Talk:Publishers Clearing House/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 3 years, all the unsigned changes (except 1 or 2) come from Dynamic IP addresses (skip down 4 paragraphs for detail).

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 17 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 these modifications/deletions (as well as the above NPV comment) are unsigned, and that 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 the January-February timeframe, which just happens to be prior to PCH's sweepstakes 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)

Bilbobag - This article clearly is unbalanced. Please review the NPOV guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Pay close attention to the section on balance. Nobody disagrees with you that the purpose of Wikipedia is not a place for Publishers Clearing House to market their brand. That said, it is important that Wikipedia serves the purpose to inform people who are looking for information about the company. In order for that to happen, we must be careful as we curate these pages. For example, you are wrong about American Family Publishers. In October, they were actually open for business. They closed in November: http://www.americanfamily.com/lp/closing/faq.html As for why you insisted on removing that and the Ed McMahon part is beyond me, as AFP has been trying to compete with PCH, and if you ask anyone about PCH, they will talk about Ed McMahaon. So how can we not have the section that talks about how Ed was never affiliated with PCH?

All of that government regulation stuff should be there as you said. You are also saying though that I tried to change it, I did not. But now that you bring it up, if you think a company that went out of business 2 months ago was so far in the past that it should not be included as a competitor, then why have any of the government regulation stuff from 10 years ago? Why not just the most recent agreement? And do we need all the details there? Why not just a short statement that quickly summarizes in one paragraph? That would help the article be more balanced.

Remember, although this should not be a marketing piece about a company, neither should it be your personal battleground against a company.

Lastly, please note that there is no requirement that I have a Wikipedia account or Log In to edit. That is purposeful. If you want to see conspiracy in that, that is about you, not about anonymous editors. The very fact that you run IP addresses to hunt down editors is explicitly against the spirit of Wikipedia. 64.131.157.155 (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

To User 64.131.157.155: 1) User 64.131.157.155 Comment: "you are wrong about American Family Publishers. In October, they were actually open for business. They closed in November: http://www.americanfamily.com/lp/closing/faq.html" Reply: Americanfamily.com is not American Family Publishers - it's a different company. AFP has been out of business for over 10 years as noted on Wikipedia

2) User 64.131.157.155 Comment: "All of that government regulation stuff should be there as you said. You are also saying though that I tried to change it, I did not." Reply: At no point did I ever say you tried to change the Regulation section.

3) User 64.131.157.155 Comment: "why have any of the government regulation stuff from 10 years ago? Why not just the most recent agreement?" Reply: I could be wrong, but it appears that you're contradicting yourself. In the paragraph above you state "All of that government regulation stuff should be there as you said." Then you say "Why not just the most recent agreement."

The first section of this article is "History". It is followed by a section "Online Development". The History section goes back 60 years; the Online Development section goes back to 1999. These sections discuss events that shaped PCH. In like manner, the Regulation section goes back to 1994 and discusses items that shaped PCH. To use your words "it is important that Wikipedia serves the purpose to inform people who are looking for information about the company". Readers (especially those contemplating entering a PCH sweepstakes) should be able to become informed of PCH's on-going failure to comply with sweepstakes laws and regulations, the specific aspects of sweepstakes regulations that PCH was in violation of, and their failure to abide by the 2001 settlements which resulted in the 2010 contempt settlement and fines.

Further, the Governmental settlements and multi-million dollar fines were major news stories that received national press and TV coverage - this cannot be said for such items as "PCH acquires Arkadium", though I believe that the purchase of these companies by PCH is relevant and should be included.

4) User 64.131.157.155 Comment: "The very fact that you run IP addresses to hunt down editors is explicitly against the spirit of Wikipedia." Reply: The only reason I did that is to show that there is a consistent pattern of changes/deletions during the December/January time period. These changes are always unsigned, and either come from locations in proximity ot PCH HQ, are removed by Wiki as possible vandalism, or come from PCH vendors. See the "No Sources" section of this Talk page to see further examples of this behaviour going back to 2008. I believe that these numerous attempts are what is "explicitly against the spirit of Wikipedia"

5) User 64.131.157.155 Comment: "although this should not be a marketing piece about a company, neither should it be your personal battleground against a company." Reply: I agree with your statement that this should not be a personal battleground. I do not view it as such. Rather, as an editor, I along with others, do work to keep it balanced and prevent it from becoming a PCH marketing brochure. As one user stated in the "No Sources" section "“This article needs to be rewritten so that it isn't a company puff piece."

The attempts at this are at times blatant, as in 2 sections on this Talk page - "Prize Patrol as proposed by LVC on behalf of Publishers Clearing House" and "Changes to Online Development section as proposed by LVC on behalf of Publishers Clearing House". LVC, to its credit, added that “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.

Some are far more subtle, such as User 216.255.103.250, who has written most of the copy for an article on Christopher Irving, an Officer of PCH. This user has made numerous attempts to turn this article into a PCH marketing page, the most recent being a January 4, 2012 attempt to add PCH promo copy. As I've previously stated, these examples, in addition to the others I've given, are what I believe is "explicitly against the spirit of Wikipedia"

6) User 64.131.157.155 Comment: "This article clearly is unbalanced. Please review the NPOV guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view" Reply: A number of editors have revised this page for the express purpose of establishing a NPV. I have abided by those changes.

Further, three of the basic tenets of Wiki's NPV are:

• "Avoid stating opinion as fact." Everything I've added is uncontested and factual. What I have deleted is opinion and contested facts.
• "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." I have avoided this and worked to see that this is followed. It is for this reason I oppose stating that a company called "americanfamily.com" is one and the same as "American Family Publishers".
• "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view."

Your feeling about an unbalanced POV seems to hinge on the Regulation section. This article uses the exact language found in the Settlements or used by the various State's Attorneys General. I believe that the "supermajority" of Wiki readers would want to be made aware of PCH's 17 year history of being found in violation of advertising or sweepstakes laws and regulations, specifically "misrepresentation" and "misleading consumers", and the specific items for which they were found in violation.

Bilbobag (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Draft

I'm here on Publishers Clearing House's behalf and would like to help improve the article. I have spent an immense amount of time working with Publishers Clearing House to offer some high quality, neutral content for Wikipedia's consideration, which includes pertinent details regarding lawsuits and other controversies. I've started a draft of the article at:

• User:CorporateM/Publishers Clearing House

Happy to go through it section-by-section or whatever is most convenient for the editor willing to consider our work. I believe this would substantially improve the quality and neutrality of the article. CorporateM (Talk) 16:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I have read your draft article. From a very high level, here are my comments: 1) It's commendable that you are forthcoming in saying that you are doing this on Publishers Clearing House's behalf. That has not always been the case. Kudos.

2) Having said that, and I say the following with all due respsect, that fact means that you would be likely to make changes that would be beneficial to PCH. Thus the updates would not be from a neutral point of view (NPOV) - especially since they are paying you. Again, this is not meant to be argumentative - quite the opposite. But logically, factually and practically, changes suggested by someone who is being paid by PCH cannot be considered objective.

3) Other comments about your page:

- There seems to be an awful lot written about American Family Publishers. This seems to 
  implicate AFP as a cause for many of PCH's problems
- The current page has a concise factual 7 paragraphs devoted to PCH's move into Online 
  marketing. The "Products" page you suggest, combined with the "Reinvention" page and the 
  listing of web addresses for 8 PCH websites, turns this into a promotional page for PCH and its 
  marketing dep't. This has been one of the key issues in the History of this page.
- The "Lawsuits" page while factual, omits certain key points that readers of the page would 
  likely want to know/be aware of. Some examples:
  > American Familiy's legal issues had nothing to do with PCH being charged. They were separate 
    suits. While not saying this was your intent, a reader could infer that PCH was sued only/ 
    primarily because of AFP's problems/practices. Not because they (PCH) violated Federal and/or 
    State laws.
  > In the 2000 lawsuits a key issue was PCH's failure to adequately inform entrants that "No   
     purchase was required to enter OR WIN". This isn't mentioned in the proposed revision. 
  > The settlement puts in place strict prohibitions against misleading or deceptive statements 
    or omissions and, for the first time, prohibits PCH from implying, by any means whatsoever, 
    anything that it is prohibited from stating directly.
  > In 2010 it wasn't just that "Oregon alleged" violations of the Agreement, it also charged PCH 
    with misrepresentation due to its "Board of Judges" mailings. This was something PCH agreed 
    to cease in the 2000 settlement "Not representing that a recipient has an enhanced chance of 
    winning a prize, is in a select group, has "never been closer" to winning or enjoys a special 
    status in the sweepstakes. 
  > It wasn't that PCH "continued to operate under the regulation of a 'compliance counsel'". It 
    was that PCH was ORDERED to continue to operate under the regulation of a 'compliance 
    counsel'. 
  > Readers of the page should be able to see the specific items to which PCH agreed, in each of 
    the settlements. These are left out of the proposed page.
- The "Prizes" section, as written, is a bit too promotional.
- In the "Popular Culture" section, the sentence "The final episode of the TV show Cheers had an 
  alternate ending featuring Publishers Clearing House that was never aired." This either has to 
  be removed, or have a reference to corroborate this.

In closing, I do believe that has stated in #2, being paid by PCH to improve the article does work against your ability to view this with a NPOV. That doesn't mean that some of your proposed aditions don't have merit. For example, the 2nd paragraph in "Early History" has merit (with the AFP sentence removed), and would be a good addition. Overall, as in the past (as the Talk and History pages can demonstrate), it appears the primary reason for the suggested changes is to benefit PCH, not the public. I say this without trying to be argumentative, but rather provide a another perspective. 67.86.191.179 (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The above section was added by me. The session timed out, so my signature doesn't appearBilbobag (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bilbo. Writing about a competitor like American Family Publishers always makes me uncomfortable, but the sources suggested the article would be incomplete if I did not do so, as the two companies have histories that are closely tied. My firm's statement of ethics forbids us from intentionally withholding source material, so I was ethically obligated to include it. (I don't think it's something we want per se) Bilbo Comment: Now understand why included. Two thoughts though, 1) your firm's ethics policy(s) not neccesarily same as Wiki's; 2) Don't understand how 2 companies history's are tied. During this time period there were at least 6 companies very active in sweepstakes as vehicles for product sales.

I believe the issue of whether PCH misled consumers into thinking that purchases increased their chances of winning is not ommitted. From the article: "due to concerns that the mailings misled consumers about their odds of winning and implied that magazine purchases increased their chances.[1][6]" and "Publishers Clearing House agreed to make it more clear that purchases don't increase a participant's chances of winning." Bilbo comment: I stand corrected. Thanks

Also, the source does not say they were ORDERED - it says that they agreed. Most of the legal disputes resulted in mutual settlements or agreements, not orders. The Cheers thing is properly sourced. When we have multiple consecutive sentences that rely on a single source, we only cite once.

Bilbo Comment: You are correct. The exact language is the "conditions imposed upon PCH", not "Ordered". As to the source, I agree it's referenced - I'm questioning whether this is a valid source according to Wiki standards. A book published by an employee of PCH is hardly objective, nor can it be considered "proof" that this was the proposed alternate ending to Cheers. Again, objectivity has been the major issue with regard to deletions, edits and suggested additions. I'm not trying to paint you with this broad brush, but as you acknowledge below, you can understand my concerns.

Especially given the history of editing on this article, I understand your concerns... CorporateM (Talk) 19:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

See my comments aboveBilbobag (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bilbo. I understand the discomfort of having a PR person draft materials, as it is also uncomfortable for most companies.

Regarding the compliance counsel the source I used says: "The company agreed to another set of rules governing its contests and also set up a "special compliance counsel" for continuing liaison with the states." Upon closer review, I'm not 100% confident if the "agreed" was meant to apply to both portions of the sentence. This source was the first secondary source I came up with in a Google search, which says "as part of the new settlement." Can you provide a link where you found "conditions imposed"? Was it a proper secondary source? Not that I want to micro-manage the language that closely in general, but it seems like an important clarification to make either way.

