Talk:Publishers Clearing House/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Misc notes

I'm starting this section as a To Do list and notepad regarding some misc things I need to research/look into before wrapping it up for now.

A couple significant sources that aren't used yet and may be useful

• Haire, Thomas (February 1, 2013). "PCH Wins All Day Long". Response Magazine. Retrieved July 14, 2013.
• Elliott, Stuart (May 6, 2013). "Publishers Clearing House Imagines Handing a Big Check to Gilligan and Mike Brady". The New York Times. Retrieved July 14, 2013.

Clarifications/corrections I've received thus far from subject-matter experts at PCH (will research in the sources)

• RE "thousands of discarded sweepstakes entries" it also included order forms, lending weight to the argument that the company did not authorize the mail being discarded
• RE "Some of its prizes include a vacation home, car or cash prizes." I used an outdated source from 1977. They aren't really known for vacations and cars anymore, so much as the large cash prizes.

Prize patrol section: Need to see about getting better sources. Curious the best way to source this kind of pop-culture material. CorporateM (Talk) 22:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Corp - Think this "Notepad" is a good idea. Comment: I know it technically qualifies as a secondary source, but Response Magazine has a circ of only 13000, and that was from its last ABC audit which was 3 years ago. Based on print industry trends, the circ is probably less than that today. Most of (not all) the article referenced is a combo of info from PCH press releases and this site. As i said, technically it qualifies, but think we should look for better source(s).

For the ""thousands of discarded sweepstakes entries" it also included order forms" I'll have to go back to get the info, but we're talking about thousands of entires and tens of orders - I believe the orders were splaced in the wrong envelopes when mailed (there were different envelopes for orders and entries at that time). It was this disparity in proportions of entries to orders that was a key point that drove the settlement. Bilbobag (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Lets start with Response magazine. I've had a chance to read through the article and I think the only thing I would suggest we do with it is use it as an additional cite to confirm some key facts and dates. I noticed it confirms the following statements already found in the article and most of these could use a second citation:

• "was started with help from his wife and daughter"
• "It began advertising the sweepstakes on TV in 1974"
• "began selling merchandize in 1985"
• "The company has become known for its Prize Patrol"

CorporateM (Talk) 14:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense.Bilbobag (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The quote below is from Encyclopedia.com. This rings a bell about PCH contracting with a number of fulfillment companies to handle entries. Orders were sent directly to the company. If memory serves, lack of vendor oversight by PCH was one of the issues. This could be used as a confirmation cite. "The company said it had discontinued its use of outside processors, one of which it blamed for improperly handling the discarded entries" http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Publishers_Clearing_House.aspx Bilbobag (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let me wrap up these two sources before I look into the discarded entries thing. How about this:

"The company has come to be known for its Prize Patrol that surprises winners at their homes, work or other locations with cash prizes awards and captures the event on video.[57] Since their introduction in 1989, these reality TV-style videos of prize-winners surprised at their doorstep with checks for $1,000 to $10 million have been used in widely broadcasted television commercials, and, more recently, in the company's online acquisition efforts, websites and social media communications.[58][59][13](Add Response Magazine source)(Add New York Times source)"

Then "In 2013, a $5 million television campaign modified the traditional prize patrol commercial by digitally altering video from classic sitcoms like The Brady Brunch and Gilligan's Island to show the prize patrol visiting characters in the show.[1]

This has some copyediting, eliminates "winning moments" which I think is why it sounds promotional to me and implements much better sourcing. It also adds the latest modified version of the traditional prize patrol commercials, which is the subject of a substantial NYT article. That should wrap it up for those two sources. CorporateM (Talk) 15:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks good.Bilbobag (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Corp: I did some research re: the 2010 settlement. We say that "after the Oregon AG alleged that..." In actuality it was AG's of the 32 states acting through the Nat'l Association of Attorneys General. After the settlement, the press release from each state's AG used language along the lines of "the {name of state} AG alleged that...". I can dig up about 11 press releases that use this language. To clean this up, I think we simply remove "the attorney general of Oregan alleged" and change it to read "after the attorneys general of these states and the Distrcit of Columbia alleged that..." Bilbobag (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

That seems fine, but it should be in a single secondary source as oppose to 11 press releases. Otherwise it's Original Synthesis. I would actually prefer not to be consulted before each individual edit though - the article should continue to improve the regular way. If something is not compliant with Wiki-policy in a really overt way, I will raise my objections after the edit is made and I hope my objections will be considered based on their merit. I'll also circle back every 6-12 months for updates and other things. My efforts are just to make the article "good" but I don't want to micromanage every word. OTOH, a healthy collaboration would be, say in 2015 there is another lawsuit that attracts significant media attention. You could say "I'm going to cover this lawsuit for Wikipedia and I wanted to (among other POVs) include PCH's. Can you provide it?" Also, the article should improve based on Wikipedia policy and primarily based on reliable secondary sources (with some exceptions for primary sources where appropriate). Otherwise we will be in this yo-yo forever of my contesting original research in response to your persistence in adding it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Corp - you misunderstand me. I'm not proposing to add 11 cites, rather was trying to pointing out that similar lnaguage was used on at least 11 sites. Lastly, I donlt know where I've added original research? Also, with that in mind shouldn't reference 28 (PCH Overview from the PCH site) be removed? It's definitiely not an objective secondary source, and we have 2 other cites that support that sentence?Bilbobag (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Request Edit

Per the discussion above, I would like to request some tweaks to improve sourcing and reduce promotionalism in the first couple sentences of the Sweepstakes/Prize Patrol section near the bottom of the article. The proposed below (discussed above) removes the promotional "winning moments" phrase, adds a NYT article about the most recent adaptation of the famous commercials and removes a poor source to an AOL.com video, among some other small, but important, tweaks. Alternatively, if someone wants to give me a {{edit COI|G}} I'd be happy to make fairly un-controversial and partially counter-COI edits like this myself, realizing it's a lot of work to make a lot of small edits and understand the changes, etc.

The edits (strikeouts for removed and bolded for modified content)

The company has come to be known for its Prize Patrol that surprises winners at their homes, work or other locations with cash prizes awards and captures the event on video.[57] Since their introduction in 1989, these reality TV-style videos of prize-winners surprised at their doorstep with checks for $1,000 to $10 million have been used in widely broadcasted television commercials, and, more recently, in the company's online acquisition efforts, websites and social media communications.[58][59][13](Add Response Magazine source)(Add New York Times source)" Then add "In 2013, a $5 million television campaign modified the traditional prize patrol commercial by digitally altering video from classic sitcoms like The Brady Brunch and Gilligan's Island to show the prize patrol visiting characters in the show.[2]

Coded revised

The company has come to be known for its Prize Patrol that surprises winners at their homes, work or other locations with cash prizes and captures the event on video.<ref name="resp"/> Since their introduction in 1989, these reality TV-style videos of prize-winners surprised at their doorstep with checks for $1,000 to $10 million have been used in widely broadcasted television commercials, and, more recently, in the company's online acquisition efforts, websites and social media communications.<ref name="resp"><ref>{{cite news|author=Stuart Elliot|title=Prize Patrol Heads Over to AOL| work = [[The New York Times]] |date= July 11, 2011|url=http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/prize-patrol-heads-over-to-aol/}}</ref><ref name="eight"/><ref name="NYTTYN>{{cite news|title=Publishers Clearing House Imagines Handing a Big Check to Gilligan and Mike Brady|newspaper=The New York Times|first=Stuart|last=Elliott|date=May 6, 2013|accessdate=July 19, 2013}}</ref> Then add "In 2013, a $5 million television campaign modified the traditional prize patrol commercial by digitally altering video from classic sitcoms like [[The Brady Brunch]] and [[Gilligan's Island]] to show the prize patrol visiting characters in the show.<ref name="NYTTYN"/>

