed to the following... "While DirectBuy prices have been proven to be lower than some of their competitors' prices, some purchased items incur a handling fee, which is not included in the original price quote."

Additionally, the following should be deleted unless it can be documented and proven... "In many cases, these additional costs usually bring the total price to that above what can usually be found at many traditional retailers." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.228.159.59 (talk) -- azumanga 03:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re factored the Complaints section to remove items cited only from informercials.com and inserted Criticism section including information from Consumer Reports and WCBS TV. [1] Here is the prior complaints section:

Many customers have complained that they have been deceived by DirectBuy into signing expensive contracts for the privilege of purchasing goods supplied by the company. A three-year membership usually costs about $5,000, with yearly fees in the hundreds layered on top of that. Furthermore, potential members are told at the information sessions that unless they commit to it right then and there, they will be ineligible for membership for another seven years. While DirectBuy prices have been proven to be lower than some of their competitors' prices, all purchased items incur a processing and shipping fee, which is not included in the original price quote. In many cases, these additional costs usually bring the total price to that above what can usually be found at many traditional retailers.

The above information may be reinserted if the source(s) are clearly attributed. regards, --guyzero | talk 23:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for DirectBuy's policy that one may not come back later to purchase a DirectBuy membership, but must make a decision on the spot, or presumably be barred for some extended period of time or forever from joining DirectBuy:
http://web.archive.org/web/20071112050538/http://www.directbuyarticles.com/directbuy-frequently-asked-questions/
https://web.archive.org/web/20021212122854/http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/services/ucc/index2.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20040717204401/http://wiltononline.com/wilton/articles/?id=3553&c=11
http://web.archive.org/web/20071011023919/http://blogs.consumerreports.org/home/2007/09/with-directbu-1.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20080321173658/http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/030308/bus_252574101.shtml
http://web.archive.org/web/20071011220726/http://wcbstv.com/seenat11/DirectBuy.BJ.s.2.235142.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20090717221230/http://blogs.courant.com/george_gombossy/2008/05/directbuy-enter-with-eyes-wide.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20080516142030/http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou080502_jj_directbuy.bfcb335e.html
http://html.newsnet5.com/news/specialassignment/news-specialassignment-20000211-185155.html
"Savings at DirectBuy can be costly", azcentral.com, retrieved 9/29/2007
"Dollars & Sense: DirectBuy confusion", startribune.com, retrieved 3/26/2005
"Bargain club turns out to be anything but", canada.com (Financial Post), retrieved 6/12/2006
Some of these articles just say that the decision must be made on the spot, some say you will never be allowed to join if you don't sign up that day, and some say you won't be allowed to join for 7 years. DirectBuy's own FAQ merely states that you must sign up at the Open House you attend. Which of these are suitable sources to cite for this purpose? Fabrickator (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have attended one of the DirectBuy sales pitches. They use a number of fallacies in their presentation. Would the write up of an analysis of what they're doing to people's heads have a place in "complaints", or should I create a separate heading? (I'm not signing to keep anonymity; they make me nervous) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.48.158 (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can only write was has been attributed by reliable sources. In other words, if Newsweek publishes something about DirectBuy sales pitches, we can include that information. We cannot write stuff that does is not verifiable by reliable sources. We can't write about our own experiences as this crosses into original research. regards, --guyzero | talk 19:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

[edit]

"In many cases, these additional costs usually bring" - i guess the "usually" should be removed from that sentence, as "in many cases" and "usually" are conflicting terms (not meaning the same, also redundant) -- 80.139.31.173 00:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requested

[edit]

Added to Streisand_effect#Notable_cases:

In an attempt to suppress the Streisand effect, marketing company DirectBuy copyrighted a cease and desist letter to a critic and threatened legal actions against copyright infringement should the document be revealed publicly. The letter was promptly posted by its recipient, and numerous legal defenses against copyright infringment action have been proposed and posted by various parties. In effect, the attempt to supress the Striesand Effect has produced exactly the opposite of the result desired by the assertor.[18]