For the competitor AFP, I've provided some of the relevant source material in the section below for your review. CorporateM (Talk) 21:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

AFP content

Mental Floss Profile "For nearly 25 years, PCH was the only big subscription house in town. But that changed in 1977, when American Family Publishers (AFP) came onto the scene, carrying magazines like Time and McCall's. Naturally, AFP ran its own sweepstakes, creating a sort of sweepstakes race with each company inching up its grand prize to outdo the other. But when customers complained of “sweepstake fatigue," the companies switched gears and began offering luxury items instead: cars, boats, private planes, and even a thoroughbred racehorse. At least until 1985, when AFP bumped their grand prize up from $200,000 to $10,000,000. PCH had to do the same and, not surprisingly, players weren’t bored anymore. To promote their sweepstakes, AFP hired celebrity spokesmen - the trusted faces of Ed McMahon and Dick Clark. In response, PCH went with a more personal touch, by introducing the Prize Patrol, a small crew of actual PCH employees that arrived at the home of the next sweepstakes winner with balloons, flowers, champagne, and a giant novelty check in-hand. The presentation was recorded and became a staple of the PCH television advertising campaigns for years, and the Prize Patrol is still out there" "Between the “buy to win” overspending and confusing sweepstakes mailings, both AFP and PCH became the targets of multiple personal lawsuits in the 1990s, as well as a handful of class action suits from quite a few states. The companies usually covered their bases well enough to have the case dismissed, or they settled out of court, but the legal fees and decreased business from bad press took their toll. AFP filed for bankruptcy in 1999 and would close its doors soon after. Meanwhile, Congress received enough pressure from citizens to pass the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act in 1999, also known as “The Sweepstakes Law." Among other things, the law states that sweepstakes must include the odds of winning, a schedule of when prize payments will be made, reiterate that no purchase is necessary to play, nor will purchasing increase your odds of winning, and that there are no fees to be paid by the winner (other than taxes, of course). Since the law went into effect, PCH has paid out millions in settlements for class action suits over their marketing tactics, some of which include $48 million between two separate multi-state suits in 2000, $34 million to 26 states in 2001, and most recently, $3.5 million to 34 states in 2010." The Wall Street Journal (Unfortunately haven't found this source online. I have access through the local library) "By 1979, Publishers Clearing House jackpots had risen to $250,000 and business was booming. That prompted a group of four publishers, including Time Inc., to start a rival sweepstakes, in the form of American Family Publishers. To grab attention, the new venture started its jackpot at $1 million, a figure that Publishers Clearing House quickly matched. By the mid-1980s, the combined revenue of the two companies was more than $500 million, according to current and former executives. With success came innovations. "We both became more competitive," says Robin Smith, longtime chief executive officer of Publishers Clearing House. American Family scored in the late 1980s with a mailing in which entrants were asked to choose whether they wanted a blue, green or white Jaguar. A version of that mailing is still used today by both companies. "People love [choosing colors]. It's amazing," says American Family's Ms. Kaughman. "Filling out the sweepstakes is a form of entertainment." There were flops as well. Publishers Clearing House tried a mailing offering customers the chance to donate part of their millions to charity. Response rates were disastrous. "We discovered people don't want to think about giving their money away," says Debbie Holland, a company spokeswoman. The competition between the two sweepstakes companies is fierce. Each haggles with magazine publishers for exclusive rights to sell certain magazines and spends millions of dollars on test solicitations and focus groups. The two also routinely "borrow" ideas for mailings from each other. "New ideas have a life of about six months before everyone else is using them," Ms. Kaughman says. The borrower can rue the act. In 1994, a Publishers Clearing House mailing informed all recipients that they were "finalists" for the sweepstakes jackpot. American Family Publishers followed suit. "We said if they are doing it, we better do it," says American Family's Ms. Kaughman. A few months later, 14 state attorneys general began an investigation, which ended with Publishers Clearing House dropping the term "finalists" and paying $490,000 in fines. American Family also discontinued the practice. As American Family faces an uncertain future, Ms. Kaughman says it is thinking about moving away from a single jackpot and handing out larger numbers of smaller prizes. One option: offering hundreds of trips to Disney World. "Because of lotteries, I'm not sure the big prizes are so meaningful anymore," she says. "Maybe the answer is to make the prizes more real and tangible." Meanwhile, American Family is fending off plaintiffs' attorneys in three states, as well as Florida investigators, over the mailing that prompted the flights to Tampa. The language in the sweepstakes letter seemed to indicate that recipients were one of two finalists for the company's $11 million jackpot -- and that whoever's entry reached Tampa first would win. (Qualifying language was in smaller print than the company's announcement that "WE HAVE RESERVED AN $11,000,000.00 SUM IN YOUR NAME.")"

Am trying to find link to WI Atty Gen'l who brought PCH to trial in Portage, WI. Believe his name was James Doyle - His press release was the most detailed and contained actual language. Until then, here's a write up using this term http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/23/us/publishers-clearing-house-strikes-deceptive-practices-accord.html Bilbobag (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's link referred to above http://web.archive.org/web/20011115053250/http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/nr062601.asp

The language used doesn't state "ordered". Rather states "The multi-state settlement prohibits Publishers Clearing House from ..." and "26 states have signed an historic agreement that will require Publishers Clearing House to...". The TX AG's comments mention that PCH must "apologize for the harm caused by its deceptive marketing practices". So that is different than ordered. In like manner, the phrase you use in 2010 is just "Oregon alleged" PCH had violated the agreement. While that is factually true, the settlement in 2010 was actually to settle contempt charges. "Alleged violations" and "settle contempt cahrges" have two different meanings.

One additional comment: You mention that your not to omit anything in a write up. In the 3rd paragraph of your proposed rewrite, you state "From 1993 to the early 2000s, Publishers Clearing House paid more than $82 million to settle a class-action lawsuit and to settle with all 50 states". The actual timeframe is 1993 to 2010 - a 17 year period - to many a reader this is much different than from "1993 to the early 2000s". Bilbobag (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bilbo. Press releases from the plaintiff are generally not considered by Wikipedia to be reliable "secondary" sources in a legal dispute, however I did use one similar source that contained a list of the agreements made. What are appropriate sources are those from impartial parties, such as the media, academics, etc. who are not involved in the litigation.

The write-up is correct as stated. The source says that PCH reached agreements with all 50 states in the early 2000s. The body of the article contains additional detail regarding the lawsuit in 2010. It's not misleading, just paraphrased. However, I would say please go ahead and add the 2010 lawsuit to the summary in the Lead of the draft, as we don't want to imply that the lawsuits stopped, when they haven't. Just that period of their history where they were really prominent ended.

As for the exact phrasing of things, I won't be micro-managing in that regard. However, we normally use language like "alleged" unless the allegations are proven in court. The sources say PCH agreed to a settlement, but denied wrongdoing. CorporateM (Talk) 00:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Direction of 'odds'

Between 2007 and 2012 the odds of winning its sweepstakes have soared from 1 in 330 million to 1 in 1.2 billion.

The odds of winning should be said to increase when they become *more* favorable to the person entering the sweepstakes. The right word to use in the above sentence should be 'declined'. The same problem occurs in the 'Odds of winning' section. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Also appears twice in the article and is sourced to a broken link. However, a working link can be found here. In the draft, I used odds I found better sources for that are actually much longer: 505 million and 1.75 billion depending on the prize. (505 million is currently included)

If we're going to source the company website, as is done now, we should use current pages[1][2] and present it in a way that is more representative of the source material. However, I note that PCH's website is focused on smaller prizes with better odds, while secondary sources are more focused on the big prizes. Editors may reasonably disagree on how to handle it, so I erred on the safe side of not using the company website as a source, since this is often an indication of COI edits. Though, since PCH's presentation of the odds itself is regulated, it seems that would make it meet the requirement for being "reliable."

Hope this helps. While it's useful to have an entire draft available, it's probably best to talk through it section-by-section and this seems as good a topic as any to start on. CorporateM (Talk) 22:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the same type of description error was made in two places (in opposite directions). I fixed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Guys, I don;t want to change this without discussion, but you have it backwards. You're confucing "Odds of Winning" with "Chances of Winning". Please read my May 2013 post on this which contains an article describning the differences. Secondly, I agree that we should be using the PCH site for the Odds staement, since they are legally bound to publish the odds. I know that this is usually counter to the COI policy, but believe this is a reasonable exception. Thanks for updating broken linkBilbobag (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The link to read that explains this is

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_odds_differ_from_chances — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilbobag (talk • contribs) 12:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Bilbobag, you have linked to a blog to support your statement. Even with its numerous errors and conflicting posts, it does not even assert to support the way you are seeing it. Yes, odds do tend to be more often expressed as a ratio, whereas chances are generally expressed all three ways (ratio, a numerical value or a percentage) In contests with a real prize the chances of losing are, of course much higher than the chances of winning. So even when a sentence is written wrong/backwards (e.g. "the odds of winning are 300,000,000 to 1") people generally understand what they are trying to say (which is "the odds of / chance of winning is 1 in 300,000,000, or the odds of losing are 300,000,000 to 1). The bottom line is that it was was wrong, I fixed it, and you made it wrong again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Odds of Winning

Regarding the conversation string on using the company website as a source for odds. In my proposed draft I sourced a 2011 New York Times piece with longer odds of winning (1.75 billion), but the Official Rules page[3] currently sourced says 1.215 billion which is presumably more updated.

A few edits I would suggest:

1. Improve the editorial of the first sentence of the Odds of Winning section as follows: "According to the official rules, the estimated odds of winning the largest prize of $5,000 a week for life are 1 in 1.215 billion.[4]" We should specify the prize and there's no reason to put estimated odds of winning in quotes.
2. Add something to the beginning along the lines of "The odds of winning vary depending on how many entries are made."[5]
3. Add something to the end along the lines of "The chances of winning smaller prizes between $5 to $50 are estimated to be 1 in 223, while other giveaways are 1 in 80,000."[6]
4. Remove the sentence starting with "This is a decrease" as it is unsourced.
5. Remove the sentence starting with "In 2007" as it is poorly sourced
6. The sentence starting with "In 2008" should probably be less editorialized: "and the sweepstakes doesn't even run for a full year." Alternatively, in my draft I used: "According to About.com, Publishers Clearing House is "the biggest and best-publicized sweepstakes in America," but the sweepstakes "have terrible odds."..." This would be a great opener to summarize the issue we're discussing. I'm not sure, but I would think we would tend to shy away from the analogies, but I won't micro-manage in that regard.
7. Remove this sentence from the History section: "Between 2007 and 2012 the odds of winning its sweepstakes have declined from 1 in 330 million to 1 in 1.2 billion. (See "Odds of Winning" section below for details and citations)" as it is not sourced (unless it can be sourced, but I didn't find this in my research).

Thanks in advance for your time. Best regards. CorporateM (Talk) 13:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I would not make it so general. I think it's interesting to see how the odds have varied and are generally getting worse, though the statement near the top of the article should reflect the odds mentioned in the later section. I did remove the stupid bit about "mailing x entries every day". If the odds are 1 in 10 to win something, buying 10 tickets doesn't guarantee you a win (or you might win twice), so that entire line of reasoning is based on a faulty understanding of statistics. About.com, with some exceptions, should not be considered reliable for synthetic or editorialized claims, since many of their articles are low quality SEO filler content, written by non-experts (again, with exceptions in certain topic areas). For simple facts I think about.com might be OK, such as what the odds of winning were at a point in time. Gigs (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have updated the request to scratch the About.com source. The unsourced claims regarding how the odds have changed over time is an obvious WP:V violation, as it has no source at all. I've added a Citation Needed tag to show what I'm referring to. I'm only asking that Wikipedia enforce its own most basic policy that content be verifiable. I am especially speculative on whether this is actually true, since a comparison of a 2011 source to the company website suggests the odds may have improved in the last two years. If a proper source can be found, then I would not contest it. CorporateM (Talk) 20:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

If it's not verifiable then we can generalize the comment about the odds. Gigs (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok - Bilbo has been a long-time contributor and may have sources, so I'll leave this one up for a while before proposing a more Wiki-compliant version if nobody else does it. CorporateM (Talk) 22:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Overall, I have no major problems with these changes. Some comments: There is now an updated reference for the 2007 odds. Since the article has sources for the odds in 2007 and the odds in 2012, I think it is useful for readers to see how how the odds have changed over time. For this reason I would change the sentence in the History section to read "Between 2007 and 2012 the odds of winning its sweepstakes have CHANGED from 1 in 330 million to 1 in 1.2 billion. (See "Odds of Winning" section below for details and citations)". This ends the discussion about whether the odds (or chances) have increased/decreased. Bilbobag (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

As to the other changes, my comments at end of each sentence in CAPS:

1. Add something to the beginning along the lines of "The odds of winning vary depending on how many entries are made."[7] AGREE
2. Add something to the end along the lines of "The chances of winning smaller prizes between $5 to $50 are estimated to be 1 in 223, while other giveaways are 1 in 80,000."[8]. THIS IS WHERE I BELIEVE WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL - THIS SHOULDN'T BECOME AN ARTICLE HYPING EVERY PCH PROMO OR SWEEPSTAKES. SO IMHO, THIS LINE SHOULDN'T BE ADDED
3. Remove the sentence starting with "This is a decrease" as it is unsourced. I AGREE
4. Remove the sentence starting with "In 2007" as it is poorly sourced. SEE COMMENT ABOVE
5. The sentence starting with "In 2008" should probably be less editorialized AGREE Bilbobag (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Bilbo. How's this?