CorporateM (Talk) 14:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Corp - In Products section it says "While best known for its sweepstakes and Prize Patrol". In the Prize Patrol section it says "The company has come to be known for its Prize Patrol". In the lead it states "Publishers Clearing House is best-known for the Prize Patrol" So is it known for its Sweepstakes AND Prize Patrol or just the Prize Patrol? Bilbobag (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the duplication and made the tweeks in the Request Edit. It's very hard to use Request Edit to make small changes like this, which are difficult to describe from Talk. Do you have any thoughts on the change to the Prizes section noted below? CorporateM (Talk) 13:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Corp: No problem with Prizes update, but the Products section still says PCH is best known for its sweepstakes AND Prize Patrol while the lead section says "The company has come to be known for its Prize Patrol". I saw your change/edit, but the point I'm trying to make is whether you're saying PCH is known for A) both items (sweepstakes AND Prize Patrol as in the Products section), or B) just one (the Prize Patrol, as it states in the lead)? Bilbobag (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe there are sources saying they are known for the sweepstakes and sources saying they are known for the Prize Patrol. This was intended to say sweepstakes AND prize patrol. I can't say for sure if the sources are really referring to the same thing (ie. the sweepstakes is well-known because of the prize patrol). Ideally it might be possible to find a source that elaborates further, but I don't think it would be necessary even for the GA review. I took out the duplication by removing the repeated mention in the Prize Patrol section, but if you would like to handle it differently, please do. The duplication in the Lead isn't necessarily a problem, since the Lead summarizes the article. CorporateM (Talk) 14:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Corp -saw this article. Think it would be a good neutral source for the Senior citizen issue. I know you dont want to micro-manage, but I wanted your opinion about it. Here is article http://issues.flemingandcurti.com/tag/publishers-clearing-house/ Bilbobag (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Prizes

Publishers Clearing House noted I used a source from 1977 for this statement, which is no longer up-to-date, since the sweepstakes are now just cash prizes.

Some of its prizes include a vacation home, car or cash prizes.[49]

I suggest replacing it with updated sources/prizes. Something like:

Some of its larger prizes are for $5,000 a week for life,[3] or $10 million.[4] Prizes can also range from $1 Amazon gift cards to $2,500, $1 million or $3 million.[5]

CorporateM (Talk) 06:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello User:CorporateM. I don't see any problems with replacing the 'Prizes' section with your new text, but there is one dangling reference, which is ref. 60 of the current version of the article. It shows up in red in the reference list. Could you fix this, and also give me a complete drop-in replacement for the Prizes section? If so I believe the Prizes section would be ready to go. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I cleaned up some citation errors just a little bit ago, and it looks like I got that one. Below is a coded, drop-in-ready version to replace the sentence "Some of its prizes include a vacation home, car or cash prizes"

Coded, Drop-in-ready text

Some of its larger prizes are for $5,000 a week for life,<Ref>{{cite news|title=Wish you had won the last PCH SuperPrize? Here's another chance|date=July 5, 2013|url=http://contests.about.com/b/2013/07/05/want-to-be-a-millionaire-pchs-sweepstakes-gives-away-a-million-a-year-for-life.htm|accessdate=July 22, 2013|first=Sandra|last=Grauschopf|publisher=About.com|date=July 5, 2013}}</ref> or $10 million.<ref name="about"/> Prizes can also range from $1 Amazon gift cards to $2,500, $1 million or $3 million.<ref name="primary"/>

CorporateM (Talk) 15:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I did the requested edit of the Prizes section per the 'Coded' material above. EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I wasn't sure if it was by mistake - the revised content was only intended to replace that one sentence, not the whole paragraph. I can just fix it if it was a mistake. CorporateM (Talk) 15:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I boldly (well, not really that bold, but bold for a COI editor) implemented the Request Edit as intended. Please revert me if you meant to delete the whole paragraph on purpose. CorporateM (Talk) 16:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your fix to my change. I was wondering why the new text was shorter than the old. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I've gone ahead and nominated the article for a GA review. This means an experienced editor will review the article against the GA criteria and certify that the article is "good" (not perfect, but good). I find this is an excellent way to make sure articles where I've contributed in a COI capacity were done properly. In some cases the GA reviewer's feedback led me to believe I have over-compensated for my COI. In other cases they find missing sources that could expand the article generally, and in still others they may identify bias.

Simultaneously, I'll see if any other feedback rolls in from subject-matter experts at PCH and I'm sure as Bilbo continues to vet the controversies, other small changes may arise.

I gave the article a look-over before nominating, as we are suppose to check the article against the criteria ourselves before nominating. A few things I noticed:

• The lead contains several "(See XYZ section)" comments. While this is not a bias or sourcing issue, it's not really the format we use (we have a table of contents for this). Though I'm not sure if there is an explicit rule against it.
• There is a quote from The New York Times that is now used twice - once in "Online Development" and once in "Products." We should pick one.
• I still feel the sourcing in the Prize Patrol section is not great

I don't mind waiting for an actual GA reviewer and seeing what their feedback is, but just pointing out the things I noticed. CorporateM (Talk) 16:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is there a section titled lawsuits, that does not seem to reference an actual lawsuit? There is some parallel with the government regulation section, why not just move that stuff down there, since that is what it appears to be? Randomyesnomaybe (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The Lawsuits section discusses tactics being used by 2 companies who utilized sweepstakes at that time (late 1990's - 2001), the impact the lawsuits and their publicity had on PCH's business, and why/how PCH had to change its offerings (adding merchandise and online offerings). The Governmental Regulations section discusses the specific lawsuits/settlements in which PCH was involved over a 16 year period.Bilbobag (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that you remove the information there, but you title the subsection "lawsuits" and in those particular examples, there do not appear to be any actual lawsuits - suit against the company. "Series of legal troubles" fits, but who actually brought suit against the company? Were there actual suits brought, or just AG inquiry's? Which is what it actually appears. Also, that whole 2nd paragraph there "Bad publicity[16][17] state lotteries, legalized gambling and an improved economy resulted in less interest in sweepstakes.[12] Industry sources estimated Publishers Clearing House's response rates decreased 7-12 percent and its sales volume by 22 percent.[8] In 2000, Publishers Clearing House laid off approximately one-quarter of its staff.[18] Publishers Clearing House reached settlements with all fifty states and continued to operate under the regulation of a "compliance counsel."[8]" Does not appear to have anything to do with lawsuits. Randomyesnomaybe (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