This should be referenced from the DirectBuy article - (appropriate text is not here provided) - Leonard G. 03:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, unless I'm wrong, this page is not protected. There should be no problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Here's some info on DirectBuy that can add credibility to the page:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/071213/aqth075.html?.v=32 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.206.104 (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the yahoo article is gone. Perhaps it was a reference to this press release: http://www.pr.com/press-release/64277 Fabrickator (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Citations

[edit]

I don't think these two statements require citations:

DirectBuy is headquartered in Merrillville, Indiana with more than 145 showrooms across the United States and Canada.[1]

United Consumers Club (UCC) remained the holding company for DirectBuy until December 19, 2007[2]

Also, both citations point to direct buy website and may be COI and/or attempts at link spamming.

69.68.125.6 (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya. It's OK to have self-pub cites for non-controversial statements (such as the location and number of franchises and the ownership history of the company.) We have had multiple COI edits to this article, so I definitely understand your concern. The use of the citations in these two instances you mention show that editors have fact-checked these statements by using DB-published information. (I believe I added these cites after a COI cleanup several months ago.) For example, we could use DB's website to cite the name of the president of the company, etc. kind regards, --guyzero | talk 00:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Directbuy Sued!

[edit]

DirectBuy Sued! A federal lawsuit has been filed in U.S. District Court in Hartford against the national high-end DirectBuy franchise operation, accusing it of falsely telling prospective clients that they are getting furniture, appliances and other household products at manufacturer prices. In a lawsuit filed by attorney Seth R. Klein of Hartford, DirectBuy is accused of hiding the fact that DirectBuy receives rebates from manufacturers which are not directly passed on to their members, who pay as much as $7,000 to join for two or three years. The lawsuit, which seeks to be certified as a class action representing thousands of present and former members of the more than 100 franchises, was filed earlier this month. It follows a column on DirectBuy that disclosed the rebates, which are kept secret from its members and from those it entices to join through high pressure sales techniques. DirectBuy officials had no comment on the suit but had said earlier that it uses the millions of dollars it received in rebates to the benefit of its members. We will see what a jury has to say about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.80.74.66 (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Complaints--

Deceptive Online Advertising section

[edit]

Is this verifiable? If this advertising is related to DirectBuy, this section needs a citation linking these third party websites to DirectBuy. If DirectBuy is not associated with these sites, this section belongs on a separate wikipedia page about these sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.123.113 (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No sources are included so I've removed this section per WP:V. thanks! --guyzero | talk 00:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the 3 web sites in question (consumerreviews.org, savvyconsumer.com, and userbuzz.com,) all share certain common characteristics. This includes the fact that none of these sites disclose who owns or controls the web site, and they all have private domain registrations. Each site's home page has a similar search form, and on the two sites where the search form is operational, the search form leads to a page about DirectBuy regardless of the search term entered (the home page on the 3rd site is evidently broken, but the comments on the page are evidently supposed to be about DirectBuy). There are no pages present on any of these sites about any business other than DirectBuy, a fact which can be verified by a google search. Additionally, the privacy policy of each of these web site links to the same page on the web site directbuy-freepass.com. It's a reasonable inference that these sites are either directly controlled by DirectBuy, or that DirectBuy is compensating the operators of these web sites, in spite of the fact that they are misrepresenting themselves as sources of independent information about DirectBuy.Fabrickator (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but we require an independent 3rd party reliable source to make these statements in order for it to be included per WP policy. --guyzero | talk 17:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer Reports on Direct Buy

[edit]

Here's an important link to the venerated Consumer Reports site on Direct Buy. Please read the comments section as well. http://blogs.consumerreports.org/home/2007/09/with-directbu-1.html Ruth E (talk)

Use of Self-Published Sources

[edit]

There are a number of statements in the introductory section of the article which are supported by self-published citations that arguably are unduly self-serving, which would be in violation of the verifiability policy.

Such statements may be accurate yet still be unduly self-serving. For instance, DirectBuy may well be the "largest franchiser of members-only consumer buying centers", but this suggests that they have a prominent role in the marketplace. Where they rank in relation to other "consumer buying center" operations, whether or not franchise-based, might suggest that they have a comparatively small market share.

