Talk:Publishers Clearing House/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Third opinion

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

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

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

Available sources include:

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

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

Third opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your thoughts? Bilbobag (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A table is a great idea. My editing-down was sort of just whipped-up and your additions look reasonable enough. The only thing that really jumps out at me is the 2014 investigation remains a minor news blip with the 3PO saying it may not even warrant inclusion, whereas you seem to be committed to covering it more extensively. I think just one sentence might do. Something like: "In April 2014, an investigation by the Senate Special Committee on Aging concluded that Publishers Clearing House had "pushed the limits" of prior agreements and that additional legislation may be needed." This seems to include one major point from each of our draft sentences. CorporateM (Talk) 17:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Corp - OK I capitulate. Let's go with this sentence for the 2014 InvestigationBilbobag (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI - I started putting the content into a table here in the draft space. CorporateM (Talk) 18:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by putting "content into a table". If you're modifying the table info I sent, that's cool (though I do have 2 minor comments, below). But as I said, I do not want the table in place of the text you worked up and I added comments to, today. I just wanted to make sure I understood what you meant. I think the table should be an overview to augment text. The 2 minor points I have about table content are 1) that the phrase "PCH apolgizes for its deceptive sweepstakes promotions" be included in the 2001 settlement, this was huge at the time. Virtually every news article mentioned this being the first time PCH acknowledged any deceptive practices. And 2) the 2010 settlement include "Settlement of possible contempt charges." Overall, I think we're getting close. Bilbobag (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I think if you meant to add the table redundantly with the article-text, that would be the opposite of the direction given by the 3PO and outside of Wikipedia's norms. CorporateM (Talk) 22:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Corp, in my earlier message I said "and am NOT proposing that we use this in place of text". If havng boths is counter to policy, or your opposed to both no problem - remove the table. I think using the table eliminates too much information. What I would go along with Broughton's suggestions. For the Legal Matters section I'd use your earlier rewrite to which I made suggested modifications in my post at 17:00, today. I think this is compromise, and also in accordance with Broughton's comment "Putting all the legal matters in the "History" section is, I think, a way to both give them more importance (the history of PCH has, in fact, been mostly about marketing, including excesses)". His suggestion deals with importance of PCH's legal history, including its "excesses". In sum, using your pared down Legal Matters version, with the modifications I suggest for the 3rd and 4th paragraphs, and using the sentence "In April 2014, an investigation by the Senate Special Committee on Aging concluded that Publishers Clearing House had "pushed the limits" of prior agreements and that additional legislation may be needed." for the 2014 investigation, has us in agreement. Bilbobag (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little worn out from all the back and forth. Maybe I'm getting my wires cross, but I thought I had previously mentioned consolidating it under History and you had opposed it. I see above that user:John Broughton also suggested consolidating the controversy into history as a way to give it more prominence "and to reduce, in some cases, the number of words". If it was merged under History without trimming, the subject would over-run the entire section. Also, at this point I've gotten lost on what the difference is between this with your edits incorporated and this version from before this discussion even started and it seems more practical to just revert it back to the original, then add the one sentence about the 2014 senate investigation. I'm not sure this discussion has actually been productive and I think we need to get more editors involved to get additional viewpoints. We're just running in circles. CorporateM (Talk) 23:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Corp - Sorry for any confusion - I was reacting to Hogbin's comments. So I'll make it real simple. 1) I'm in agreement with user:John Broughton comments "consolidating it under History" and "to reduce, in some cases, the number of words" (which is why I quoted words from his response). 2) For Legal Issues I agree with using your pared down version and incorporating my comments on the 3rd and 4th paragraph. 3) Agree about using the 1 sentence you wrote yesterday for the 2014 investigation - I still think that another sentence would be better, but as I said yesterday, I capitulate. Bilbobag (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That sounds fine - the revised here is only about 70 words shorter than the original, but I don't think it contains very much that is trimmable. I did notice that the "contempt charges" from this source is attributed to the plaintiff and the "apologized" from this source says "in the settlement", suggesting it was a forced apology as pat of the settlement (especially considering most stuff I've seen was more along the lines of denied wrongdoing). However, I don't have the energy to pursue the discussion further. We have so many articles that need help much more than this one. I think we are ready to merge this version into article space under History as a replacement for the current History/lawsuits section and the Government regulation section if you'd like to do the honors. CorporateM (Talk) 15:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Update to Odds of Winning