(Shrug). There are many different formats that are all equally policy-compliant. Initially the current Lawsuits section was the first and last paragraph of the regulation section of my draft. However, as Bilbo suggested we include more detail, the section grew, and my instinct was to split it up. If it were consolidated, it could lend itself to WP:SUMMARY-style as was done on this featured article, since we would have a really long single section. I don't know what all the rules and guidelines are, but I think whatever is the most easily navigated and readable is best and regular disinterested editors are the best to evaluate that. Shouldn't be an issue that would prevent a GA award though. CorporateM (Talk) 20:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I do a fair amount of GA reviews. On average the ones I start have been waiting 3 months so I hope that this one gets picked up faster than that. I won't do this one because I've been involved. But if anybody is interested I just went through this one per my usual standards, albeit quicker than I usually do. My result is that I would have already passed it on 5 of the 6 criteria, and would have worked with the main authors to tweak it a bit before passing it on the "well written" criteria. The tweaks would be on a few sentences that were hard to follow, things that seem repeated in a few areas and where it seed a bit "choppy". All minor stuff. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point IP. Not all of them were lawsuits either - one was a letter of understanding. Perhaps a different title for the section would do. CorporateM (Talk) 11:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyrighted material

Bilbo, can you please stop copy/pasting content into the article from copyrighted sources, as you have done here and here. This is a serious legal problem for Wikipedia and our policies are to remove copyrighted material immediately. CorporateM (Talk) 21:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Ed took care of it. I am also very confused by this edit. It says "however" an article claimed it was a mail processing contractor, but this is not "however" nor is it an "additional point of view" as is described in the edit-summary - this is exactly what PCH said it was, a mail processing vendor. Which is what's already included in the article using a different source. It's not two different points-of-view, it's just two sources saying the same thing, then written in a way to sound incriminating like there was a contradiction. I'm very confused what would lead someone to make an edit like that. CorporateM (Talk) 22:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Corp If you check the versions, you'll see I removed the part about the "however..." and the additional POV - not Ed. See my revision at 21:15 vs 21:05. The 21:15 revision just added a sentence to explain the setting at the time the entries were found. I used language from the source and put the latter sentence into context.Bilbobag (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://mentalfloss.com/article/30981/you-may-already-be-winner-story-publishers-clearing-house. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Publishers Clearing House/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 03:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Corporate! Its been a while since I reviewed one of yours! ★★King•Retrolord★★ 03:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

So it's "King" Retrolord now is it? :-D

I think the last GA nomination of mine you handled was about six months ago. At that time, I was pretty focused on working with companies with shiny, polished reputations, but I'll have a few GAs coming down the pipe on companies with more of a mixed reputation, so it'll be interesting to see how that works out. CorporateM (Talk) 14:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI for talk page watchers, I made some very slight changes based on Retro's feedback here. CorporateM (Talk) 02:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• As per RetroLord's permission, I will continue the GA review for this article. RetroLord is on a long Wiki-break now and wont be back soon.
  • CorporateM, the article is fleshed out enough for GA, but its best to fix up what R-Lord told you to do on his talk page! Prabash.Akmeemana 03:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing

User:Retrolord's talk page is not an official venue for GAN reviews. Any discussion pertaining to the GA review of this article must be made here. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys. My suggestion is that we circle back to this in a few days. I think it could use just a bit more time to "settle" and see if User:Randomyesnomaybe or User:Bilbobag make any immediate changes. This should also give us some time for the tension to pass in that whole situation with Retro, so we can come with fresh minds and eyes focused on delivering a great GA article to our readers. After 20,000+ words of discussion on this page over the last couple months, I wouldn't mind a short break from this particular page either, or a few days to focus on History of public relations. I was probably a bit prompt in nominating it so quickly, but was expecting the usual 3-month or so wait. Lets give it a few days and come back fresh. CorporateM (Talk) 07:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Corp: Could be me, but having aproblem finding info for Reference #12, or any link to Reference 18Bilbobag (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I emailed the full text of both articles to you through the "Email this user" feature. If you need anything else, let me know. CorporateM (Talk) 14:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Got it - Looks good. ThanksBilbobag (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for giving us a bit of a break on this one User:Prabash.A. The article does appear stable and I've had a chance to get the PR history article ready for a GAN, as well as catch up on some other client work. I'm ready whenever you have a chance to circle back. I had made some tweaks based on Retro's initial feedback right after he posted it, but let me know if you feel his feedback was not implemented, etc. If no one objects, I'll collapse these strings in a bit so we can start fresh. Not sure what that was all about, as Retro has done prior GA reviews and was one of the more thorough reviewers. CorporateM (Talk) 00:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

CorporateM I'm on right now, yes I will assess the article for GA, it looks like a clear pass now since you guys have done just about everything Retrolord pointed out, I will begin the assessment soon. Prabash.Akmeemana 02:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality, no copyvios, spelling and grammar:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This looks like a good pass :) Prabash.Akmeemana 02:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Note to other Reviewers

• If you think the article should be reassessed, please feel free to do so. Prabash.Akmeemana 02:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• In view of comments already raised by anther editor I'm going to reassess it. Pyrotec (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2013

I still have a concern about the header "Lawsuits", as I mention above. These do not appear to be lawsuits brought against the company. Randomyesnomaybe (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This particular review is now (effectively) Closed as of 02:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC), when the nomination was passed by Prabash.A. I've already opened a new review at Talk:Publishers Clearing House/GA2. I'd suggest that you copy it to that review and it will be considered in my review. Pyrotec (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Publishers Clearing House/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

• Comments have already be raised about the concerns of the last review and they were dismissed by the reviewer. I'm therefore opening a new review. Pyrotec (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

• I opened this review (well now five days ago) since, from a quick glance, the WP:Lead was visible non-compliant. However, I'm going to leave the Lead until last: I'm going to start at the History section, work my way to the end and then go back and do the lead. Pyrotec (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good! Do you mean because the lead is a bit long? CorporateM (Talk) 21:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I always do the lead last, because the lead should both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the main points, so it makes sense to me to do it last. It's also supossed to stand alone from the article. This one certainly does not, due to the presence of "(See "Prize Patrol" section, below).", "(See "Government Regulation" section, below)" and "(See "Online Development" section, below).". Pyrotec (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Bilbobag, do you mind if I take those out? I could be mistaken, but I think you put the "see also" type comments in the lead? CorporateM (Talk) 18:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Corp: No problem removing those. Bilbobag (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done

• History -

• Sorry for the further delay, my computer "died" last weekend, it was Thursday (yeserday) of this week before I was back up again. Pyrotec (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for picking up the review! CorporateM (Talk) 21:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Fell free to add coments, questions, objections, etc, but if they are about a particular section or subsection of the article, it helps me if they are are adding to relevant bullet (*)-pointed subsection(s) of this review. Thanks for your contributions. Pyrotec (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• History (re-started) -
  • Early history -

• In the second paragraph, I would suggest that the second part of the sentence "The first prizes ranged from 25 cents to $10 and had a 1 in 10 chance of winning." needs clarifying. I assume, it is saying that anyone entering (I'm using "entering" as a neutral term insead of "buying" because that controversy comes up later in the article) has a one in ten chance of winning a prize (not, for example a 1 in 10 chance of winning $10). It could also mean, to use the figures given in the first paragraph, if 10,000 envelopes were sent out there would be 1,000 prizes; however, there were only 100 orders (1% take up), so on that basis a 1 in 10 chance of winning could suggest that only 10 prizes would need to be offered (so if a 1% take up is envisaged, only 0.1% prizes need to be offered). Note: there is no information about take-up rates in respect of "return of forms" and "purchases", but I'm going to ignore the differences for now.