Additionally, parts of the introductory section read like an infomercial, such as the last two sentences of the second paragraph. Even with the disclaimer that these are DirectBuy's claims, these statements still seem to be very self-serving. Fabrickator (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The goal in general is WP:V and WP:NPOV ... please be bold and make the changes you think will bring us closer to adhering to those policies. In the case of non-controversial claims ("they sell cabinets"), it's ok to use self-published sources, but in the case of disputable claims ("they are the best distributer of cabinets"), we'd need a source or at least a {{fact}} type tag. thank you! --guyzero | talk 22:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infomercialscams.com and infomercialblog.com changed

[edit]

With respect to that article, it seems that what you are saying is that if this information had appeared, say, in the New York Times, it would have been considered verifiable and therefore would have been included. But if I had provided the New York Times as a source, how would you verify that my sourcing was accurate? Or if, instead of footnoting the source, I included a statement such as "According to the New York Times, March 1, 2008, page 17, column 2, ...", would that be in any way different?

I believe that in any reasonable sense of the term, my information is verifiable because you only need to follow the links to see that it is correct. The effort required to do that is no greater, and probably less, than the effort required to verify a citation of a published source. The rules on "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" would also seem applicable here, as would the use of electronic media as sources. What could be a more reliable source on the content of a website than the website itself?

Finally, the article as it stands creates the misleading impression that unfavorable information about DirectBuy can be found on infomercialscams.com. Thanks to the apparent tampering with the site, that is no longer the case.

I know it's bad form to get into a revision war and I have no intention of doing that. But I would appeal to you to reverse your decision about removing my edit.

My apologies if posting this is not the correct way to respond to your removal of my edit.

Paul Abrahams (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Paul! No apologies are necessary at all, it was totally fine to post the note above on my talkpage, but I've moved it to the article talkpage as I agree that it appears something shady has happened and I'd like to record it into this article's talkpage history.
I think that the deduction necessary to know that infomercialscams.com has been compromised by looking at it may fall under the category of WP:Original Research - but I agree that it certainly eyebrow raising to say the least to see DirectBuy advertising on that website now, along with all of the original complaints having seemingly been replaced by glowing reviews.
Also of interest is that the infomercialblog.com citation (which contained information about the original cease and desist letter) now redirects to the infomercialscams.com homepage, so we'll have to see if we can find an cached copy of the original page to fix the link.
I'm going to remove the infomercialscams.com link from the EL section as it no longer contains further information for the reader with regards to this subject. Despite whatever weird changes have happened at some of these blogs, the Cease and Desist Controversy section in the article is still adequately sourced and informative to the reader.
But yeah, I believe in order to mention that infomercialscams.com appears to be "updated" is if a reliable 3rd party (not necessarily the NYTimes) makes this deduction and prints it which will make the information WP:Verifiable. Please let me know if you disagree - hopefully other editors will weigh in here, or if none do, we can ask for more guidance at a noticeboard. thanks and regards, --guyzero | talk 22:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The conversation above between me and Guyzero appears unmoored without seeing the text that I attempted to add to the article:

- It should be noted that a search on DirectBuy at the infomercialscams.com website turns up a repeated list of favorable comments, with hardly any unfavorable comments and no comments that mention the membership fee of over $4000. This is a strong indication that the infomercialscams.com site has been tampered with. A further indication is that an attempt to enter a comment returns a 505 (Method Not Implemented) error.

I still believe that it's a stretch to call this information original research, or research at all, since it is as easily verified as any citation. I would like to see that paragraph restored to the article; the fact that something's fishy about the website provides additional rationale for doing that. However, I now see that my addition would more appropriately be a footnote than part of the main text.

The link at the end of the article to informercialscams.com should be removed, but the textual reference within the article should include such a link.