@user:CorporateM. PCH is heavily promoting its current sweeps - $7000 a week for life (Giveaway 4900). I'd like to update the "Sweepstakes" section, 3rd paragraph, to read as follows "The odds of winning a Publishers Clearing House sweepstakes vary depending on the number of entries and what prize or sweepstakes is involved.[51] The odds of winning the current Giveaway #4900, $7000/week for life, are 1.7 Billion to one." Bilbobag (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bilbo. What's the source? I did a quick Google search, but didn't find anything. Apparently the following sentence "In 2011, the odds of the big prize were one in 1.75 billion" is referring to a similar prize ($5,000 a week for life). That's four years old, so it would be great to update it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The source is link below, then click on "See Sweepstakes Facts". Bilbobag (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

http://spectrum2.pch.com/Path/7kawflMarTV2015/IdentSDOBPCH.aspx?tid=b491b4fa-b905-4b61-ab1f-3957ca62758b&mkwid=Isic2ksB&pdv=c&pcrid=7757547107&pmt=be&pkw=publishersclearinghouse+com&fs=publishersclearinghouse+com%7cbe

Probably original research technically speaking, but I think it would fall under WP:COMMONSENSE principles to update the 1.75 billion number from 2011 to 1.7 billion in 2015 and specify that it's for the $7,000 a week for life prize. I wouldn't use words like "current giveaway", because that kind of language tends to become outdated quickly. "As of 2015" would be more timeless. CorporateM (Talk) 18:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, or we could say "The odds of winning Giveaway #4900 ($7000/week for life) which ends in February 2016 are..." This way we're "current" for at least 10 months. Bilbobag (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

That works. What is "#4900" though? CorporateM (Talk) 20:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Giveaway 4900 is the name PCH has assigned to this sweepstakes on its Sweepstakes page and on the Sweepstakes Facts pageBilbobag (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Bilbo. I went ahead and put it in. I put the #4900 number in the citation, rather than in the article-body; it sounds like a designation that would be appropriate for a legal document or regulatory filing, but probably not for an encyclopedia. However, it's not something I'm really prepared to argue over, if you'd like it in there. Thanks for keeping an eye out! Although the source is not as strong, it's good to get some 2015 data, instead of 2011 and since both numbers are similar, I don't think there is an original research problem of cherry-picking years or anything like that. Someone else could reasonably disagree. CorporateM (Talk) 20:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Revenue

The revenue numbers currently listed in the infobox are from 2011 and 2012. The 2011 revenue number originates from a list of "Largest Privately Held Companies" in the New York area from Crain's New York. I have a PDF copy of the 2014 list from Crain's, which identifies the company's 2013 revenue as $840.6 million. I propose we replace the outdated revenue numbers with the 2013 data point of $840.6 million.

I can provide a PDF copy of the newspaper upon request to verify. CorporateM (Talk) 17:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

No objections here. Bilbobag (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Considering Bilbo agrees, nobody answered the request edit in two months and it's just an update to revenue and employee numbers, I went ahead and updated it. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

fieldman

My wife received an e-mail from Publishing Clearing House which said she had won 615,00.00 in your 2019 (Jackpot). She was to e-mail: fieldman.pch@socialworker.net. We can not find this this page. This was received on Feb. 21st at 3:58 from you. IS THIS REAL? What are we to do? How do we contact you? Is this just false? The e-mail was signed Mrs Jonalyn L. Medina. How do we contact her?

Kenneth D. Andrews ≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth D. Andrews (talk • contribs) 17:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Another Deceptive Advertising Lawsuit, May, 2018

In a new filing (Wright, et al v. Publishers Clearing House, Incorporated and Publishers Clearing House, LLC (EDNY April 23, 2018)) on behalf of a putative class, alleges “that PCH enticed and solicited consumers, particularly the elderly, into believing that they have enhanced opportunities of winning millions of dollars in sweepstakes by engaging in unlawful, unfair and deceptive marketing practices.” The article goes on to say that “The complaint alleges that PCH’s current marketing practices violate its agreements with the State Attorneys General from the prior 2001 and 2010 settlements.” Bilbobag (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Publishing Companies

Since the company has now been listed under "merchandising" as the industry within which PCH operates; and since the rationale for this being that PCH doesn't publish anything, doesn't it therefore make sense to eliminate "publishing companies in the U.S." and "Publishing companies established in 1953' from the "External Links, Categories section at the end of the article? It currently contains the following : Categories: Metasearch engines; Direct marketing; Publishing companies of the United States; Companies based in Nassau County, New York; Media companies established in 1953; Publishing companies established in 1953; 1953 establishments in New York Privately held companies based in New York Bilbobag 22:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Definitely, their selling of subscriptions to magazines does not equate to them being a publisher of magazines, just as their selling of other products does not equate to them being a manufacturer of those products. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)