•  Done I added "entrants" to clarify it was one out of every 10 entrants CorporateM (Talk) 19:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph, what does "..... the prizes were increased[10] to $5,000[8] and eventually to $250,000.[12]" mean. Are those maximum prizes, i.e. the $10 maximum prize went up to $5,000 and eventually to $250,000, or is it saying that only $5,000 and later $250,000 prizes were offered?

•  Done The sources weren't specific as to whether these were maximums or whatnot. The NYT source used the term "the jackpot" which might also work. I just changed it to "larger prizes were offered" CorporateM (Talk) 20:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• It not clear, where Publishers Clearing House did its "selling". It's clear for example that it was based in Port Washington, NY and that the first mailings were of 10,000 envelopes from Long Island, but were did they go (NY obviously), but would I get one if I lived in Chicago, or London (UK)? Note: later in the Lawsuits subsection, it states "Publishers Clearing House reached settlements with all fifty states" so perhaps it does cover the whole of the USA, but it does not seem to say so (perhaps I've not got that far through the article).

• They are national now, but I think the source may specifically say those first 10,000 envelopes were just in New York. Let me find the book in my closet and look it up. CorporateM (Talk) 20:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Not done Unfortunately the book just says they mailed out 10,000 envelopes, doesn't say to what state/country. CorporateM (Talk) 15:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Lawsuits & Online development -

• These two subsections look OK, but whilst I was reading it I added one wikilink to each of the subsections (class action & The Hershey Company).

• Products -

• The first paragraph is three sentences long, and the second paragraph is only one sentence long, I suggest that they be combined into one paragraph.

•  Done CorporateM (Talk) 20:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Neither of these two paragraphs makes it clear where it (Publishers Clearing House) "sells", is "best known" and "operates". Are we talking US-wide, just the US and nowhere else? Note: again the next section is about Government regulation and first 14 states and then 32 states are mentioned, so perhaps its not US-wide?

• I'm not quite sure how to handle that - since many of their sweepstakes are done online now, I would imagine anyone with an internet connection could participate, but I'll see if I can find geographic information regarding where the mailings are sent. CorporateM (Talk) 15:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• If it helps, I've just read one of the citations which states that they operate in the US and Canada. I was looking at Government regulation at the time (or, possibly, the start of Sweepstakes). Pyrotec (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• The final paragraph looks OK.

....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've decided to come back to this section and I'm going a suggest a minor copyedit. If I've understood the article correctly: "Publishers Clearing House is a direct-marketing company that sells merchandise, magazine subscriptions and operates several prize-based websites.[13] While best known for its sweepstakes and Prize Patrol,[1][22][15] the majority of the company's ....." could be better expressed as: "Publishers Clearing House is a direct-marketing company that sells merchandise, magazine subscriptions and operates several prize-based websites.[13] While best known for its the sweepstakes and Prize Patrol,[1][22][15] associated with these operations, the majority of the company's ....". However, I might be wrong and I can't write in American English, so this is only a suggestion. Pyrotec (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• How about "While best known for the sweepstakes and Prize Patrol it uses to promote its magazine subscriptions." "associated with its operations" is a little awkward. CorporateM (Talk) 16:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Not a problem. As a reviewer it would be very wrong if I tried to force my words into the article during a review, so I make suggestions and (mostly) leave it at that. Pyrotec (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Two Questions for Pyrotec and CorporateM. First, in the Lead it is stated- "It acquired Blingo Inc. in 2006, which was rebranded into PCH Search and Win.". In the Online Development section we repeat this "In 2006, it acquired Blingo Inc., an ad-supported search engine that was later re-branded as PCH Search and Win", and then in the Products section it states "Publishers Clearing house operates eight websites, including PCH Search and Win,...". While, factual, is this a bit too promotional with regard to "PCH Search and Win"? The next question has to do with Products. The article correctly states that PCH "sells merchandise, magazine subscriptions and operates several prize-based websites." In fact, PCH also sells, and generates significant revenue from, the sale of names on its mailing lists. While this isn't a consumer product, but rather a business product, PCH is known in the direct marketing industry for its mailing lists. PCH's Alex Betancourt acknowledges this in the last sentence of the Online Development section. Since this section is titled Products, and begins with "Publishers Clearing House is a direct-marketing company that sells ...", should we not also include "mailing lists" as one of its products? In addition to the current sources, I can find others that show the quantity and types of names and mailing lists that PCH offers to the marketplace. Bilbobag (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Lead will have some repetition with the body of the article, because it's intended to summarize the article's content. The mailing lists was already discussed at length here. CorporateM (Talk) 21:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Corp. Understand about the Lead. With regard to the mailing lists, the previous discussion was about using a vendor sight as a source. What I'm saying, is that the current article quotes PCH's Betancur who states that PCH's intent is to collect information, "and use the registration information for PCH’s mailing lists.". PCH is a direct marketing company, lists are developed and sold by direct marketing companies, and PCH's VP has stated this in the article. Further, on its own website, PCH acknowledges that "PCH may also pass customer names on to other organizations whose offers may be of interest to the consumer" (See: http://info.pch.com/consumer-information/safe-harbor-privacy-policy). Since this is the "Products" section, and since these lists are sold (or rented) as a revenue generating product, should they not be included. If we fail to do so, are we living up to Wiki's "Comprehensive" policy?Bilbobag (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The New York Times only says that PCH collects registration information for their own purposes, which is included, not that the registrations are sold to others. The disclaimer on the website only says that they "may" and as DGG said regarding the other sources, it does not substantiate whether this is a significant part of their operations. Being "comprehensive" is not a good rationale for using primary sources and original synthesis. I believe the original discussion is still relevant.

However, my suggestion would be - if you feel strongly - you should start a fresh string on the regular Talk page and invite those that participated in the original discussion to re-evaluate based on your new arguments. I believe I may remember North adding a proper secondary source that said something about this a long time ago. Keep in mind, it may be that they do sell registration information, maybe even at a large scale - I am only privy to the information available in the sources.

However, I would reiterate my general unwillingness to micro-manage the page. I feel this format of an editor asking for my permission or feedback before making edits leads to a combative and/or poor relationship, because it makes editors feel like they can't make edits without the PR rep's permission. My hope would be that in the future you edit the article boldly, in a neutral manner using secondary sources, without my input. In this case since it was already discussed and there was a clear consensus in the opposite direction, I think the right thing for you to do is re-engage the editors that were involved in the discussion originally.

A few other places to get feedback would the Teahouse, the reliable sources noticeboard, or by requesting a mentor. I myself have been graced with several editors acting in a mentor role and believe most editors should have someone they call a mentor.

Hopefully this is helpful? CorporateM (Talk) 23:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Government regulation -

• There seems to be a word, perhaps more, missing from: "Publicity in 1997 about a contestant of competitor American Family Publishers, who flew to Tampa, Florida thinking he had won, resulted in more lawsuits for both companies.[8]".

•  DoneI think the main problem was that it was a run-on. I broke it up into two sentences. CorporateM (Talk) 16:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sweepstakes -

• This section looks OK.

• WP:Lead -

• Not a bad lead at all. I opened this review as the lead "stuck out", but recent changes have improved it considerably.
• As per my comment above, the second paragraph is only two sentences long and it would fit quite nicely merged onto the start of the current third paragraph. This would give a three paragraph lead (the requirement is three or four).