Paul Abrahams (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, thank you for adding the text that we are referring to. I've requested a third opinion here [2] so hopefully we'll get some additional input on whether these statements can be included without a RS or perhaps they can be included with just a [citation needed] tag? thank you and regards, --guyzero | talk 17:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I noticed that a blogger has picked up on this. I do not know if this would be an adequate source: [3] ...? thanks again, --guyzero | talk 17:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion So, if I understand the crux of the matter correctly, the question is whether the statement "This is a strong indication that the infomercialscams.com site has been tampered with" can be included without sourcing? It seems to me that the statement is potentially controversial, and at least needs a [citation needed] tag, no matter how good we may think the evidence is. And ideally, it needs a proper source. Wikipedia is a tertiary source; if it hasn't been published elsewhere, and its even potentially in the slightest bit controversial, we at least need to draw attention to the fact that it's uncited. It cuts the other way, of course - since we have good reason to suppose that infomercialscams.com is not currently a reliable source itself, we can't use it as evidence of anything. Finally, blogs are generally not acceptable as reliable sources. Anaxial (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of handling the informercialscams.com site reference

[edit]

Here's another way of putting in that information::

It should be noted that a search on DirectBuy at the infomercialscams.com website now turns up a repeated list of favorable comments, with hardly any unfavorable comments and no comments that mention the membership fee of over $4000. Furthermore, an attempt to enter a new comment returns a 505 (Method Not Implemented) error.

That gets rid of the controversial statement about tampering and is strictly factual and verifiable. The word "now" implies the likelihood of tampering but is nonetheless objectively applicable.

If this formulation is acceptable, I would tune up the edit slightly to make this information into a footnote and attach the footnote to the first mention of informercialscams.com.

Paul Abrahams (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me on that front. That, as you say, would be verifiable. Anaxial (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. I suggest also saying that the complaints previously referenced with regards to the cease and desist letter are no longer visible on the page. DB's lawyers thoughtfully provided a list of the complaints they were protesting in their C&D letter. All of this might be OK for article text rather than just footnoting, but I'll await Paul's implemention and we can tune it up together. Thank you to Anaxial for the 3O. regards, --guyzero | talk 21:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good edit: [4] thank you, Paul Abrahams! --guyzero | talk 06:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: Infomercialscams.com, InfomercialRatings.com, and InfomercialBlog.com no longer exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.9.202.3 (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that InfomercialScams.com is no longer live, this paragraph is no longer relevant/verifiable:

The complaints referred to by the cease and desist letter are no longer visible on the infomercialscams.com website. A search on DirectBuy at that website now yields many copies of a single list of favorable comments, with hardly any unfavorable comments and no comments that mention the membership fee of over $4000. Furthermore, any attempt to enter a new comment returns a 505 (Method Not Implemented) error.

Criticism

[edit]

The statement that "customers cannot cancel, return or terminate their memberships" is not true. This needs to be cited. Customer can cancel and return their orders with manufacturer approval. Also, the option to renew the membership every year is completely to the discretions of the member. I changed this to reflect this information. If you'd like it to remain, please give a good reason. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.55.180.50 (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information in that paragraph is cited by the Consumer Reports article (which speaks to the specific text about not being able to cancel orders) and the WCBS-TV article. If you have another RS (even one from DirectBuy) that shows something different, please add it to the article. Until then, since the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, I've restored the previous, verifiable text. thanks, --guyzero | talk 18:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Website Manipulation

[edit]

Infomercialscams.com isn't the only website that DirectBuy has managed to have changed so as to mitigate the potential damage to its reputation. Sometime around July 2009, DirectBuy began participating in the "Corpoate Advocacy Program" of the Ripoff Report website.

While this does not seem to have resulted in the removal of any complaints, each DirectBuy complaint page now contains a paragraph asserting that consumers can trust DirectBuy, followed by a lengthy statement (around 750 words) explaining how this determination was reached and otherwise trying to put DirectBuy in a good light. The original complaint as submitted follows this, but it seems likely that this has the intended effect of blunting the complaint, both by contradicting the validity of the complaint and by making the complaint substantially harder to find on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrickator (talk • contribs) 01:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still an advertisement?

[edit]

Ya know, when I first clicked on the link for this article I said "'This article appears to be written like an advertisement' in 3... 2... 1..." But is that relevant anymore? It all seems to be what they don't want you to know. 99.224.12.174 (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's sufficient that there is some content that suggests that not everybody is thrilled with DirectBuy, though don't interpret this to mean that I think the page must become a diatribe against DirectBuy to remove the "advertisement" notice.

