Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Read those disclaimers
I don't watch too many commercials but don't you just hate it when they all end with disclaimers. You can take this medication unless you have been diagnosed for diabetes, hypertension, or numerous other conditions. I wonder how many people took their drug not knowing if they had hypertension or diabetes? I guess a doctor's prescription for that drug would require a test for diabetes or hypertension. I hope it does.
I received an e-mail yesterday from ATT informing me, that since I was such a good customer, they were going to let me have the brand-new Blackberry Torch for a low of price of $49.95.I was not fooled by the email flattery,I was just on the list. What the hell,I'm retired ,so I decided to go to the main branch to check it out. The salesman said everything was a go until I told him that I was ineligible for an upgrade. I then showed him the e-mail. His smile changed to a disappointed one; as he informed me that the phone would be in the range of $400 or more. It only cost me the trip to ATT, but why can't we just have the disclaimer in bold print: this offer is for new customers or those wanting to use their upgrade? I should have known better because companies no longer reward their longtime customers. Everything is computerized such as your shopping preferences, contract, and complaints, but customer loyalty is seldom recognized.
Do you really believe all those ads about extra strength, 20% more and extra light? I'm a bit of a skeptic, but I got that way running an old Hancock Service station that advertised about five blends of gasoline, but I only had one fuel nozzle with a selector switch on the pump. It was supposed to blend premium and unleaded to the customer's desire. As long as I had the station, I only used premium and unleaded because no one ever asked for the other blends. I guess it's possible to blend the different grades, but it never should have been a selling point.
It just angers me on how companies are set up to take advantage of one’s vulnerability. Last week I was watching an episode of PBS's "Need to Know" where a company "Structured Investments Co.” offered “pension buyouts.” Under these “buyouts,” the company gives an individual an immediate lump sum of cash in exchange for some part of that person’s future pension payments. Although federal law prohibits members of the military from “assigning” their pension to any other parties. This company argued that it was in compliance because it's just a loan. This was a story of a story of Louis Kroot, a former Navy medic, who entered into a deal with this company to help pay off his family’s medical and tax bills. The company gave Lou roughly $92,000 in cash, and in exchange, Lou promised to give the company roughly 95 months of his Navy pension, which works out to over $240,000.
Will we ever go back to the truth upfront without a need for disclaimers?
Posted by Mike at 3:07 PM