 Done paragraphs merged

• The lead should both introduce the topic and summarise the main points. It probably acheives those twin goals quite well. It mentions some of the controversies and legal difficalties, I'm not sure whether these are played "low key" or not. I don't have a strong view either way.
• The prize patrol gets mentioned twice, in the first and second paragraphs. I'd suggest a minor rewrite as repetition in the lead is not "liked". Perhaps it could be removed from the first paragraph and possibly "highlighted" in the middle paragraph, as a means of distinguishing Publishers Clearing House from its rival American Family Publishers.

 Done I consolidated the two sentences a bit. CorporateM (Talk) 23:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation in addressing these issues. I'm not closing this review; and the article retains its GA's status. Pyrotec (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on getting this article up to GA-status, and for jumping for the "hoops" of GAN/GAR twice in short succession. Pyrotec (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for picking this up! CorporateM (Talk) 17:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a couple more things

Hi All. Under the History/Lawsuits section it says that the compliance counsel "regulates" Publishers Clearing House. I think I may be the one that made this error. PCH pointed out to me that the counsel only acts as a liaison, which is what the source says.

Especially after the feedback I got from User:Lexein on another article, I think we could probably trim the lead down quite a bit. My initial draft was quite long and some other edits have made it even longer. I'm going to take a shot at a shorter re-write. CorporateM (Talk) 20:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur that the lead section is at least 20% too long and overdetailed, especially with details about the lawsuits. I'm surprised that the article got to GA status. Usually GA reviewers are justifiable sticklers for "summary", not "telling the story twice". IMHO it should not have GA status at this time. --Lexein (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well Lexin if that is your IMHO, nominate it for reassessment (at WP:GAR). I did nominate it for reassessment (WP:GAR) and I re-assesed it because the Lead was obviously bad, well visually non-compliant, the first time round; and yes I agree it should not have awarded GA-status, but it was. I got the article improved the second time round, and overall it was not sufficently "bad" to remove GA-status. I have removed GA-status from articles, when and where such action is justified. Interestingly, looking at User:GA bot/Stats you don't appear to be a very profilic GAN reviewer. Pyrotec (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, hey, now. Is it about me, or is it about the article? Can you guess why I've stayed out of GA reviews, with attitudes like yours? --Lexein (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Better that we just fix the problem than go on too much about the article's rank. I'll whip something up. CorporateM (Talk) 19:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

How about this?

Publishers Clearing House (PCH) is a direct marketing company that sells merchandise and magazine subscriptions and operates prize-based game, search and lotto websites. Its products are promoted through sweepstakes and prize promotions. The company is known for the Prize Patrol, which surprises sweepstakes winners at their home in a televised event.

Publishers Clearing House was founded in 1953 by Harold Mertz to replace door-to-door, single-magazine subscription sales with a single vendor offering multiple subscriptions by mail. It introduced its sweepstakes in 1967. In the early 1990s, the company became the subject of concerns and legal actions regarding whether consumers were misled about their odds of winning the sweepstakes and whether purchases increased their chances. By 2010, the company reached settlements with all 50 states.

Recently the company has invested in online properties, acquiring search company Blingo Inc. in 2006, online gaming company Funtank in 2010 and mobile marketing company Liquid Wireless in 2012.

CorporateM (Talk) 19:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say, "its sweepstakes"(instead of "the"), and "subject of concerns and legal actions", but otherwise it sounds fine to me. Someone else weigh in too? --Lexein (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Pinging User:Bilbobag and User:Randomyesnomaybe to see if they have comments, as both have been involved in prior discussions. CorporateM (Talk) 01:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Request edit

Per the discussion above, I'd like to request an editor move the below content into article-space as the revised Lead. User:Lexein's tweaks are in the draft below. I haven't heard from Bilbo, but it has only been about 5 days. I'm happy to wait longer if needed, though I would prefer to move forward in the normal incremental way, where editors can continue to edit, tweak or even revert. The goal of the re-write is just to make the Lead more concise and better-written. Pinging User:EdJohnston as he has done some of the Request Edits for this page. After this I would like to make ask for the factual correction also noted above, then I should be out of your hair for a while. CorporateM (Talk) 16:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

'''Publishers Clearing House''' (PCH) is a [[direct marketing]] company that sells merchandise and magazine subscriptions and operates prize-based game, search and lotto websites. Its products are promoted through sweepstakes and prize promotions. The company is known for the Prize Patrol, which surprises sweepstakes winners at their home in a televised event.

Publishers Clearing House was founded in 1953 by Harold Mertz to replace door-to-door, single-magazine subscription sales with a single vendor offering multiple subscriptions by mail. It introduced its sweepstakes in 1967. In the early 1990s, the company became the subject of concerns and legal actions regarding whether consumers were misled about their odds of winning the sweepstakes and whether purchases increased their chances. By 2010, the company reached settlements with all 50 states.

Recently the company has invested in online properties, acquiring search company Blingo Inc. in 2006, online gaming company Funtank in 2010 and mobile marketing company Liquid Wireless in 2012.

I'm willing to replace the lead with this revised text, but you've given us only the rendered text above and not the wikitext (which has the links, bold, italics etc). Ping me when you have that. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done @EdJohnston: CorporateM (Talk) 17:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I've replaced the lead with the above text as requested. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Correction

The very last sentence of the History/Lawsuits section contains the following excerpt:

and continued to operate under the regulation of a "compliance counsel."[8]

This is incorrect as the compliance counsel acts as a liaison, but does not itself regulate PCH, which is what the source (re-published online here) says. I think I made this mistake in writing the draft.

I would suggest something like "and established a "compliance counsel" to act as a liaison between the organization and each state."

Sorry if I am micro-managing, which I said I don't intend to do, but this seemed like an important error. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 18:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you go ahead and make this change yourself. That way you can get the subtleties right. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems obvious-enough of a correction and a quick Google search did not reveal any other secondary sources with a different description, but it is in a controversial area. And well, you know how some would interpret the concept of an editor with a COI "getting the subtleties right." But I'd be ok with making the edit myself. If I do make mistakes, I will get flack for it equally whether in article-space or through request edit. Lets let it stew on Talk for a little while in case anyone raises an objection. CorporateM (Talk) 19:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The sentence now has: "Publishers Clearing House reached settlements with all fifty states and continued to operate under the regulation of a "compliance counsel."[8]" I suggest this be replaced by "Publishers Clearing House had reached settlements with all fifty states by 2010". (Assuming 2010 is the correct date). I read one of the primary source court documents and it implied that the term of the compliance counsel was going to end in September 2013. So the compliance counsel is old news by this point and perhaps it is too detailed to mention in our article. If we do include it, we should explain what is the role of the compliance counsel. In that case, we might find that there is no source for the actual role of the compliance counsel outside of primary court documents. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:COIMICRO, either would be acceptable in my view. It's hard to say whether the compliance counsel is significant enough to warrant inclusion, without direct access to the secondary source cited in the Directory of Company Histories book. I will say that in my research, I haven't seen it in other secondary sources. If it's temporary, which is something I was not aware of, that lends itself to being less important and we would want to summarize, rather than include every term of each agreement. But either way would be reasonably compliant with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles. CorporateM (Talk) 18:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for delay in responding- had some personal issues to attend to. The compliance counsel in the 2001 settlements was an important part of the settlements, and IMHO should remain. As to the 2010 settlement, this required that PCH, at its expense must hire an ombudsmen to ensure compliance. This was separate and distinct from compliance counsel in the 2001 settlemets. The actual wording in reference #44 is "The company, which admitted no wrongdoing, also must hire an ombudsman to review mailings to insure compliance with the settlement." The actual wording of in reference #45 is "And it must hire an ombudsman to review the company’s solicitations." Based on this I believe an appropriate change would "and it must hire an ombudsman to review mailings to insure compliance with the settlement." This uses language that explains who is to be hired, the "title" of the individual, why this individual is to be put in place, and what their role will be. If there's agreement after some time to review, I'll make the change. Bilbobag (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Bilbo, based on your comment, the phrase "must hire an ombudsman to review mailings to insure compliance with the settlement" is used in the source and is identical to the proposed wording for Wikipedia. The source material is copyrighted and cannot be used verbatim (or almost verbatim) on Wikipedia. Can you think of a way to re-write it so that it is still true to the source, without it being identical to it? CorporateM (Talk) 13:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