There's plenty of stuff on this page that's self-promotional, things that objectively speaking, an unbiased party would recognize as making it sound like something positive is said about DirectBuy, but which is actually irrelevant, and therefore makes the page ad-like.

Going off on a slight tangent for a bit, this page has presented a challenge with regard to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, the "threshold for inclusion" being stated as verifiability, not truth, yet verifiable truth about DirectBuy tends to come from a biased source, i.e. DirectBuy.

The point is that not only does the current page continue to have non-objective parts, but that it's really difficult to abide by the Wikipedia guidelines and at the same time present a "fair and balanced" picture of Direct Buy. Fabrickator (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it was a diatribe, it couldn't be done to a more undeserving, upright buncha guys.
Can you give examples of promotional material? 99.224.12.174 (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bait-and-switch

[edit]

I just got hit by these guys for a bait-and-switch. I wasn't terribly surprised--I know what these sharks are like--but I don't remember hearing about this particular tactic and the article doesn't mention anything. Is there any data on this? If this is done as often as I think it is, it should probably be included. AngusCA (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia verifiability policy doesn't allow for content based on personal knowledge. The fact that something may seem to be a well-known fact doesn't substitute for this, notwithstanding the Wikipedia Ignore all rules policy. Note also that the verifiability policy policy doesn't apply to "talk" pages. Fabrickator (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I didn't get into my personal testimony: I didn't think it was usable. However, I think that there is something usable out there, I just don't know what, and I think it is missed by this article. AngusCA (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You'll notice that most of the information about DirectBuy's practices come from a single article. It's pretty easy to find information about DirectBuy, but it's much harder to find sources that meet the Wikipedia criteria. The press releases from the West Virginia AG mention "bait and switch" but don't seem to make clear what they feel is specifically bait and switch. Perhaps the AG's statement is based on the failure to mention a membership fee, or maybe the AG is challenging the advertising promises of wholesale prices. I've also seen bait and switch complaints that the incentive gifts aren't all that they promise. Since you know what practice you feel is bait and switch, you'd be in the best position to find a source that can be used to verify this practice, and if you can find a good source, you are certainly encouraged to incorporate this into the DirectBuy article. Fabrickator (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, alright... I'm not too good w/knowing what sources are appropriate myself. I have as much Google as you do, but I get the feeling that you don't feel the hits there are compatible. I see a lot of consumer protection sites and that talk of legal action, but not much else. Even Google's News search turns up nothing. The only esoteric information I have is an exposé on saw on TV. AngusCA (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on DirectBuy which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.articlesbase.com/business-ideas-articles/directbuy-locations-in-vancouver-and-coquitlam-win-consumers-choice-award-for-kitchen-and-bathroom-design-502733.html
    Triggered by \barticles(?:base|vana)\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on DirectBuy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bankruptcy filing (November 2016)

[edit]

The following cases for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection were filed by DirectBuy businesses on November 1, 2016:

case number debtor party
16-12435-CSS DirectBuy Holdings, Inc.
16-12436-CSS United Consumers Club, Incorporated
16-12437-CSS DirectBuy, Inc.
16-12438-CSS Beta Finance Company, Inc.
16-12439-CSS UCC Distribution, Inc.
16-12440-CSS U.C.C. Trading Corporation
16-12441-CSS National Management Corporation
16-12442-CSS UCC of Canada, Inc
[edit]

Are we better off with or without the "awards" section?

[edit]

This revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DirectBuy&oldid=764025762 deleted the "awards and partnerships" section that had been present in this revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DirectBuy&oldid=762117395.

It was removed on the grounds that it "was an advertisement".

Without considering "Wikipedia policy", I want to consider what is for the good of the Wikipedia audience (and presumably for Wikipedia itself).

My perspective is that of a cynic. I am cynical of the claims made by DirectBuy as to the savings and benefits they promise.

On the one hand, including this section may be construed by some to mean that these things are significant. On the other hand, they may simply be viewed as fact, with the reader left to determine their true significance.

In my ideal world, they would be listed in the article and there would be commentary explaining why they're NOT significant, though that would likely be considered to present a non-neutral view.