See my comments in the collapsed box. It's getting late and I can't seem to get my citation to list properly (it's the one from the Washington State AG who refers to the on one in 1.75 billionodds). But I think this is a better flow.Bilbobag (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion using most of your wording and sources, and adding a citation for the 1.75 billion odds (which I've added to the Areticle, also) but arranging it in sequence:

The odds of winning a Publishers Clearing House sweepstakes vary depending on how many entries are made and which prize or sweepstakes is involved.[3]

According to the official rules, the estimated odds for winning the largest prize in the current sweepstakes are one in 1.215 billion.[5] In 2011 the odds of winning the largest prize of $5,000 a week for life were one in 1.75 billion.[4] In 2008, the odds of winning the $10 million prize were 1 in 505 million.[6] The odds for the $10 million prize in 2007 were one in 330 million [citation needed] which became longer by 2011, when they were one in 1.75 billion. " Smaller prizes have better odds that may vary from one in 223 to one in 80,000, depending on the prize.[3]Bilbobag (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Odds of winning The odds of winning a Publishers Clearing House sweepstakes vary depending on how many entries are made and which prize or sweepstakes is involved. According to the official rules, the estimated odds of winning the largest prize of $5,000 a week for life are one in 1.215 billion. In 2011, the odds of the same prize were one in 1.75 billion. The odds of winning the $10 million prize were one in 505 million in 2008 and one in 1.5 billion in 1995. Smaller prizes have better odds that may vary from one in 223 to one in 80,000, depending on the prize.

I'm fine with thatBilbobag (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion about what I'm referring to that is unsourced, so I've incorporated it into the draft with Citation Needed tags. If you have citations, please feel free to slot them in. I'm also ok with leaving the Citation Needed tag in for now if you need time to look into it. I did a few Google searches and only came up with PCH blogs and content duplicated from this article. CorporateM (Talk) 21:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I made some changes based on your comments. I found a source for the $10 million prize odds in 1995. The odds appear to vary drastically from year-to-year without any consistent trending, so I removed any reference to the odds getting better or worse. Instead, it should only give the reader the impression that it varies quite a bit each round. CorporateM (Talk) 22:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with thatBilbobag (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved the request edit to the updated copy. You may alter the tag to {{edit COI|G}} to signify approval, move the copy to the article yourself, wait for others to comment, or - as many editors do around here - say that you are only willing to give feedback generally and I should move the copy without formal approval ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 22:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

Publishers Clearing House

Company type	Private
Industry	Publishing
Founded	1953
Headquarters	Port Washington, New York, United States
Key people	Robin B. Smith, Chairman Andrew Goldberg, President and CEO
Products	Magazine subscriptions, merchandise
Revenue	US $500 Million+ (2012)
Number of employees	400
Website	pch.com

I'd like to start by requesting we update, correct and cleanup the infobox. The proposed version on the right:

• Adds the number of employees as 400[9]
• Trims the excessive Key People section
• Corrects the revenue number to $500 million[10]
• I will upload a more up-to-date logo at Pch.png
• Removes the income which currently just has a question mark on it

CorporateM (Talk) 02:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest citing the revenue and employee numbers in the info box, doubly so given that they are not elsewhere in the article. The sources you gave are primary but IMO the use is within the guidlines for primary sources. Secondary sources for those numbers would be even better, but IMHO not a necessity. Subject to that I'd say go for it. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the cites as suggested above. Emerging community consensus seems to be that I should ask another editor to make the changes, but many editors are not comfortable with proxy editing. So I will at least proceed cautiously by letting it sit in the queue for a while and giving Bilbo time to respond if he chooses to. Though I would think the updates would be fairly non-controversial. CorporateM (Talk) 14:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

A part of that is obviously a big topic, and one that we discussed before. My approach has been "Edit putting the goals of Wikipedia first" i.e. self-policing to a certain extent. And don't make any commitments that would force you to do otherwise. And then going ahead and editing on that basis. In essence the "high risk of COI" situation (paid editing) does not become an actual COI by the gold standard definition at the beginning of the policy. I think that your approach has been, instead of the above to say "I'll be very open and honest, and I want follow the rules to the letter and also have the system police me". IMHO, if you go only with the latter, and do not accept the responsibility of the former, then you should get everything OK'd by someone else. (but not necessarily put in by them). But either way, I don't want to be just a proxy, but edits where I can size them up as OK I'd be happy to do. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

While always good to have updated info, my concern is that since PCH is privately held, the information provided here is self reported by PCH without any corroboration or validation. For this reason, I'm somewhat reticent to make these changes unless we can obtain some type of objective data or validation. Bilbobag (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• It seems like a reasonable update to me. I'm not a business major, but I remember something about all companies have to have their finances available to potential shareholders through a reliable source. I just don't remember any of the details of it. Anyone know more about this? It might be a way to use the same information from a secondary source instead of primary. Either way, trimming down the key people section (to just the notable people and linking them all), removing the unfilled in sections, and adding the currently non-existing sections seems uncontested and should be done quickly (I'll do it right after this post). What is the deal with changing the logo image? I'm confused as to why that should be done unless you have a free image that is better... Technical 13 (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The logo update is to use the current logo, which can be found here in the upper-left-hand-corner. I found this source which published $500 million as the revenues in 2006. This source from 1989 says they had 700 employees at the time, which was before 213 employees were laid off the next year.[11] CorporateM (Talk) 13:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I would upload a new version to File:Pch_logo.png and not create a new. As it is, the "old" style image is pushing the limits with WP:NFCC as it is. Just my opinion though. Technical 13 (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done I also shrunk it to 200px instead of 300, since the file resolution isn't great (and it looked a little over-sized anyway). I may circle back later on with a higher resolution image. CorporateM (Talk) 22:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Combining two thoughts: #1 I think it useful and even important to provide key current info on the company, and I would include gross revenues and number of employees in this. #2 I think that the nature of the proposed edits falls within proper uses of primary sources. Of course a quality secondary and/or independent source would be even better, but if that isn't available key info should still go in if such is within policy, which I think that it is. Policy aside, there is the issue of credibility of the information. In this case, straightforward provision of straightforward information, a "lie" here would be findable and fraudulent, and so I tend to think that it's credible. North8000 (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I would normally prefer primary sources over secondary ones when it comes to revenue, employee-count and organizational structure and I believe it is the norm to do so for infobox data. Secondary sources, while outdated, seem to confirm the numbers. On the other hand, Bilbo only said he was hesitant to make the edit himself, not necessarily that he opposes it generally. If he just prefers I make the edit, because it makes him uncomfortable to make edits at my behest, I can do so as a non-controversial edit. However, if he opposes the edit in-general than it is a controversial edit, which I am not allowed to make, and in those cases I leave it up to impartial editors to (hopefully) work it out. On the other hand, an easy way to resolve the dispute may be to just use similar, outdated, secondary sources I posted above. I'd like to hear from Bilbo again on the issue, so hopefully we can close out these two items (infobox and odds) and move on. CorporateM (Talk) 20:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing the logo or "Key People", since these are published by other sources. I do have a problem using only PCH self reported statistics such as # of employees and annual sales. My reasons are:

• PCH is privately held. As such, there are no published Income Stateemnts or Balance Sheets that the public can see to confirm these stats,
• There appears to be no other source that can or does corroborate these numbers. There may be other sources, but I have yet to find them.

Thanks Bilbobag (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok. There seems to be enough varying opinions to open it up for further discussion here and see if a reasonable consensus will emerge. CorporateM (Talk) 21:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

With no other sources, I'd suggest going with the organization's numbers in the info box but add a line in the main article that the company's employee and revenue count are self-reported. "The Gnarphist Company, LLC reports that it has X employees and $400.00 in annual revenue." (ref) FWIW. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As a minor thought, many state labor depts publish head counts by company, as do some county labor depts. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I found this info at http://www.zoominfo.com/c/Publishers-Clearing-House/69583362. $50 mil. - $100 mil.in Revenue 250 - 500 Employees While not saying this is an authoritative source, the large discrepancy in revenue($50 - $100 million versus the proposed $500 million), and broad range in number of employees would indicate that additional sources/verification should be obtained. Bilbobag (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have ordered a copy of a MarketLine report from the library and am working on getting Crain's list of large private entities. I think those should settle it. I'll let you know once I have them. Bilbo, I can email these to you once I have them so you can verify. CorporateM (Talk) 22:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

New Sources for Revenue/Employees

According to Crain's list of "The Top 125 Privately Held Companies":

• Projected 2012 revenues were $795 million
• 2011 revenues were $705 million
• As of 2012, PCH had 472 employees
• An April 2013 research report/profile on PCH done by MarketLine reports 444 employees

Therefore I would suggest:

*Revenue:$705 million (2011)
*Employees:444 (2013)

Some of these sources are difficult/expensive to access. I can send a PDF of the MarketLine report or the Excel from Crain's to anyone who wishes to verify. CorporateM (Talk) 23:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Kudos to CorporateM for their efforts in getting these numbers. Can you give us an updated version of your edit request? EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, request adding to the Infobox template:

| revenue=$705 million (2011)
| num_employees=444 (2013)

CorporateM (Talk) 03:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I made the above change as you requested. But notice that reference 1 is not a source for the founding date of the company, so probably you need something different for that. EdJohnston (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that we should be posting these numbers. Three different sources post three different numbers for sales. Crain's number is $705 million, PCH's number is $500 million & Zoom Info's number is $50 - $100 million. I don;t think you can automatically post the highest number. If we can geet 2 sources that have the same number, then that's the number that has corroboration and should be posted.67.86.191.179 (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Sorry, didn't log in - this is my postBilbobag (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Bilbo, do you contest the employee count as well, or just the revenues? CorporateM (Talk) 22:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

For the foundation date:<ref name="Clifford">{{cite news|last=Clifford|first=Stephanie|title=ADVERTISING; Old-Line Magazine Sweepstakes Company Gets Digital|newspaper=The New York Times|page=3|date=23 December 2008|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/business/media/23adco.html}}</ref>

CorporateM (Talk) 12:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem with employee count. Thats a good update.Bilbobag (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I added the uncontested edits. I'll start an RfC to get more input on what we should do about revenue. CorporateM (Talk) 01:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Request Edits

I wanted to start a fresh string requesting the edits that I think we have reached agreement on:

• Add revenue to the infobox as follows:

| revenue=$705 million (2011)

• Replace the "Direction of Odds" section with the following "Odds of Winning" section, since the odds vary widely from each sweepstakes and are not improving or getting worse.

Odds of Winning

The odds of winning a Publishers Clearing House sweepstakes vary depending on how many entries are made and which prize or sweepstakes is involved. According to the official rules, the estimated odds of winning the largest prize of $5,000 a week for life are one in 1.215 billion. In 2011, the odds of the same prize were one in 1.75 billion. The odds of winning the $10 million prize were one in 505 million in 2008 and one in 1.5 billion in 1995. Smaller prizes have better odds that may vary from one in 223 to one in 80,000, depending on the prize.