And welcome back btw!! I was starting to get worried you had been discouraged from participating. CorporateM (Talk) 13:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Corp - Thanks - good to be back. How's this "In order to ensure compliance with the settlement's terms the states required Publishers Clearing House to hire an ombudsman to review all mailings." On a separate note regarding this settlement, we had a discussion about the term "contempt charges". After research I came across this article from the Denver Post that provides background on the 2010 settlement - "After the 2001 settlement, the Colorado AG's office continued to monitor the sweepstake solicitations and noticed there was not an appreciable change in them, according to a news release from Mike Saccone, spokesman for Colorado Attorney General John Suthers. Rather than face contempt charges in court, Saccone said Publishers Clearing House agreed to a number of conditions." (see link below). I believe that adding something like "to settle alleged contempt charges about violating the 2001 agreement" or "to avoid possible contempt charges for violating..." to the first sentence of about the 2010 agreement provides a more accurate and factual background (and context) than our current opening of State AG's "alleged that it had violated the terms of the 2001 agreement"

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_16036496 Bilbobag (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that the main difference is adding "to ensure compliance." If you believe this is not implicit as the objective of the ombudsman, making it more clear could be a good edit. Looking at our Wikipedia article on ombudsman, I get the sense that may not be quite right, but it is sourced nonetheless. I don't know.

I noticed that the "contempt charges" is quoted from the plaintiff.

I'd prefer to be hands-off regarding the exact wording of things. CorporateM (Talk) 19:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Bilbobag, is the original correction I mentioned at the top of this string ok? It looks like a pretty obvious correction to me just looking at what the source says and seeing that I made an error, but as someone with subject-matter expertise, it's possible you might bring up another source other editors like myself didn't know about. CorporateM (Talk) 21:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

One of the terms of the 2000 or 2001 settlements was that PCH would operate under the guidance of a compliance counsel. I believe Benjamin Hook, former Attorney Genral was appointed as compliance counsel. I'll have to dig up source material to confirm. Bilbobag (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

CorporateM, couldn't find anything on 2000 or 2001 settlements, but did find this Findlaw article which quotes an Arizona ABC News report which mentions ombudsman and compliance counsel. It states "Publishers Clearing House will work with a compliance counsel and an ombudsperson to change any deceptive marketing practices in the future to make them more understandable to the consumer". http://commonlaw.findlaw.com/2010/09/publishers-clearing-house-to-pay-in-deceptive-marketing-case.html. Bilbobag (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I found the direct source material from ABC here: "PCH will confer with a compliance counsel and ombudsperson to make their marketing as clear as possible and will also be required to mail a letter to every customer who spends $1,000 a year or more on PCH products." It's referring to the 2010 lawsuit, but it looks like the compliance counsel was extended that year. Most sources seem to lump a lot of the lawsuit terms together in a concise summary, but this source has a bullet dedicated to the compliance counsel: "Establishment of a “Special Compliance Counsel” to act as a liaison between the states and PCH on an ongoing basis." CorporateM (Talk) 15:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Update

There was no clear consensus on Talk in how to describe the Compliance Counsel or whether it should be mentioned. Additionally, at least some sources are ambiguous about its role and activities. For now, I deleted the inaccurate information I had accidentally introduced that was not supported by the source, so it just says the Compliance Counsel was formed, without specifying its activities.

Hopefully at some point disinterested editors will reach consensus on whether it should be included, and if it is included, a few words to describe it. However, for now, it at least doesn't contain a factual error, which is the extent of which I would like to be involved per WP:COIMICRO. CorporateM (Talk) 01:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

CorporateM,my concern is that the language you added makes it appear that PCH was the entity that "formed" the compliance counsel, rather than a compliance counsel was established by mutual agreement with the states, as a result of the settlement. I'd suggest the following language, instead "Publishers Clearing House reached settlements with all fifty states and agreed to work with a "compliance counsel". I'll wait a few days, and if you and others agree, will make the change. Bilbobag (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 12:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

2010 Settlement

Based on the discussion on the Talk page in Lawsuits section above, and the additional references from the Denver Post and ABC News in Phoenix, I'd like to modify the 2010 settlement language to read "In 2010 Publishers Clearing House paid $3.5 million to the Attorneys General of 32 states and the District of Columbia to settle possible contempt charges that it had violated the terms of the 2001 agreement. The company denied wrongdoing, but to ensure that the language in its marketing would be clearly understood, agreed to work with both an ombudsperson and a compliance counsel who would review its mailings quarterly.[44][45] The company also agreed to stop tactics that implied the recipient was close to winning, such as sending mail from a "Board of Judges" or saying the recipient had a "key code" for the winning entry." These changes use existing sources, in addition to adding and paraphrasing the Denver Post article relative to contempt charges for violating the 2001 agreement Denver Post article; adding and paraphrasing the ABC News Phoenix article about compliance counsel and ombudsman. ABC News. I'll await comments Bilbobag (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Bilbobag Bilbobag (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested tweak

Under History/Online development is the following statement:

• According to Alex Betancur, the general manager and vice president of PCH Online Network, the digital efforts are intended to "bring young customers into PCH’s world."

I think this sentence is problematic. The quote, "bring young customers into PCH's world" is promotional and the employee, Alex, no longer works at PCH. Additionally, we usually try to avoid naming non-notable BLPs.

I would propose something like:

• According to a 2013 profile in Response Magazine, digital properties have become the company’s primary channel of interaction with consumers.

The text from the source supporting this is: "digital has become the marketer’s leading source of consumer interaction during the past decade." CorporateM (Talk) 18:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Corp, here are my concerns. First this section is about the history of the online development. As such we should show the progression over time. Therefore I think it would be appropriate to say that "in 2008, PCH had a goal to bring young customers into PCH’s world. In 2013 digital properties had become the company’s primary channel of interaction with consumers." I would also leave the NY Times quote, or move it so that it precedes the 2013 information. Second, I don't think the quote "bring young customers into PCH's world" is promotional, especially since the preceding paragraph states "in 2011, Publishers Clearing House promoted a "$5,000 every week for life" sweepstakes in TV ads and the front page of AOL.com." I think the $5000 for life paragraph is promotional - describing a marketing strategy (attracting young customers) is factual, informative, and provides context as to why the company moved to on line promos. Bilbobag (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful input Bilbo. The "into PCH's world" is what sounds promotional to me because of the metaphorical language.