That said, I suggest that it's better to leave them in the article than to omit them. Omitting them gives DirectBuy a better claim to the effect that the article is biased, as well as affording DirecdBuy the opportunity to "spring" the information about these awards on prospects (i.e. those prospects who have read the Wikipedia article), while including them provides the reader with a better opportunity to evaluate whether such awards should influence a decision of whether or not to join DirectBuy.

Given the state of DirectBuy (currently in bankruptcy proceedings), this may be pretty much moot, but nevertheless it's an interesting question that might apply to Wikipedia articles on other businesses. I'd like to hear what others think. Fabrickator (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

disappearing membership prices

[edit]

@Bernie44: From the DirectBuy home page, if I click on the "membership" link at the top of the page, it takes me to the membership pricing page. I can scroll down to view the "yearly" and monthly" pricing schemes. However, depending on the browser I'm using, the pricing information disappears in a couple of seconds, replaced by a form stating that I need to call them at 844-733-4775 or else provide my contact information in order to "view" membership pricing options.

Quite irksome. What is up with that? Fabrickator (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Not sure why it is that way. When I click on it I see some text for a split second and then it goes to the form to call about pricing. This recent article does give current rates (toward the end of the article).--Bernie44 (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article you cited provides the rates as "about $1,000 for the first year and $298 every year after" ... but the "official" page shows the "about $1,000" as the initiation fee, while the "approximately $298" annual fee appears to be a discounted rate (i.e. perhaps only good for the first year, who can say?). So that's two material differences. But more to the point, being secretive about membership pricing has historically been a point of contention with DirectBuy. However, the problem with disappearing prices at least involves a technical issue, and I was hoping you would be able to alert DirectBuy to this problem, as well as get an explanation from them as to their intention, so that the article can accurately address whether secretive pricing remains an issue. Aa an aside, I suggest making the effort to always put something meaningful in the "edit summary", even though it may be "merely" a talk page. Fabrickator (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure, it seems to me the company doesn't want to advertise their rates on their site, will see if I can find out more. In the meantime, I noted on the page that the company must be contacted to provide exact rates.--Bernie44 (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will just observe that, notwithstanding any preference DirectBuy may have not to disseminate their pricing, this is not going to prevent previously-published pricing information from being included in the Wikipedia article. Fabrickator (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - as you can see there is previously-published pricing info on the current incarnation of the Wikipedia page, to give a sense of their pricing over the years.--Bernie44 (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GreenSky Loan Program

[edit]

Mentioning this here as something that should probably be incorporated into the main article.

DirectBuy has a page encouraging the use of its "GreenSky Loan Program", allowing U.S. members to finance their purchases, with interest fees waived if paid off in full within the 12-month promotional period. Here are the terms as stated at https://www.directbuy.com/services/greensky/:

12 Months Deferred Interest: Plan 4124 - No Interest if Paid in Full within 12 months. Subject to credit approval. Minimum monthly payments required during the promotional period. Making minimum monthly payments during the promotional period will not pay off the entire principal balance. Interest is billed during the promotional period, but all interest is waived if the purchase amount is paid in full before the expiration of the promotional period. Recommended payment amount assumes loan balance is paid in full before the expiration of the promotional period. Monthly payment amounts assume only the minimum monthly payment is made each month. Fixed APR of 29.99% for 48 months. For each $1,000 financed, 12 payments of $24.99 followed by 36 amortized payments of $42.45.

Calculating using the payment terms indicated above, of 12 payments of $24.99 plus 36 payments of $42.45, this adds up to $828 in interest charges per $1,000 financed (note that the first 12 payments of $24.99 each add up to $299.88, which is to say, the first year's interest charges). In other words, assuming the full amount of the purchase if financed for the full 48-month period, this financing plan will add over 82% to the cost of the purchase. It's a little counter-intuitive that people using DirectBuy in order to get a good deal on their purchases would be interested in such a pricey financing plan. If customers are taking DirectBuy up on this offer (and not paying it off in full during the first 12 months), then maybe they're not as smart as they think they are. Fabrickator (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DirectBuy&oldid=1206980275"