Alternatively if there is any remaining opposition to the edits based on reliable sources, please let me know! CorporateM (Talk) 18:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've performed the requested edit, changing both the 'revenue' line in the infobox and the 'Odds of winnning' section. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Early history

Currently the beginning of the History section is reasonably accurate, but is mostly unsourced, incomplete and has several instances of promotion. I would like to suggest we replace this with a more comprehensive, more neutral and better-sourced section with a dedicated sub-header for "Early history." Some proposed copy is below:

Proposed Early history

Early history Publishers Clearing House was founded in 1953 in Port Washington by Harold Mertz, a former manager of a door-to-door sales team for magazine subscriptions. The company started in Mertz's basement with help from his wife and daughter. Its first mailings were of 10,000 envelopes from Mertz's home in Long Island, NY and offered 20 magazine subscriptions. 100 orders were received. Within a few years the company moved out of Mertz's basement and started hiring staff. In the 1960s, the company started donating 40 percent of its profits to charitable causes. When Publishers Clearing House moved its headquarters in 1969, its prior location was donated to the city and renamed the Harold E. Mertz community center. The company grew to $50 million in revenue by 1981 and $100 million by 1988. In 1967 Publishers Clearing House started its first sweepstakes as a way to increase subscription sales, based on the sweepstakes held by Reader's Digest. The first prizes ranged from 25 cents to $10 and had a 1 in 10 chance of winning. After the sweepstakes increased response rates to mailings, the prizes were increased to $5,000 and eventually to $250,000. It began advertising the sweepstakes on TV in 1974. Publishers Clearing House was the only major multi-magazine subscription business until 1977. Former client Time Inc. and several other publishers formed American Family Publishers to compete with Publishers Clearing House after the company turned down repeated requests by Time for a larger share of sales revenue. American Family Publishers and Publishers Clearing House competed for exclusive rights to magazines and for the better promotion and prize ideas. When American Family Publishers increased their jackpot to $1 million, then to $10 million in 1985, Publishers Clearing House raised its prizes to match. $7 million in prizes were distributed by 1979, $40 million by 1991 and $137 million by 2000. In 1988, two members of its advertising team, Dave Sayer and Todd Sloane, started the tradition of the Prize Patrol, a publicized event where winners are surprised with a check at their home. The idea was inspired by the 1950s television series "Millionaire." In 1992, thousands of discarded sweepstakes entries from contestants that did not buy magazine subscriptions were found in the trash by city employees. Publishers Clearing House said this was done by a disgruntled employee at their mail processing vendor. A class action lawsuit resulted from the incident, which was settled by giving discarded entrants a second chance to win.

One thing I'll point out is that sources seem to conflict as to whether the company was founded by Harold, Harold and his wife, or Harold his wife and daughter. Something I may look into more thoroughly later on. I may also look for a better diversity of sources for the very early history, as the proposed relies heavily on a book I ordered and read, which is also the most comprehensive source available on the company's history. CorporateM (Talk) 21:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"In the 1960s, the company started donating 40 percent of its profits to charitable causes." This sentence has been removed on numerous occasions due to lack of any sources other than statements take from PCH press releasesBilbobag (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

In the proposed, it's sourced to "The Naked Truth About Publishers Clearing House." Do you think this is an adequate source? You can get a sense of the source in the preview here. I can also scan pages of my hard-copy if needed to verify the text contains the material I've sourced it for. CorporateM (Talk) 22:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes but the author of this publication is a former Marketing VP for PCH. Not a very objective source - and it's the only place in which the 40% to charity has ever been published. This is the reason this comment has been removed. Bilbobag (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources written by former employees is a mixed bag. They usually have strong opinions that are either very negative or very positive. This one starts off by saying "Publishers Clearing House is the most loved company in US history. And the most hated," which suggests the author's intent is to be balanced. I'll ping someone to see if we can get a third opinion, as this is the most comprehensive source available on the company's history, but it is an area that requires good judgement. CorporateM (Talk) 23:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

My other concern has to do with expansion. The current "Early Hstory" section, which you acknowledge is reasonable accurate, is comprised of 8 rather concise sentences up to 1992. What you're proposing is 17 sentences. IMHO this is where we have to become careful about turning this into an ad for PCH. For example I think the "first prizes ranged from 25 cents to $10 and had a 1 in 10 chance of winning" is a great addition. But do we need to state that prizes then went to $5000 and then to $250,000. I think the comment about keeping pace with AFP when it increased its prize, tells the story. Ditto, does the comment about starting to advertise on TV in 1977 really add anything to the page? Overall I'm all for cleaning up the page, getting facts straight, and obtaining better sources - and I think some of you additions are great. You have been fair in your comments and work, but you are also getting paid to make the page better from PCH's POV.Bilbobag (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bilbo. I hope you don't mind my moving your comment down here so the comments are sequential. Yes, I would think the narrative would be incomplete in a significant way if we discussed the prizes increasing from $10 to $10 million, without covering how it grew to $50,000, especially since the method of its growth at each milestone is different. CorporateM (Talk) 23:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Bilbobag, stop worrying so much about other people's motivations, people in glass houses and all. If the goal is to get this article to Wikipedia Good Article status, all of your concerns about COI will work themselves out in that process. What does it matter if it is 17 lines, if that is informative to a reader? Of course when they started advertising on TV adds something, it changed the brand from something only in your mailbox to a Super Bowl event. Randomyesnomaybe (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Random. I have to respectfully disagree. Over the past 6 years there have been dozens attempts to turn this page into a promo piece for PCH. If you read through the history you'll see that this sentiment comes from a significant number of individuals and Wiki editors, many of whom have worked diligently to maintain a NPV. Since the only 2 articles you appear to have commented on are those about PCH, I would suggest you read articles about other corporations/privately held companies to get a better perspective of what a typical Wiki page looks like.

As to the TV ads, are you sure that the 1977 TV ads were Super Bowl ads? And by adding that do we have to state when the first newspaper ads ran, or radio, or subway placards? I'm simply suggesting that I don't believe it adds anything to the history. Lastly, please read the top of the talk page. This page isn't to argue, rather to offer constructive comments to improve the page. Starting a comment with "stop worrying so much about other people's motivations, people in glass houses and all" isn't in keeping with that position.Bilbobag (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Bilbo. The Wikipedia community has an extremely harsh view of editors that accuse others of having a COI in order to win an argument, especially when no COI is disclosed or proven. It is also generally expected that when someone discloses a COI, we assume they are "trying to do the right thing." Although I myself find this hard to do sometimes given some of the PR requests we get from Talk pages.

Meanwhile, Featured Articles[12] and GA articles[13] are good examples to look at for corporate pages, as they are highly-ranked as being of high-quality by the Wikipedia community. Some of those ranked pages have been created by myself and other public relations professionals. In fact, in some cases I have been hired to create an encyclopedic page to replace advertisements. I could also vouch to bring this article up to the same rank (if you will let me).

Please keep in mind, I have very little knowledge about the editing history of this article, or even who was editing it. Most people from older generations will remember the prolific PCH ads from that decade. It was important. CorporateM (Talk) 17:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Corporate. I truly hope I'm not coming across as contentious. If so I apologize. As I've stated I think your comments are fair and some of the adds have been great. I know it's difficult to "serve 2 masters" so to speak, but have no doubts that your intentions are honorable. My comments about lack of objectivity weren't directed at you, but rather, that comments about PCH's marketing, coming from a former VP of marketing may (and as I said, IMHO) appear less than objective. I also thought that Random's comments were not in keeping with the spirit of the Talk page. But, again, I think you're goals are honorable and that you've been fair and concerned about objectivity. Much of my concern is that over the years a lot af promo type info has been added, or factual information deleted, by people who have web addresses within close proximity to PCH's HQ. WIKI editor Kennfusion cleaned up much of this on Jan 17, 2012. Recently a PCH contractor (LVC), while stating that she/he was working for PCH again attempted to make changes that were (IMHO) less than objective. I suppose this is why I am cautious about new additions. But please call me out if I come across as argumentative.Bilbobag (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's helpful that you clarify you don't mean to be contentious, because it is difficult to tell online. It is difficult for any editor to asses what extent of defensiveness is appropriate when collaborating with PR contributors, and in which specific situations more or less defensiveness is what's best for Wikipedia. This is a project-wide problem with some editors being extremely defensive and others being too inviting. I think over-time, you may settle in to a zone you're comfortable with, while not preventing contributions that genuinely serve our readers. CorporateM (Talk) 01:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a couple of concerns with the statement "In the 1960s, the company started donating 40 percent of its profits to charitable causes.". There is no cite for that sentence. Being a private company, I would imagine that the only source for such a statement would be PCH itself. If so I think it should be attributed to them in the wording. Also "started" (with no mention afterwards) implies that such continued indefinitely. North8000 (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

North- I think your POV/comment is reasonable. The reason for my comment is that over the years many of the adds (which were subsequently deleted by other editors) or proposed adds only had PCH as the source. If we use a line about donations to charirty, I think it should have language such as "according to PCH, though this cannot be verified". Also think your comment about whether this has continued (charitable giving) needs further investigation/confirmation).Bilbobag (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the source is the book I mentioned above. It is cited in the draft a couple sentences later, as there are several sentences devoted to a single source. Portraying it as indefinite I think is accurate, as to the best of my knowledge, this is still in practice to this day.

North, if - with this clarification in mind - you still oppose the sentence about donating 40%, lets take it out. I would prefer to avoid the appearance of lobbying for favorable edits if multiple editors are in agreement. CorporateM (Talk) 17:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

With the charitable donations removed, I'm fine with the rest of the proposed history section.Bilbobag (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

To get the process moving

I think that a nexus of three areas:

• Normal work / discussions for content development
• Cautiousness regarding potential COI
• The process used for potential COI edits

Has sort of tied this up in knots. What I'm intending / offering to do to try to help this is that if there is a clear proposal that looks pretty-OK from a COI standpoint, I'd put it in. But my edit would be just "B" of "BRD", not considered to be something that has been "decided on". And so if someone disagrees, they can just revert or edit it, no problem. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

NOrth I moved my comment down into this area - sorry about the misplacement.

North- I think your POV/comment is reasonable. The reason for my comment is that over the years many of the adds (which were subsequently deleted by other editors) or proposed adds only had PCH as the source. If we use a line about donations to charirty, I think it should have language such as "according to PCH, though this cannot be verified". Also think your comment about whether this has continued (charitable giving) needs further investigation/confirmation).Bilbobag (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Bilbobag (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If the donations is the only major dispute, I would suggest we take it out and avoid conflict all-together. I am not prepared to argue over it... CorporateM (Talk) 21:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes please. So long as the proposed is "better" than the current, it should be implemented, as Wikipedia continues to be based on incremental improvement. Currently the article is a stub, and the proposed content could make it ready for a GA review. The details besides that are not so important to me and would be better worked out in a less contentious manner between regular editors. CorporateM (Talk) 17:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

With the charitable donations removed, I'm fine with the reat of the proposed history section.Bilbobag (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. I'll post a fresh request edit. CorporateM (Talk) 00:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Early history Request Edit

I would like to request we delete the beginning of the History section, which is unsourced and promotional, and replace it with the below copy in an "Early history" sub-section. The proposed copy is better-sourced and more neutral. Based on the discussion above, it looks like we're in agreement with the charitable giving removed. I'll upload the image afterwards, since it's a non-free image that can't be posted on Talk pages. CorporateM (Talk) 00:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Early history

Early history Publishers Clearing House was founded in 1953 in Port Washington by Harold Mertz, a former manager of a door-to-door sales team for magazine subscriptions. The company started in Mertz's basement with help from his wife and daughter. Its first mailings were of 10,000 envelopes from Mertz's home in Long Island, NY and offered 20 magazine subscriptions. 100 orders were received. Within a few years the company moved out of Mertz's basement and started hiring staff. When Publishers Clearing House moved its headquarters in 1969, its prior location was donated to the city and renamed the Harold E. Mertz community center. The company grew to $50 million in revenue by 1981 and $100 million by 1988. In 1967 Publishers Clearing House started its first sweepstakes as a way to increase subscription sales, based on the sweepstakes held by Reader's Digest. The first prizes ranged from 25 cents to $10 and had a 1 in 10 chance of winning. After the sweepstakes increased response rates to mailings, the prizes were increased to $5,000 and eventually to $250,000. It began advertising the sweepstakes on TV in 1974. Publishers Clearing House was the only major multi-magazine subscription business until 1977. Former client Time Inc. and several other publishers formed American Family Publishers to compete with Publishers Clearing House after the company turned down repeated requests by Time for a larger share of sales revenue. American Family Publishers and Publishers Clearing House competed for exclusive rights to magazines and for the better promotion and prize ideas. When American Family Publishers increased their jackpot to $1 million, then to $10 million in 1985, Publishers Clearing House raised its prizes to match. $7 million in prizes were distributed by 1979, $40 million by 1991 and $137 million by 2000. In 1988, two members of its advertising team, Dave Sayer and Todd Sloane, started the tradition of the Prize Patrol, a publicized event where winners are surprised with a check at their home. The idea was inspired by the 1950s television series "Millionaire." In 1992, thousands of discarded sweepstakes entries from contestants that did not buy magazine subscriptions were found in the trash by city employees. Publishers Clearing House said this was done by a disgruntled employee at their mail processing vendor. A class action lawsuit resulted from the incident, which was settled by giving discarded entrants a second chance to win.