How about something like: "In 2008 a PCH spokesperson said the digital properties were intended to attract younger consumers. By 2013, the internet had become PCH's primary channel of interaction with consumers."

This is pretty close to your proposed: "in 2008, PCH had a goal to bring young customers into PCH’s world. In 2013 digital properties had become the company’s primary channel of interaction with consumers." Except that it has some copyediting and the "into PCH's world" is re-written.

CorporateM (Talk) 21:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That works for me. Bilbobag (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I did the requested edit here of the sentence about younger consumers and the sentence following. Let me know if this is not what was intended. If any more references are to be added, let me know, or just add them directly. In my opinion this change improves the 'promotional language' issue. The phrase 'digital properties' is still buzzwordy and its meaning is not 100% clear. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that EdBilbobag (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The "By 2013, the internet had become" sentence should be cited to <ref name="resp"/> CorporateM (Talk) 13:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to request another tweak. Under Sweepstakes/Prizes we state "as of 2012..." and then further on in this paragraph state "in 1995..." Since everything in this article goes from earliest to most recent, to be consistent I'd simply like to move the last sentence of the first paragraph (In 1995, Publishers Clearing House began the tradition...) to be the second sentence. Bilbobag (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I did both of these: added <ref name="resp"/> and switched the placement of the Super Bowl sentence. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent additions

An IP recently added some unsourced content[6] in the Odds of Winning section, a subject already covered using strong secondary sources. The Odds of Winning changes each year based on an estimate of how many participants there will be, so selectively choosing two years to compare is also OR/Synth. Pinging user:EdJohnston and user:Bilbobag, who have worked on the page previously. CorporateM (Talk) 17:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Corp - First, Agree that the addition should definitely be sourced. Second, not overly concerned about picking 2 years, but if a comparison is to be used, think there should be data from at least 3 different years, listed in sequence. This would show changes/trends relative to odds and particpation over time. Lastly, I am concerned by sentence "The 4900 campaign began on August 22, 2014 and ends on February 29, 2016.". This can be construed as promotion of an active campaign. Hope this helps.Bilbobag (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Corp. We already have sourced material for the Odds of Winning. I'm going to wait a week, and if no objections, will remove additions from Users 67.0.193.35 and 67.0.253.95. First, both additions are unsourced. Secondly, while I have no problem showing a factual trend over time, I believe we've made the point about the odds being ridiculously high, and based upon number of entrants. Lastly the comments about the 2 promos (1 of which has ended, and the other of which is active) have nothing to do with the odds of winning, and the addition of the active promo is promotional. Let me know if you disagree. Bilbobag (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur. CorporateM (Talk) 15:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Changes to More Recent Settlement section

I am proposing 2 changes to this section. First, that we change the title to either "More Recent Settlements/Investigations" or "More Recent Settlements/Developments". Second, that we include the April, 2014 Senate Investigation. My proposed addition would be:

In April 2014, a Senate Special Committee on Aging led by Senators Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Susan Collins (R-ME) conducted an investigation about whether whether consumers were continuing to be mislead by PCH solicitations that give consumers the impression they have won or are close to winning a prize, or that buying products or subscriptions increases one’s chance of winning.

Having been investigated on numerous occasions for its aggressive sweepstakes promotions offering large cash prizes, Sen. Nelson stated that “I’m all for folks winning prizes but it concerns me when seniors still report they’re being misled by Publishers Clearing House.”

Mr. C. Irving, the company's assistant vice president for consumer affairs, said PCH cooperated with the committee's investigators and still is studying the report. "Our promotions we believe are in full compliance with the law and with our agreements with the states," he said.

Bilbobag (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Bilbo suggested I comment here. For the title, I'm not sure if it's quite right here, but I typically use the word "disputes". This is a good neutral word, because it doesn't imply guilt or innocence and it covers a wide range of disagreements. I would trim the quotes and see if we can find out if this particular item is still ongoing or if it reached some kind of resolution and how much media coverage it got to weigh its significance. In most cases it is best to wait until a lawsuit or allegation is resolved (or at least reached an initial court ruling) so that we can cover it in retrospect, unless the allegations themselves are really very significant, however there is no rule against covering it in real-time either (it is already a few months old).

I also notice that the current page has 15 items in the Table of Contents and small sections are discouraged. It could probably use quite a bit of consolidation in the article structure. CorporateM (Talk) 00:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem changing title to "More Recent Settlements/Disputes". In the body I would simply add "the report concluded that new legislation may be needed to protect consumers from email and online sweepstakes promotions." This was found on another site (thehill.com). The reason for nothing since then is that the Congress is on vacation in August, and for 60 days prior to an election (September and October), legislators are attending to re-election efforts. Basically I think it's important to show that over 25 years, there's a trend by PCH to mislead seniors - at least as perceived by elected officials.

As to the TOC, I'm somewhat ambivalent - we have 7 major topics and 8 sub-topics. I was looking at the Yelp article and they have 15 major topics and quite a bit of redundancy. Bilbobag (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Yelp could use some consolidation as well. For example, I see there's a Reviews sub-section that is only one paragraph and the "Impact of Reviews" header could probably be trimmed. There are similar one-paragraph sections here such as the "Odds of Winning" and the "1990s" sub-header that should probably be consolidated to avoid one-paragraph sections. Fine-tuning oriented stuff.

Regarding your title I would suggest something like, "Recent settlements and disputes" for various minor copyedit reasons. Adding a slash "/" in a section title doesn't seem quite proper and "more" isn't needed (makes the section title really long). Certainly showing that there has been sustained government concern regarding PCH and seniors is compliant with Wikipedia's rules and the available sources. It could use at least something about the latest item to show that the concern is still ongoing.

On another side-note, the Lede needs some copyediting I think. It says "its products" but PCH primarily does not have its own products, but is a marketing company. It says PCH is a "direct marketing company" but as the body of the article shows, a very large portion of its business is now online and not "direct marketing".

Hope this is helpful! If there's anything else I can do to help or if you'd like me to provide some specific suggestions about anything, let me know. CorporateM (Talk) 16:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Corp - I agree with all but one comment from above. I'll wait a week and make those changes. As to direct marketing, the on-line marketing is still considered direct marketing. A quick definition of direct marketing is an organized series of targeted contacts, designed to produce a lead or an order, that is quickly measurable in both costs and results, and relies upon a database of names. PCH's on-line efforts fall within that definition (NOTE: I say this also as an owner of a direct marketing firm). I agree with "its products" comment/ Bilbobag (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Request edits

Per the discussion above, there are a few polishing-type edits I'd like to request

• Correction in the Lede: The current Lede says Publishers Clearing House markets "its products", but it is a marketing company that actually markets mostly products from other vendors. I suggest some copyediting/correcting/clarifying in the first couple sentences as follows: “Publishers Clearing House (PCH) is a direct marketing company. It markets that sells merchandise and magazine subscriptions and operates with sweepstakes, as well as prize-based game, search, and lottery websites. Its products are promoted through sweepstakes and prize promotions."