You didn't specify which paragraphs would get deleted so I took a guess. I tried putting it in but it caused a bunch of error messages in the references. It refers to 3 named references ("ten", "wsj" and "five") which do not exist. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Some of the named citations didn't carry over correctly from the draft, because the citation info was placed in another section. I'd be happy to clean up those and any other errors as they appear. The above should have all the errors fixed. CorporateM (Talk) 18:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I put it in. As discussed previously, I just checked it for being pretty-OK from a COI standpoint, and looking reasonable good. Folks should feel free to review it more thoroughly and edit from there. North8000 (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Online Development

I'm not 100% sure what happened to it (lost in the edit-war caused by vandalism I think), but there use to be an Online Development section.[14] This section was a little too detailed and perhaps an example of Recentism, which is often a problem with COI. Also, I don't see why it needed a dedicated section, rather than a sub-section of History. However there are several sources that cover PCH's transition to the digital era in substantial depth, which is the predominant theme for recent events.

I would like to add an Online Development section, something along the lines of what I've started here as a sub-section of the History section, near the end, akin to a Recent history (or we could name it Recent history too). CorporateM (Talk) 20:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that it's good enough to go in. It could then be evolved further. I'll put it in. North8000 (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I did it. North8000 (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I just moved the ordering of sections, since the lawsuits were predominant from 1993 - 2001, while the digital transition is mostly focused from 1996 - 2012. CorporateM (Talk) 02:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC?

I commented on an RFC on this page yesterday, regarding revenue figures.

Today I returned to see how it was going, and it has been archived. Why? Begoon ^talk 14:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops. I restored it. The Talk page was getting overwhelmed with text on resolved issues, so I had archived a huge bulk of it. CorporateM (Talk) 17:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok. The tag somehow got lost, so I've restored that. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 17:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Revenue for infobox

What revenue should we report in the infobox?

• $500 million according to the company website
• $50-$100 million according to Zoom Info
• $705 million in 2011 according to Crain's list of "The Top 125 Privately Held Companies"

CorporateM (Talk) 01:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Crains is a Reliable Source with a strong reputation and noted editorial oversight. I don't have the same confidence in zoominfo . The company's website says "over $500 million". I would go with Crains. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• The $705 million figure from Crain's sounds usable to me. Our article on that company is at Crain Communications. CorporateM, did you also get a revenue figure from MarketLine? EdJohnston (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not contesting Crain's overall reliability, but a week ago many were willing to use the self reported revenue of $500 million because they thought that was reliable. Now we get a Crain's number that's 40% higher. That's a substantial, significant difference. Due to that I believe that we need at least 2 sources that have similar revenue figures. Bilbobag (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • MarketLine just said: "As a privately held entity, Publishers Clearing House is not obliged to publish its financial results." My experience as a PR professional is that usually for rankings like the list on Crain's, we have to provide tax records or other documents to verify. I don't think the website and Crain's actually conflict. Someone mentioned the website said "over $500 million" and the company has been growing quickly, so revenue numbers are quickly outdated.CorporateM (Talk) 13:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I take issue with the statement "and the company has been growing quickly". We have nothing to substantiate this - this is an assumption. Further the U.S. economy was still in the midst of a recession, so it's very possible that revenues have not only not grown, but rather, have decreased. As it stands now, the posted revenue number has no source that can support the figure. For this reason, I believe the proper thing to do is post the last revenue number for which we have corroboration, while still working to get a more updated figure that has independent confirmation/corroboration.Bilbobag (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
    • According to the Crain's list, 2010 revenues were $680 million, 2011 were $705 million and 2012 were projected to be $795 million. Though I might describe this as "steady growth" rather than "quick." CorporateM (Talk) 18:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• OK then we can use the Crain's numbers. However by doing so, we are expressly acknowledging that information and self reported facts taken from the PCH website have been shown to be either inaccurate and/or unreliable. It can't be both ways - If the Crains numbers are accurate and reliable, then the PCH numbers (which are 30% lower than Crains) are inaccurate and unreliable.Bilbobag (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not unusual for sources to contain conflicting information. On the topic of the lawsuits, some sources say PCH is a scam, while others say they are the victims of an aggressive political campaign. When sources conflict, Wikipedia's approach is to is to use the source with a better reputation for fact-checking, stick to the facts and summarize the debate without getting involved in it.

We call this how "reliable" a source is and how reliable the source must be depends on the gravity of the claim. We consider company websites not to be very reliable, but it is acceptable to use them for some fairly non-controversial claims, where a better source is unavailable, like organizational structure, logistics (offices, revenue, etc.).

Wikipedia:Verifiability is the policy if you're interested, as sourcing will be a theme in this article I think. Neither you or myself have authority over the article. We are all subject to Wikipedia's rules and the ruling power of "consensus" (Wikipedia:Ownership of articles).

For example, we don't have the authority to proclaim the source as invalid, as it depends on the circumstance of where it's being used and if it is contested, the community must make a decision as a group, however I don't expect there to be many (if any) other appropriate uses of the website as a source anyway.

I see us developing a "me versus him" relationship, which is not my intention. I don't want to "win an argument" - I just want to help PCH get an article that is compliant with Wikipedia's rules and community norms. CorporateM (Talk) 14:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is not conflict between their website and the Crain's figures. Their website says over $500 million' the figures from Crain's are over $500 million. BTW, not knowing Zoom specifically, but I have seen sites like that take wild guesses when the info is not publicly available. North8000 (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• CorpM and North: Point(s) taken. I do think that PCH could be a tad more forthcoming than just saying "over $500 million" though - after all we are talking about a $200 million difference. Even if they said "about $700 million" or "well over $600 million" it would give the reader a much better sense of reality.Bilbobag (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree with Bilbo. Usually when someone says "more than $500 million" it suggests 510, or 550. While the website is technically accurate, Crain's is certainly more so. At the very least the website is outdated. It would have still been better to use the website than to not report revenues at all, but it turns out to have been a good thing that Bilbo pushed me to find secondary sources. I would not have doughed out the cash for it otherwise and would have assumed the website's revenue was more accurate than it was. On the other hand, ZoomInfo is really not even in the running as far as good sources (not to beat a dead horse).

In any case, if it's no longer contested to use Crain's, Bilbo do you want to do the honors of updating? Or would you like me to? The Odds section is still pending the update as well and I'm not entirely sure if it's clear that it is acceptable to add the proposed version. Because I have a COI, I cannot make controversial edits if they are potentially contested. CorporateM (Talk) 15:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Rare moment, I think I have to disagree with both CorporateM and Bilbobag on a minor sidebar point based on firsthand knowledge running private corporations. Long story short, if our revenues were $700 million, I would certainly say something like ""Over $500 million" or "over $300 million". As already decided, I think Crain's is the best place for a specific number. North8000 (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• None. Since there is no official figure, as in the case of publicly listed companies, we have to explicitly identify this fact in the infobox, i.e. state that it is a privately held company with a wikilink leading to such a company's reporting obligations and restrictions. And, in case we want to direct the reader to available figures, a footnote should inform the reader of the various figures, if any, provided by reliable sources, e.g. the company itself, Crain's, etc. Wikipedia carries an ever increasing imprimatur of reliability and its articles are quoted regularly in the media - so we should be suspicious of vague terms such as "more than X". -The Gnome (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• None. I was invited here by the RFC bot. Reading through this discussion, The Gnome's comments cut to the chase about how we must approach a situation with conflicting sources, in the situation described, where precise reported figures are unavailable. So, per The Gnome. Begoon ^talk 15:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Makes sense to me. Bilbobag (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Corporate - I do think the Gnome raises a good point (seconded by Begoon), and that the appropriate footnote(s) should be added. If you were to add them I don't believe that it would be perceived as a COIBilbobag (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• • • Is this ok? The website was updated a few days ago to $750 million. They said Crain's was correct (for 2011 revenues) and must have agreed the website should be more precise and up-to-date. CorporateM (Talk) 02:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• • • • Should we add the note that the Gnome suggested about the PCH #'s coming from a privately held company, and the relevant reporting restrictions about privately held businesses?Bilbobag (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • It does already say "Type: Private," and adding a disclaimer to the infobox would be awfully crowded, but I wouldn't oppose it as a footnote. CorporateM (Talk) 16:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

My fault - that's what I was referring to, but didn't state. Yeah - just the footnote.Bilbobag (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

done. Please feel free to modify as you feel appropriate. CorporateM (Talk) 18:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Early History

• Corporate. While I've been away for a number of days I have no real objection to change. Overall Good Job. Bilbobag (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! CorporateM (Talk) 02:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Products section

I thought before we went through the controversial material, we could do 2-3 more rounds of the easy and more mundane content in small bits. Below is a proposed Products section, which covers what they sell. It also has a few sentences devoted to both their reputation for establishing sweepstakes as a marketing technique and for being a large producer of junk-mail through direct-marketing. Because I am copy/pasting from the draft, there may be citation errors again, but I can fix those and do any cleanup. CorporateM (Talk) 02:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Corp some comments/thoughts: Listing each one of PCH's websites can be seen as promoting them/PCH. I also think that we should include the language from the existing version which is accurate and well sourced. "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. Bilbobag (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Itemizing all of the PCH web sites could be beneficial for those who might be reading this article and want to know how to steer clear of the company. Overall, I see that the article contains plenty of cautionary information and I'm impressed that it has this much detail. Also I previously had only vague awareness of what the company did and this makes it more clear. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Ed- each of these games are discussed in the current article, providing information to readers about PCH's games. Listing each website is when it can appear as promotional. I'm not saying we shouldn't state what games PCH has, just that we don't have to post the websites.Bilbobag (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Lists are a nuanced issue that often varies by editor preference and by circumstance. I would be interested in seeing North's opinion as a quick tie-breaker of sorts if that works?

I don't see the NYT content you mentioned in the current article, but it looks well-sourced and neutral. I will point out the History/Online Development section already covers the mobile and social campaigns and we have in the proposed Products section "registration information that is used for mailings." CorporateM (Talk) 16:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Corp - Here's the link to the article (below). The current article has the NY Times article and 2 list broker sites as sources showing that PCH rents out the names of responders to its websites and mailings. I believe this is something that readers should/would like to know.Bilbobag (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/business/media/23adco.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1356194225-8ziV468UF1b4iTCjtJdfTQ&

Broker lists are not appropriate sources for Wikipedia. The NYT piece says "show them advertisements and use the registration information for PCH’s mailing lists." The proposed content says "registration information that is used for mailings." I'm not sure what you're saying is missing, but if you can clarify what you mean, we can add any information from a secondary source that's missing. CorporateM (Talk) 17:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

"Information used for mailings" can be language in a mailing or an offer. It doesn't inform the reader that when they register for a game or contest that their name will be placed on a mailing list. The Times article points this out. That's information most readers would like to know. Bilbobag (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You mean you don't feel the proposed content makes it clear to readers that the websites are collecting their information for mailings? Ok, what I did is just changed it so that it quotes NYT exactly. Is that ok? CorporateM (Talk) 17:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely.Bilbobag (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Mailings broker lists

Since the article is about PCH, and we discuss it's revenues, and it's a direct marketing company, a revenue source for PCH is the renting of its mailing lists. The other 2 references were published documents showing that PCH mailing lists were available from (at least) 2 companies, and the quantities (millions) of names available. Since we discuss revenues, and this is a source of revenue, I believe it's relevant information. Bilbobag (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I posted here for outside input on whether we should say that PCH uses registration for their own mailings as stated by The New York Times, or whether we should also say that they sell the registration information to third-party vendors as stated on the vendor websites. If I have mistated the issue in some way, please feel free to correct me. Also, it would help if you provided links to the sources you're referring to. CorporateM (Talk) 18:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

These links were all deleted, but here's what was said in support of the statemnt that PCH rented its mailing lists: "Renting the names of people on these lists to other direct marketers helps generate income for PCH, as can be seen on a number of list rental sites". Here's three links. These companies advertise these lists in industry publications. The first 2 links were used as examples in the previous version.

http://datacards.dmminfo.com/market;jsessionid=4C29BD028567C4A64DD239AD497CF8BD?page=research/search_results http://lists.nextmark.com/market?page=order/online/datacard&id=96265 http://datacards.listservices.com/market;jsessionid=96FA8C7D06D05078DEFA7F9644FD9324?page=research/datacard&id=96249 Bilbobag (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• As I commented at RSN, this is a classic example of the synthesis of primary sources that is not appropriate for WP. Some published secondary source must first interpret the information before we can use it. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't seen any proposed content/statement(s) that this is about / that the given sources would be considered to be supporting. Without that important information, there is no specific question either here or at the RSN. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Bilbo. DGG, North and myself are correct in that Wikipedia policy does not allow us to research vendor websites and reach our own conclusions on their basis. Wikipedia relies on credible secondary sources that have already interpreted their own research and information, as oppose to Wikipedians doing primary research and analysis ourselves.