 Done

• Consolidate sections: To avoid really small sections, I suggest removing the "Prizes" and "Odds of winning" sub-section titles, so the content of those sections can remain under the Sweepstakes main-level header.
• Consolidate sections: user:Bilbobag recently added three sub-sections to the Government regulation section; some breaking up might be helpful, but that seems like a little too much. I would suggest just two sections: "Path to regulation" and "Recent disputes"

 Done

• More consolidation: I also suggest moving the two-paragraph History/lawsuits section such that it can serve as a sub-lede for the "Government regulation" section

 Not done

• Trimming: Bilbobag recently added a new dispute regarding the company's advertising tactics. The sources used[7][8] are adequate to include it, but a Google News searchcommittee%22 %22publishers clearing house%22 does not suggest it is such a major event as to warrant a devoted paragraph. Just something like "In April 2014, the Senate Special Committee on Aging published a report that said the company's advertising could still be misleading to seniors." would be more concise.

CorporateM (Talk) 01:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Corp - Sorry for delay in getting back to you. Have had major PC probs. Overall agree with above. Also had a question for you. I don't know if we'd discussed this in past or not, but 1st para says PCH "is known for its Prize Patrol". Is this really the case? Or is it actually "PCH is known for its $ million Sweepstakes and Giveaways, and uses its Prize Patrol to deliver winnings."? Bilbobag (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@user:Bilbobag Welcome back! I don't see it at words to watch, but "known for" might be a weezle word and I don't believe we have a source directly supporting it. I would suggest taking out the word entirely. CorporateM (Talk) 23:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@User:CorporateM. Corp-Made some of the changes, but am having some second thoughts about some of the consolidations in Regulation/Lawsuits sections after reading the full page. I agree one section should be "Recent disputes". But in looking at the lawsuit history, we have actions against PCH for using deceptive/misleading tactics in 1994, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2007, 2010, and likely in 2015. That's a significant pattern over a 20 year period - and this is after PCH has signed agreements to cease using these tactics. Lumping this all together under one sub head such as 'Path to Regulation' forces the reader work to get the full picture. I propose having '90's Lawsuits' as we do now; '2000 - 2007 Settlements'; and 'Recent Disputes'. By using these sub heads the reader can quickly discern the issue/pattern relative to PCH tactics. I also think we could pare down the '90's Lawsuits' section.

As to moving the two-paragraph History/lawsuits section, I think it fits well in the History section. I say this because it establishes the context for the decline in sweepstakes responses, the reduction in PCH's work force, and the move into "Online Development", the next subsection. Thoughts? Bilbobag (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

For the History section, I might suggest renaming it to "Legal disputes" and absorbing the prior paragraph into that section; this would create three sections under History of three paragraphs each, which is a good length.

It comes to mind that "Path to regulation" may be euphemistic (up for debate), because it focuses on the resolution rather than the conflict. However, I don't think three sub-sections is really warranted. Especially dividing recent disputes into two sections, as the major wave of dozens of lawsuits in the '90s is what is most significant, whereas post 2001 disputes got only minor media coverage, had no documented substantial impact on the company and were only single lawsuits spread 3-6 years apart.

In my opinion your stated objective of showing that the issue is still ongoing is supported by the sources, but adding almost as much weight to recent disputes as the historical ones may be WP:RECENTISM and add too much on an already weighty subject. CorporateM (Talk) 16:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Corp- Agree about the History section. And have no problem with 2 sections and have made those changes, and moved the 2007 settlement into the Recent Disputes section. I do disaree that the recent action only deserves a single sentemce. What gives this added weight is the seemingly on-going reluctance by PC to abide by agreemnents/cease certain ractices. Since this is the most recent example of this, it deserves to be mentioned. What I propose is the following: In April 2014, the Senate Special Committee on Aging published a report that said the company's advertising could still be misleading to seniors. In addition, a staff review of consumer complaints against PCH confirmed that many consumers believe the company is still using many of the exact messages previous settlements sought to eliminate. The report concluded that new legislation may be needed to protect consumers from email and online sweepstakes promotions. [50][51] Bilbobag (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey Bilbo. The new sub-section title is very long and editorialized. Maybe just something like "Legal disputes from 1994-2001" might do?

Weight is determined by the significance granted by the source material, as oppose to logical debate. This issue may reach that level of prominence at some point, but right now it doesn't seem to have enough media coverage to suggest it's a major milestone in the company's history.

The proposed text doesn't seem to reflect the same tone as the sources[9][10][11] to me and is too long. How about something like "The Senate Special Committee on Aging began investigating Publishers Clearing House in 2013 in response to complaints from consumers about elderly citizens that purchased products believing it would increase their odds of winning. In an April 2014 report, the committee found that some of the company's recent solicitations "push the limits" of what it agreed to in prior settlements."

CorporateM (Talk) 20:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Corp: Yes, I think you did miss the quote about need for new legislation. Cite #50 "US Senate", 3rd paragraph from the end - "The report concluded that new legislation may be needed to better protect consumers from email and online sweepstakes promotions." The Consumer Reports article states "The report also says that the law may need to be updated to cover e-mail and online communications". The Hill article states "The report concluded that new legislation may be needed to better protect consumers from email and online sweepstakes promotions.”

I understand your concern about weight, but in the 2000 and 2001 agreements PCH agreed to stop using deceptive and/or misleading practices. The issue here is different. The Senate investigation adds a new issue – First, that PCH is violating the terms of its agreements, and secondly that these practices would be in violation of the federal Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act. This is new news…not a repeat of prior settlements. As such I believe that the 2014 section should be brief – no more than 2 or 3 sentences, but should say more than PCH "pushed the limits"

It is found in the Senate report (same paragraph as above) "In addition, a staff review of consumer complaints against PCH confirmed that many consumers believe the company is still using many of the exact messages previous settlements sought to eliminate." Note the words "exact messages"

Its also found and amplified, in the Consumer Reports article (picked up by Fox Business News and the Consumerist, see links below). In their article Consumer Reports states that:

"In 2000, PCH agreed to pay more than $18 million to settle similar accusations by 23 states and the District of Columbia. A year later, it reached another settlement with 26 states, paying another $34 million and issuing an apology. :And yet again, in 2010, the company paid $3.5 million to settle assertions from 33 states and the District of Columbia that it violated its earlier agreements. In none of the cases did PCH acknowledge wrongdoing. Continued misleading solicitations would not only violate those agreements but also the federal Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act. The report also says that the law may need to be updated to cover e-mail and online communications."

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2014/04/23/dont-be-mislead-by-publishers-clearing-house/

http://consumerist.com/2014/04/15/senate-investigates-publishers-clearing-house-amid-allegations-of-deceptive-marketing/ Bilbobag (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Corp - Whoa. You changed your message while I was off line prepping a response to the "new legislation may be required comment in the older one. Sorry about that.Bilbobag (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes I edit my own comment continually until I've finished researching/writing (which is not a very good practice). Some of the links/sources mentioned/provided above are reposts of the Consumer Reports piece, a non-reliable source and a primary source. I think we should get an informal third opinion (I'd be comfortable with just rolling with whatever another editor says if you are). CorporateM (Talk) 00:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Corp- No prob getting third party opinion. I listed the other links, even though reposts, to show that there is some other media interest/weight. I responded to your post on my page - thanks for the comment.Bilbobag (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)