I don't have any inside information other than what is in the sources, so I can't say for sure if you are correct or not. I only know what the sources say and how Wikipedia's rules are applied. However, I certainly want to make sure you are comfortable and confident in that we are doing things properly. We can get more editor input if you like, but most editors will offer the same feedback.

Is there anything else in the proposed copy that would make you uncomfortable before the page is updated? CorporateM (Talk) 20:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I consider this conversation to be somewhat confused. If somebody wants to put mailing list material in, they would need to say specifically what statement they intend to put in and the sourcing for it. It might be that if it was a very narrow directly-from-the source statement, it could go in. That point is moot now because nobody has made any such proposal. Now, on to the question of whether or not "lack" of having this material in the proposed edit constitutes a problem. IMHO not. Sincerely,, North8000 (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Aww, I was confused, but now I get it. Hence the tight-rope when one attempts to summarize someone else's comments. Thanks for clarifying. CorporateM (Talk) 22:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A secondary source (The NY Times) did publish an article on PCH's digital games saying that "It is part of an overall effort to collect information on Web users, show them advertisements and use the registration information for PCH’s mailing lists." About 2 years ago someone asked for further proof of this. The list rental site info was added to provide this further proof. I have no problem not using the list rental sites, but believe that the NY Times quote about PCH using the data to build their mailing lists is A) a reliable secondary source, and B) a relevant comment since this article discusses PCH as a direct marketer, and discusses PCH revenues. Direct marketing companies generate revenues from building and renting mailing lists. This is acknowledged on Wiki's own site when one looks up "mailing lists". Bottom line: If we're saying the list broker stuff shold be deleted I absolutely agree. If we're saying that the NY Times quote should be deleted, then I respectfully disagree, and think it should be included as relevant and reliable.Bilbobag (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bilbo. Sounds like we're all on the same page. NYT is definitely a good source and the information is pertinent. Also, quoting the material directly is always a good way to avoid any dispute over how it's interpreted or worded. I'll go ahead and put the Request Edit up and move on to the next section! CorporateM (Talk) 23:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Products

Based on the discussion above, I believe all concerns have been addressed and we're now in agreement on the proposed Products section below. As such, I would like to submit a request to move it into article-space. Feel free to leave the image and any citation errors and I will perform cleanup and upload the image. CorporateM (Talk) 23:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Corp - We're all in agreement about the lists, but my original comment still stands: "Listing each one of PCH's websites can be seen as promoting them/PCH." I think we can strike middle ground using something like this:

""PCH offers a number of different games in which readers can participate. These include PCH Search and Win, PCH Lotto, PCH Games, PCH Save and Win, and Candystand. ""I think this works, since we already have PCH.Com listed twice in the Infobox, once with a link to the site, so readers can easily get info about any of these games. Bilbobag (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Save I didn't identify them as games, because only some of the sites are game sites. CorporateM (Talk) 13:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"""Corp - I added Products section, but apparently messed up the reference #s. I don't think anyone would consider it a COI if you cleaned that upBilbobag (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Products section

File:Screen Shot of PCH Search and Win.png A screenshot of PCHSearch&WIN.com Publishers Clearing House is a direct-marketing company that sells merchandise, magazine subscriptions and operates several prize-based websites. While best known for its sweepstakes and Prize Patrol, the majority of the company's revenue now comes from merchandise. The company has been selling books, media, jewelry and other consumer items since the 1980s. 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." Publishers Clearing house operates eight websites, including PCH Search and Win, PCH Lotto, PCH Games, PCH Save and Win, and Candystand. Publishers Clearing House sells magazine subscriptions at a discount and advertises subscriptions along with its sweepstakes. It's estimated that companies like Publishers Clearing House keep 75-90 percent of the fees from the original subscription, while publishers use the increased distribution to improve circulation numbers and revenue from renewals. Publishers Clearing House popularized the idea of using sweepstakes to sell magazine subscriptions in the direct-marketing market and became known by detractors as a producer of junk-mail for advertising through mass-mailings. Documents filed with the New York State Department in 1993 said that year the company mailed 220 million envelopes. Frequent buyers can receive 30-40 mailings a year.

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[15], 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)

DM NEws is a legitimate secondary source. According to Wiki "Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." Further, quoting Wiki "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." In this case there is no analytic or evaulative claim - just reporting of fact. Further the only lawsuits mentioned in this article, so as to present a balanced view, are those brought forth by AGs. So while the book may talk about "raining lawsuits" in the interest of fairness, private lawsuits have not been discussed on this page. Further, according to WIKI, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." They go on to say that an article should not be based solely upon primary sources. The Policy for primary sources is "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." In each instance in the government regulation section, primary sources are used, but supported by at lesat one, and usually two, secondary sources.Bilbobag (talk) 17:26, 7 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[16] 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)

Hi Bilbo. I don't know what you mean by "both." I've marked the press release sources with "Better source needed." Are you ok with removing those and the content they are used to support? Naturally we can replace them with secondary sources and write it in a matter that reflects those sources. The lawsuits are well covered in high-profile press articles. CorporateM (Talk) 01:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Please to not presume, but rather, read the article and the sources I added 3 hours ago. I added two sources for this section both of which are business publications, with journalists - see cite 31 from the Alaska Business News and cite 32 from the Denver News. They are not PR sources, but rather legitimate, objective secondary sources. Please remove the "Better source needed" comment. The cites on the 2010 settlement now include 3 secondary sources who recount the settlement, the investigation by the AG's and the events leading up to it, and the specific details of the settlement. Since they provide factual information, A) the title of this Talk page section should be modified, since there are, (and have been for at least 6 months) a legitimate source, so it is not "Unsourced", and B) since based upon facts, it cannot be called "contentious".Bilbobag (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have posted here for outside input regarding the two sources you brought up. Lets see what editors say on this issue before moving on to discussing other sources. CorporateM (Talk) 01:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Bilbo, please do not remove my templates until the discussion is closed. Otherwise it makes it very difficult for me to point out what references I am referring to. I have asked for input at the appropriate board and told them that the sources I am contesting are marked. It will create a lot of confusion. CorporateM (Talk) 01:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

For the 2010 section, the Alaska Business Monthly was established in 1984, has an editorial staff, and has as "Its goal is to promote economic growth in the state by providing a thorough and objective discussion and analysis of the issues and trends affecting Alaska's business sector; and by featuring stories on the individuals, organizations and companies that shape the Alaska economy".(see http://www.akbizmag.com/Alaska-Business-Monthly/About-Us/).

For the In 2007 section, the Direct Marketing News (or DM News) is used as a source. This is the same source as cite 14, which you used for "PCH acquiring Blingo". Don't understand how it can be good source in one place but not in another.

For the "between 2000 and 2001" section we have 2 acceptable sources. I can probably track down 30 or 40 more - How many do we need? Each of these articles discusses in prose, the items listed in bullet fashion in the section beneath the paragraph, so these sources are the sources for the settlement terms. Over the years, and after much discussion, it was decided that for readers of the page, using bullets would be the best way to list the settlement terms. This enables the reader to easily read and understand what can and cannot be done, as well as the evolution of these terms.Bilbobag (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The publications look fine, but the posts themselves do not have bylines and appear to be press release reposts or re-writes. Having contact information at the bottom of the post is usually an easy way to confirm this. Lets give it time for others to have input. Also, I would prefer if we tackled one issue at a time; otherwise it gets very confusing. CorporateM (Talk) 02:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The ChicagoBreakingBusiness report is the item that looks the most like the work of a reporter. It is uncontroversial that PCH entered into a settlement with 31 states in September 2010, and I agree that the Alaska Business Monthly and Denver bulletins don't add very much. If those two were included, they would be prefaced with things like 'the Alaska Attorney General said...' This is enough attribution, but multiple use of state press releases would tend to give the prosecutor angle on all these cases which is not so good for neutrality. The significance of the 2010 settlement is surely that PCH was still having legal troubles at that recent date, though the dollar amount, $3.5 million is not large compared to their previous bills. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ed thanks for the response. The reason the Alaska and Denver business articles were included, was to provide some secondary sources to the primary Attorney General sources. I did this because I know Wiki will allow primary sources, because they provide "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." but that one shouldn't solely base an article on them. For that reason I've looked for secondary sources. For the 2010 settlement I've found a Denver Post article that's cites the Associated Press, would adding that be a better source that the 2 business journals?Bilbobag (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If the Associated Press article is not a press release repost, it would certainly be an acceptable source - so much so that it would be unreasonable for anyone to contest it. CorporateM (Talk) 17:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I believe rough emerging consensus from the noticeboard and EdJohnston's comment is that:

• The two sources I allege are press release reposts are not necessarily unreliable

"It is uncontroversial that PCH entered into a settlement with 31 states in September 2010..."

"While the press releases are not rs, the articles are because the newspaper has made a judgment on how credible the press release is."

• However, we would prefer to use the best available source, which is the Chicago Tribune article

"OTOH, we are supposed to use the best sources available"

"State press releases are not "best source" and the source you proffer is, indeed, a better source."

• It does create a substantial weight and neutrality issues to source the plaintiff's press releases extensively and create such a large amount of content on their basis

"If major news sources do not cover the case, then it becomes an issue of neutrality. Generally if these sources ignore a story then it is hard to justify inclusion for a story about a company with a high national profile. "

"I notice the NYT ignored this particular case"

There is no clear consensus on whether to remove it entirely as a weight violation, but I also found this source - while it is a short blurb - it should tip things over to inclusion.

I believe based on this rough consensus the next step would be to replace this paragraph and five bullets with just 1-2 sentences based on "more reliable" sources, such as these,[17][18] without giving so much excessive weight to the plaintiff's argument. Keeping in mind, similar arguments from much more notable lawsuits will be added later on.

If anyone believes I have mistated consensus, let me know. CorporateM (Talk) 17:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Corp: I found that same source along with the one below from the Denver Post. This article quotes the AP. In looking at Wiki's policy for primary sources, they state: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." They go on to say that an article should not be based solely upon primary sources. The Policy for primary sources is "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Since the AGs are "close to the event", they can be used to present the bulleted settlement terms - they are factual, and neutral in voice. http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_16033116

Here's a proposed rewrite that relies upon exact language from Chicago Breaking Business, and the AGs for the terms:

In September 2010, Publishers Clearing House agreed to pay $3.5 million to 32 states and Washington, D.C. to cover their investigative costs as part of a new settlement that also toughens solicitation practices.The settlement stemmed from a probe into Publishers’ “marketing practices of misleading consumers to believe purchasing magazines and other products will increase their chance to win the jackpot (use Chicage Breaking Bus. cite). Specific terms of the 2010 settlement include: (We list the 5 bullets and use one of the AG PR sources.)Bilbobag (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The Denver Post piece is good and finding it supports your arguments for additional weight than I would otherwise propose. On a technical note, it should be sourced as coming from The Associated Press, the Denver Post merely being one of the publications that ran the story from the wire service and being an acceptable URL.

The proposed is much, much better, but including the five bullets is still an extreme amount of detail. If we did this for every lawsuit, it would fill several pages. There are a couple ways to fix this. One is to provide a source that has the full list of agreements so that readers that do want more detail can find it. Press releases would be acceptable for this purpose I think. Another would be to add similar agreements made for much more notable lawsuits. This content could be easily mined from my draft.

I think as we continue along this topic, you may want to tweak it slightly, as the content will become redundant, most of the lawsuits being very similar. But that is a bridge best-crossed when we get there. I think what you propose - if my comments are considered - would be adequate such that I would not be in a viable position to file a grievance and further participation from me would be an unsavory amount of micro-management. CorporateM (Talk) 19:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Corp - With regard to "If we did this for every lawsuit, it would fill several pages". There a only four lawsuits that are being discussed (1994, 2000, 2001, and 2010) - these are lawsuits brought by state AGs, not private civil actions. The 2007 issue wasn't a lawsuit, rather a letter of understanding between the state of Iowa and PCH. Two of the four lawsuits have had there details combined (2000 and 2001) for the sake of brevity. If we want to get into specifics, the 2001 settlement imposed more conditions than 2000, but in the interest of brevity and neutrality the current section contains only the key points of both settlements (8 in total). The 2010 settlement has 5 key points. The key points are not similar. They are the result of (and show) a progressive set of settlements between the states and PCH. I don't think we need to add any more bulleted details, and I don't think the current listing "fills pages".

I firmly believe that listing them in bulleted fashion is the easiest way for readers to understand what the specific issues are that a sweeps company such as PCH can or cannot do. While not trying to slam PCH, or to insert this language, I also believe that the progression of lawsuits and their details shows readers that PCH's marketing tactics did, or at least had the capability to, mislead the public, and it took a series of settlements with the states, between 2000 and 2010, to obtain PCH's compliance. Readers should be made aware of that. To hide that fact, is not in the best interests of the readers or Wiki. I don't mean to imply that we should explicitly state that, but I don't feel that we should bury, or hide it, either. Bilbobag (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Corp - Here's another (poss. better) source, from the Honolulu Star Advertiser, about the 2010 settlement. The byline on this one is "Staff and Associated Press".Bilbobag (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Bulleted list

This is another arbitrary break made for a discussion on whether we should include a five-point bulleted list of the agreements Publishers Clearing House made in the 2010 lawsuit, using the press release from the Attorney's General as a source. I believe it is excessively detailed and a weight issue, as the lawsuit is only covered in brief blurbs and secondary sources did not feel the complete list was worth including, as they did in other more notable lawsuits. Bilbo feels this information is important to the reader, who would want to know the complete list of agreements.

Alternatives have been discussed such as using a reference where the complete list can be found, or adding agreements from more notable lawsuits where the agreements are published in secondary sources.

The content in question is below:

bullets

Specific terms of the 2010 settlement include: Increased outreach to customers with frequent purchases (High Activity Customers) to ensure that they understand that “no purchase necessary" means that no purchase is necessary to enter or win, a key principle of a legitimate sweepstakes Cease using the tactic of sending a communication from the “Board of Judges” to indicate that the recipient is close to winning Enhanced description of different giveaways offered in the same promotional mailing Additional messaging that sweepstakes winners are selected randomly Hire an ombudsman to review the company's solicitations on a quarterly basis.

CorporateM (Talk) 22:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that Wikipedia readers generally wish broad information instead of precise terms ... that PCH would no longer imply to customers that purchases would improve chances of winning, that they would make sure customers knew that the winners were chosen completely at random and that PCH would no longer send messages implying that anyone had a better chance of winning. And that PCH would hire a person to make sure that future ads were incompliance with these requirements. Does this pretty accurately reflect the terms? Collect (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

These sources may help provide context:

• In 1994 Publishers Clearing House agreed to "change the way it uses the sweepstakes as a marketing tool and will spell out the likelihood of being a winner" (Associated Press)

• In 2000, it agreed to "change many of its practices… [avoid] winner proclamations, sending stimulated checks" or requesting information from the consumer that suggests they are likely to win.(The New York Times)

• "Will be required to make 'dramatic' changes in what it tells customers about their chances of winning." (San Francisco Chronicle)

• "Among those changes was the inclusion in ads of a “sweepstakes facts” box that included statements like “Enter for free. You don’t have to buy anything to enter” and “Buying won’t help you win." (The New York Times)

Lots of high-profile sources are available to fill this section, which will need to be a substantial portion of the article to attain proper weight. CorporateM (Talk) 23:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Those are much better sources. TFD (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Corp - I believe (respectfully) that this may be an instance in which your being paid by PCH does present a COI. I am not saying that we shouldn't get better sources, but I believe that this is an instance in which "broad details" do not best serve the reader. I say this because these specific details were not provided to consumers until after the settlements with the AGs. By not providing readers with the specific details we fail to provide readers with COMPLETE information that could prove helpful. Further, by lumping 10 years of lawsuits together, we fail to let readers know that 10 years after the first settlements, PCH was fined for still using language that was considered misleading. While this is unflattering to the company, it was none-the-less true, and information a reader would seek in order to make an informed decision.

Likewise there's no mention of the 2007 letter of understanding regarding senior citizens. A particularly vulnerable group, who would benefit from having the settlement details published. By not presenting these details, we're pretending these settlement terms don't exist.

I also believe that if we're going to list PCH's online game details and product details, then we should provide equal details here. For example, the proposed text simply glosses over the fact that PCH had to "apologize for the harm caused by its deceptive marketing", or as stated by the NY Times, PCH settled based upon "accusations that it uses deceptive promotions". Again, by not presenting this info, we're pretending this didn't happen.Bilbobag (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Because I have a COI and am asking for controversial material to be removed, you have made assumptions about my motives that I want to "hide" information from readers, which places you in a defensive position, a posture we have seen for a while on this page, but one that is not unexpected or unusual for me, nor one that is completely unreasonable.

I don't know why you would say a list of the agreements made is damaging to PCH or what I could have done to give you the impression that I want to censor information, since I plan to expand this section substantially and have added contentious material in other places.

Of course this information is useful and luckily there are plenty of places on the Web where people can find it, but Wikipedia only wants to cover "the major aspects"[19] or "major facts."[20] And we cover it with "due weight" based on the available sources. In this case there are only a few blurbs, so we would be equally brief here at-scale.

Naturally, you don't trust me, which is why you have been making it very difficult for me to improve the page, so the best thing for me to do is get other disinterested editors involved to foster a discussion. You say you want to provide readers with "complete" information, but this is not Wikipedia's rules/criteria. CorporateM (Talk) 14:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Corp - I do trust you, and have commented in prior posts that you have been fair. I also apologize for implying censorship. On this particular topic though I believe that you're going to have a difficult time being objective AND serving PCH. As an example, why is this section "controversial"? It is based upon factual events and occurences. In this section you want to remove some factual, but unflatering, info. I think you have done a good job in pointing out deficiencies in sourcing. My position is that consumers have been misled by PCH. If they come to Wiki, they should see that PCH is a succesful, legitimate company, that does offer prizes and merchandise. However, it has had some legal problems concerning the messages they communicate to the public. Overall, I'm not trying to be difficult, but rather present a differing POV. I think that over the past month we have both made concessiosn for the betterment of the article. As to my "complete" comment - my fault. I should have said comprehensive, referring to Wiki policy on featured articles, item 1B "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context." I'm simply stating that the article should be comprehensive.Bilbobag (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your assessment of what the article should portray is correct. In fact, I would go a step beyond "some legal troubles." Some of the sources use terms like "raining lawsuits" and it's a major part of what they are known for. Also, the lawsuits led to the senate hearings PCH participated in, which established regulation for the industry.

RE: "My position is that consumers have been misled by PCH." We cannot author content based on personal opinions here, though we all develop them. Certainly these are the allegations that were made and there are counter-points and counter-arguments that also need to be included, in addition to the POV of the plaintiff, so readers can make their own choices.

Let me ask you this, would it make you more comfortable if we added the content that is missing first? I think we will need to make an RfC at some point regarding these lists and maybe we can save that for last. CorporateM (Talk) 16:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Lawsuit details

Currently the Lawsuits section doesn't explain how the lawsuits started or exactly what PCH did to raise concerns that they were misleading consumers about their odds of winning and whether purchases increase their chances. From my research, it appears that this started when PCH sent mailings telling recipients they were a "finalist" with only a small disclaimer saying "if you return this form with the winning number." From what I've gathered, the issue varied slightly in future lawsuits, for example with the 2000 lawsuit focused on mailings saying "You are a Winner!" accompanied by mock checks and the "Board of Judges" issue coming later.

These are covered extensively by secondary sources and obviously need to be included. Here's what I had put together in my draft. Thoughts on adding this or something like it to the beginning of the Lawsuits section?

Publishers Clearing House sent mailings telling recipients they were all "finalists" and American Family Publishers did the same. Some mailings said the recipient was a prize-winner in large letters, then featured a smaller disclaimer "if you return your entrance form and it displays the winning number." This led to a series of legal troubles for both companies due to concerns that the mailings misled consumers about their odds of winning and implied that magazine purchases increased their chances.

CorporateM (Talk) 18:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Corp - Think this is a good start. Let me throw out a few things and tell me what you think.

There were 5 issues that upset the AGs. I can't point to any single document that has all of these - this is just a from my experience in the sweeps and direct marketing industry, but I can find sources for each of the individual items. I'm not suggesting we list these, am using it here to get your thoughts. The 5 items were

• 1) language that implied purchasing improved the chances of winning (disclaimer was supposed to be 'no purchase needed to enter OR WIN'. PCH didn't (or rarely) included the 'or win'. Also, entries with orders had a special envelope with "Priority Handling" on it and were sent to a diff mail address).
• 2) language that stated or implied you were a winner, or a finalist
• 3) envelopes that appeared to be from some governmental organization or ha
• 4) mailings were targeted to senior citizens in a larger proportion to senior citizens in the overall US population. And that a significant percentage of the "high volume" customers were senior citizens, who were more likely to be confused (or mislead)
• 5) the use of phony "personalized checks" that indicated or lead the recipient to think they had won something

Items 1,2,3 & 5 were the basis of the misleading/deceptive practices. Item 4 was the basis for regulation around targeting, and PCH having to contact high volume purchasers. In your draft you cover items 1&2. What do you think about a sentence that combined 3 & 5; i.e., "Mailings that appeared to be from government agancies or that contained simulated personalized checks were also used". And then add a few words about the senior citizens and high volume purchasers? If you agree, I'll track down the sources. Appreciate your thoughts.Bilbobag (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Anything I author is open to reasonable speculation of intentional slanting. So it is always preferred, especially in controversial areas where a regular editor takes an interest, for it to be authored the regular way.

If you are interested in working on this section, I wouldn't mind just waiting a week or two while you take a stab at it. I would ask that you take a look at my draft and leverage the sources I've collected, so that my efforts aren't completely wasted. Also, taking a look at Featured Articles like this one will offer some good examples to draw from.

Although I am not familiar with number 3, that sounds about right, though it would need to be more specific (and have sources) for me to provide better commentary. Though it should be written in proper prose, like "Attorney General ____ alleged PCH misled consumers by doing _____. The lawsuit was settled with ____ terms. PCH claimed ____ in their defense" CorporateM (Talk) 20:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bilbo. Before I look through this, should I take that to mean you would like to tackle the whole section at-once like we have done for other sections? I just feel like we're jumping around a bit between the lists, the intro and now some other paragraphs and want to get a handle on how you want to proceed. CorporateM (Talk) 22:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Corp. Good point - we are jumping around. Since you've been taking the lead on re-writing, I have no problem with you deciding the sequence of how we proceed.Bilbobag (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have moved it to Talk:Publishers Clearing House/lawsuits and will look through your comments either today or tomorrow.

Naturally, it makes any company (and any editor) uncomfortable to have to write our own controversies, but if no volunteer is willing and the content needs improvement, it is the only practical way to proceed.

If anyone watching the Talk page is interested in taking a stab at it independently, I will not object. Otherwise we will keep mosing along on the draft and I will eventually take it to GA to ensure it was done properly. CorporateM (Talk) 12:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Notes

Hi Bilbo. Keeping in mind that I am not a subject-matter expert, at a glance the following issues came up in your draft:

1. I don't know where "contempt" charges is coming from. I could not find this in the source.
2. Do you have any secondary sources for the 2007 lawsuit? I could not find one in a Google's news archives search.
3. There are a couple areas that say they use sources in St. Petersburg Times and SF Chronicle. Can you provide links to the sources?
4. The 2010 lawsuit still has undue weight for being covered only in short blurbs, but I think I can do some trimming that will still explain the agreements.
5. This issue of "priority handling" is not included in the sources used and I didn't find anything. Do you have a source for this?

It is inappropriate for a COI editor to micro-manage and in general it's not very useful for any editor to be excessively stubborn, so for the most part my comments will be where there may be an overt policy violation, such as unsourced contentious material, original research or overt weight violations. It comes to mind that you seem to have expertise and first-hand knowledge, so it may seem like I am trying to censor information where you have first-hand knowledge, but this is just the rules here, that we rely on secondary sources, and it's often frustrating for people with first-hand knowledge they want represented on Wikipedia. CorporateM (Talk) 14:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"" Corp - Don't think you're stubborn or trying to censor, and agree first hand knowledge isn't applicable. We may disagree on weight here and there, but I think we've worked well so far. As to bullet points - the word contempt should be removed - I removed it from the draft I submitted, and instead wrote "In 2010, to settle charges that it had violated terms of the 2001 agreements". ""The 2007 item wasn't a lawsuit - but a step by both sides to preclude/prevent a lawsuit by agreeing to a Letter of Understanding. I'm not trying to pick at nits, but in fairness to readers we shouldn't call it a lawsuit. The 2 cites we discussed are the DM News article, and the Consumeraffairs.com piece. I have another cite for this, but can't find right now - but will look for it. ""Here's link to St. Petersburg Times: http://www.sptimes.com/News/062701/State/Publishers_Clearing_H.shtml Here's link to SF Chronicle (actually reprinted from LA Times): [21] ""For 2010 we have the Chicago Breaking Business cite. I can get more, but here's a link to the Honolulu Star Advertiser, written by Staff and AP Publishers Clearing House settles lawsuit with Hawaii and other states ""For the Priority Handling we only have the press releases from 46 AGs. I know this is a primary source, but I believe it's one of the exceptions, that would allow us to use it - "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history,..." Bilbobag (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! The SF Chronicle and Petersburg sources definitely provided some more context. Seeing as the government and PCH seem to have conflicting POVs on whether the number of consumers that were confused was significant, the new copy adds the AG's POV and better balances the two.

Also, I have added the 2007 and 2010 lawsuits with the sources you provided, though I did so as briefly as possible given that they are not represented with any significant weight in the available literature, while attempting to explain the agreements made.

It's a bit confusing to go back and forth between various notes and different versions. If you want to give it a fresh read and let me know if there are any remaining issues or sources we should add? Or I might have to re-check it with fresh eyes later to see if I got everything. It's at: Talk:Publishers Clearing House/lawsuits

I would be interested in getting more feedback on it later as it goes through a GA review and I don't think there's any concern if we don't get it just right on the first go. I'm already receiving some notes from folks at PCH regarding other areas where I may have made errors and it's difficult to create GA works as a first-draft. CorporateM (Talk) 02:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I read your Lawsuit/Government Reg. draft. Overall looks good, but I do have some thoughts/comments. The major difference between the 2000 and 2001 lawsuits, was that the remaining AGs didn't think the 2000 settlement went far enough. In their settlement, PCH had to "apologize for any harm caused by it's marketing practices" (that's not exact quote, but close). This was a first for PCH, and a major point in this settlement, so I believe it should be added.

The 2010 settlement wasn't just with Oregon - it was with 32 states and the District of Columbia - that's stated in the Oregon source and some others (Honolulu Star Advertiser, SF Chronicle/LA Times and St Pete Times). So I think just adding the phrase "with 32 states and the District of Columbia" would wrap that up. Lastly, about 3 years ago, I listed these settlements in the same order you have - oldest first. A Wiki editor re-wrote this section and obtained other editor comments that most recent info goes first, since it's the most relevant, and that readers should see the most relevant information first. My position was that prior sections showed history, and this section was following same format/sequence. The response was that this section wasn't about history, rather, about news. I understand that POV, not going to make an issue out of it, but pass it on as an FYI.Bilbobag (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bilbo. I think I've got them all. Below are quoted materials from the draft regarding each of your points:

• AG's didn't like the settlement in 2000: "State attorneys spoke out against the national settlement and additional lawsuits were filed by individual states.[13]"
• Apology: "Publishers Clearing House apologized in the settlement..."
• Clarification on 32 states: "paid $3.5 million to 32 states and the District of Columbia after" (I sourced this to a Consumer Reports article I found. I believe this source also makes the weight issue null)

I'll go ahead and submit it as a Request Edit. CorporateM (Talk) 18:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Good. Not bad work for a "PCH shill" and a "PCH hater" (quoting a previous commentator).Bilbobag (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

And that is Wikipedia at it's best! Editors with different motives/perspectives/knowledge/etc. hammering it out and working together in good-faith, creating articles that are more neutral than if they were authored by any single individual.

If I were not involved, we would continue to have a section that does not expose readers to PCH's POV, that only a small number of consumers were confused and that they were doing everything they could to inform them. But if I hadn't gotten input from you, I wouldn't have seen that "State officials" had used similar numbers to portray it in the opposite manner - suggesting that a large number of consumers were confused - and I would have never seen sources like Consumer Reports showing that the 2010 lawsuit did turn out to be notable.

Nice work. CorporateM (Talk) 21:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Lawsuits and Government Regulation

I think based on the discussion above, the content located at Talk:Publishers Clearing House/lawsuits is ready for implementing into the current "Lawsuits" and "Government Regulation" sections.

I realize that it is controversial for a PR professional to author our own controversies and that - like most content on Wikipedia - it probably has at least some subtle bias. But I'm also not sure of any other practical way to bring the article up to the GA designation in a PR capacity, except to tackle all of the topics in the article, including those that make everyone particularly uncomfortable.

After this, I'm hoping to update the lead, take care of the tags and do a round of misc items before we take it for the GA round. There may be some citation duplicates or errors when merging into article-space. I can take care of those. CorporateM (Talk) 19:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Last up is the introduction to the article. Per WP:LEAD, it's suppose to summarize the entire article and include any major controversies. I've started a draft below. CorporateM (Talk) 13:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Corp - my suggestion(s).

• In the 3rd paragraph you state "a series of lawsuits alleging they misled". In actuality, in the 2001 settlement they acknowledged wrongdoing and apologized for it. Using a quote from one of the AGs "In addition to issuing a formal apology for its deceptive sweepstakes promotions." (see the website below) That's a significant point. I know this quote is from an AG release, but I think it's relevant and can be used as a primary source since it's providing "inside information". Also, it's in keeping with Wiki policy about being comprehensive, (i.e., "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context"). In reading this section, I don't know that this belongs here, but wonder if we shouild add it to the Gov't Reg section?

I don't want to be continuously editing that section, but do think that not mentioning this fact was/is an oversight, and is of such significance that it needs to be included. A possible way to accomplish this could be to replace "leading to a series of lawsuits alleging they misled..." in this section, with "leading to a series of settlements regarding PCH's use of misleading and/or deceptive tactics."

http://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/media/releases/2001/010626pch.htm

• For the paragraph beginning "From 1993 to the early 2000s" I'd say

"In 1993 the company settled a class action lawsuit, and between 2000 and 2010 made settlements with Attorneys General in all 50 states."

Bilbobag (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I made some of the changes below. I think there is a misunderstanding. The "inside view" is how Wikipedia explains why not to use primary sources, not a rationale for using them. Also, the best practice at WP:LEAD is to summarize every section and each sub-section with a sentence or two. The guideline for "major facts" is intended for the article itself. We usually use "alleged" unless found guilty in court. I note that there was a secondary source saying they apologized "in the settlement" for a single settlement, but not for all or even most of them and we cannot make assumptions about whether they have self-admitted guilt. As a matter of personal opinion, the use of "in the settlement" in the source made me think that it was part of the settlement terms and not a genuine apology. CorporateM (Talk) 16:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Corp - Thanks for the 1 change. We've been working well, and don't want to change that, but with regard to Primary sources, I'm relying on Wiki Policy about Primary sources "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources). In this case we have a primary and secondary source saying the same thing, so I think the primary can be used. Also, as the policy says, this is "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." What we'd be including is a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts."

You make two good points though, 1)that this applies to only one settlement, though it was the largest, and 2) that this shouldn't be in the lead. With that in mind, and an effort to be comprehensive, I think we should modify the language in Gov't Reg section about the 2001 settlement (only) to say "Publishers Clearing House apologized in the settlement for its deceptive sweepstakes promotions." This is significantly different than the current wording "Publishers Clearing House apologized in the settlement', since it explains what PCH was apologizing for. Is that a workable compromise? Bilbobag (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any objection. CorporateM (Talk) 16:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - Done. I noticed in making this change that some of the cites are out of sequence (i.e., 2007 agreement cite for 2010 settlement, & vice versa). Am assuming you're waiting till article complete before working on this.Bilbobag (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been working on cleaning up some of the cites. Can you point out which ones you're referring to? CorporateM (Talk) 16:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Here are ones I've noticed: Cite 42 refers to 2010 but is in 2001. Cite 44 is about the 2001 settlement but is used as a cite in 2010. These need to be switched.

Cite 38 & 40 are the same. Cite 41 (used twice in 3rd paragraph of Govt Reg) takes you to an unrelated site - think it should be Bilbobag (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done I fixed some other citation problems as well. While I was looking through the cites, I noticed that citations 56-70 almost all need "better source needed" tags. Even if we don't change the text much, we really should find better sources. But for now, do you think the Lead is ready? CorporateM (Talk) 20:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

YupBilbobag (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Publishers Clearing House is a Port Washington-based direct marketing company that sells merchandise, magazine subscriptions and operates prize-based websites. The company uses online and direct-mail sweepstakes, contests and prize promotions to market its products. Publishers Clearing House is best-known for the Prize Patrol, a team that surprises sweepstakes winners at their home. The company was founded in 1953 by Harold Mertz to replace door-to-door, single-subscription sales with a single vendor offering multiple subscriptions by mail. Sweepstakes were introduced as a way to market the subscriptions in 1967 and the Prize Patrol was started in 1988. When competitor American Family Publishers was formed in 1977, the two began competing for larger sweepstakes prizes and promotion ideas. Both companies sent mass mailings suggesting each recipient was a finalist or winner, leading to concerns that the company may have misled consumers about their odds of winning and implied that purchases increased their chances. In 1993 the company settled a class action lawsuit, and between 2000 and 2010 made settlements with Attorneys General in all 50 states. The company also agreed to make changes to its promotions and a "compliance counsel" was formed to regulate the company's marketing. After the lawsuits, Publishers Clearing House expanded online and in selling consumer merchandise, which it began selling in 1985. It acquired Blingo Inc. in 2006, which was rebranded into PCH Search and Win. Publishers Clearing House also created several contest-based websites, iPhone games, social media contests and online video game sites.

Request edit Lead

Per the discussion above, I believe the proposed Lead is ready for article-space and would like to request an impartial editor move it in (see below). CorporateM (Talk) 22:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Publishers Clearing House is a Port Washington-based direct marketing company that sells merchandise, magazine subscriptions and operates prize-based websites. The company uses online and direct-mail sweepstakes, contests and prize promotions to market its products. Publishers Clearing House is best-known for the Prize Patrol, a team that surprises sweepstakes winners at their home. The company was founded in 1953 by Harold Mertz to replace door-to-door, single-subscription sales with a single vendor offering multiple subscriptions by mail. Sweepstakes were introduced as a way to market the subscriptions in 1967 and the Prize Patrol was started in 1988. When competitor American Family Publishers was formed in 1977, the two began competing for larger sweepstakes prizes and promotion ideas. Both companies sent mass mailings suggesting each recipient was a finalist or winner, leading to concerns that the company may have misled consumers about their odds of winning and implied that purchases increased their chances. In 1993 the company settled a class action lawsuit, and between 2000 and 2010 made settlements with Attorneys General in all 50 states. The company also agreed to make changes to its promotions and a "compliance counsel" was formed to regulate the company's marketing. After the lawsuits, Publishers Clearing House expanded online and in selling consumer merchandise, which it began selling in 1985. It acquired Blingo Inc. in 2006, which was rebranded into PCH Search and Win. Publishers Clearing House also created several contest-based websites, iPhone games, social media contests and online video game sites.

I am comfortable with this material both from a suitability and coi standpoint. I can't say the same with certainty about deletion of the material currently in the lead. So I'll add this material as a first step and the it can evolve from there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I did it, and partially pared / condensed the old material. But left some awkward duplication that will need to get worked out. North8000 (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)