Jump to content

Talk:Rebate (marketing)/Archive 1

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

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 01:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebate (marketing) → Rebate – {This is the only meaning of the word. Attempts to fix this have been vandalised by other users.} copied from the entry on the WP:RM page

Voting

[edit]
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Legitimate Reasons For

[edit]

I wonder if it's worth mentioning, from my own experience at a rebate processing company, that there are some legitimate uses for mail-in rebates that couldn't be accomplished another way:

  • Some rebates on products require that a service contract be established after their purchase - e.g. for cellular phones, satellite dishes, etc. - which can be verified when the rebate is processed.
  • Some rebates are for variable amounts - e.g. a delivery or installation fee of a product - or otherwise depend on the purchase of some complimentary product.

...I do agree however most are pointless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stewacide (talk • contribs) 09:13, 28 January 2006.

Sounds like a good addition to the article, though I imagine a new (sub)heading would have to be created! --Lox (t,c) 10:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate meaning of Rebate

[edit]

How come this happened overnight with virtually no debate? I live in Australia and here the word rebate is used exclusively instead of rabbet. This is why I created the disambig page in the first place. Contrary to Lox's assertion that 'I believe that anyone searching for rebate would expect to find the marketing term', anyone in Australia searching for rebate would be looking for the rabbet article. The marketing version of rebate is not a common term here. I will be looking into what can be done formally to reverse this change. Can you point out to me what problems the Rebate disambig page was causing? SilentC 20:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the Macquarie Dictionary (http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au)

noun 1. a cut, groove, or recess made on the edge or surface of a board or the like, as to receive the end or edge of another board or the like similarly shaped. 2. a joint so made. --verb (t) (rebated, rebating) 3. to cut or form a rebate in (a board, etc). 4. to join by rebates. Also, rabbet. [Middle English rabit, probably from Old French rabat a beating down, or rabot a joiner's plane]

I have retracted the statement as noted below. However this move was proposed (by someone else) and went through the standard five day waiting time prescribed to all WP:RMs (i.e. not overnight!). My comments were based on a free British English and American English dictionary as well as a standard google search --Lox (t,c) 15:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should answer that. When I first discovered the move I was a bit confused because I watch the Rebate page and could not understand how I could have missed the vote, hence my rant above :o. It was later on I realised that the vote had taken place on the Rebate (marketing) talk page. It was in my watch list because I created it but I don't bother monitoring changes to it because it's not my area of expertise. Then when the move took place, what was the Rebate disambiguation page was replaced by this one. I think there should be a notice placed on pages that are to be deleted by admin assisted moves because I was totally unaware that it was taking place. I apologise for the indignation. Well, no, not really ;) SilentC 21:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move back. —Nightstallion (?) 11:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

Rebate → Rebate (marketing) – {Was moved from Rebate (marketing) to Rebate overwriting the Rebate disambig page based on the assumption that the other definition of Rebate (see Rabbet) was not valid.} copied from the entry on the WP:RM page

Voting

[edit]
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
Simple for who?SilentC 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments
The term rebate is used in Australia (and elsewhere) in place of Rabbet. There are 14,700 hits on 'rebate joinery' on Google. The Macquarie Dictionary (Australian) has the definition for Rebate as posted above. There is a type of hand plane manufactured by Stanley and others known as a Rebate Plane which is used to create rebates (10,400 Google hits). The reason I created the disambiguation page in the first place was because I typed in 'Rebate' expecting to see the woodworking-related topic and instead found the marketing 'rebate'.
NOTE I missed the original vote on this because I was not watching the Rebate (marketing) page. I believe there should also be a notice placed on pages which will be deleted as the result of a move in cases such as this. SilentC 23:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is the disambig in italics to "rabbet" not good enough? If you type "rebate" into google, it doesn't give you woodworking-related stuff. Having it this way makes parenthetical dabs unnecessary. - mako 00:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the whole point of disambig pages was to handle this type of thing. Personally, I don't like the way the US usage appears to get preference and other usages are tacked on at the top as an after thought. It's only Rabbet (as far as I am aware) in North America. Why is it such an issue to have the disambig page? There must be thousands of similar examples, why is this one causing so much grief? SilentC 00:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hasten to add it's not BECAUSE it's the US usage that I object. My opinion on it is that if you type in a term and there is more than one definition, you should get a list to choose from, not have an assumption made that one is more likely than the other. I think the disambig in italics at the top should be for terms that are similar to or easily confused with the main title, not where the spelling is identical but usage differs. SilentC 00:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not a big deal. I think it's fine as is, but I have no objections to your move. - mako 04:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The one-line disambig as it now stands is inaccurate, since a rabbet is a feature, not a joint, although it may form the basis for a joint. Just plain Bill 00:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "joint" to "term". - mako 04:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That makes more sense to me. Just plain Bill
Australian Carpenter by Clifford Lloyd, copyright 1948, ISBN 0333210735 was used as one of the apprentice work books for many years. While it is a simple book, the index references rebate as an entry for a rebate plane, a tool for creating rebates.
The term Rabbet is not one that is in common usage here in Australia; the pronunciation is sometimes used (and I can now see why), but the spelling remains rebate. As to which usage should claim the title depends on one's exposure to a particular field, I believe the term rebate should be the disambiguation page rather than rebate (disambiguation), as that way, the reader discovers alternative meanings early in the process.
A google search for rebate as the sole term may well turn up few hits related to woodworking, but is this because of the exclusive use of the term, or the recent popularity of the term?
Finally, comments such as (the ONLY meaning of "rebate") are less than helpful. — Graibeard (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By no means a well-controlled test, and yet: Google gives about 1.8 million hits for rebate+wood, while rebate+marketing gives 2 million hits. Not a huge difference there. Maybe the joiners and carpenters are too busy filling the floor with chips and shavings to spend as much time filling up cyberspace with verbiage as the marketeers do. Yes, forgive me, I'm being a bit snide there, but I'd like to point out that the "reality," whatever that is, of human knowledge goes beyond the written (and pictorial) record. In a tertiary source such as an excyclopedia, counteracting a systemic bias towards words based on other words takes effort, but I believe it's worth it. Hitting a disambiguation page first may well open someone's eyes to the fact that the word has more meanings than the one they expected to find. End of rant, thanks for reading, Just plain Bill 15:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another of these needless "Cultural clashes over grammar, spelling, and capitalisation/capitalization." See: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. Rebate is used for a recess in every country except the USA, while, according to the marketing rebate article, "Although rebates are common in the United States and Canada, many areas of the world do not use them." Given the two separate meanings of the word, Wikipedia should recognize this and have Rebate be a DAB page. See Veneer for an example, where although wood veneer is the primary meaning from which the others were derived, the veneer page is a DAB page. Or Windsor which became a DAB page after substantial discussion. Luigizanasi 16:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries

[edit]

"I still contend that the marketing term should be the primary article, since the woodworking term is barely acknowledged by both the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary and the Cambridge dictionary."

I'd just like to point out that both Merriam-Webster and the Cambridge online dictionaries are adbridged dictionaries, meaning that for reasons of space, only the most common words and usages in the target audience are included.

Merriam Webster is based on the 'Collegiate' dictionary, which I assume from the title is intended for American college students: "Merriam-Webster's abridged dictionaries, such as Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, include a lexicon of the more common words used at home, in school, or in the office, but exclude most words of low or infrequent usage and words that may be used in specialized contexts." 1

The Cambridge link uses the 'Advanced Learning' dictionary by default and they have this to say about the definitons: "The definitions only use words from the 'Defining Vocabulary' (a limited list of common and basic words that students will understand)." 2.

I would be reluctant to rely on either of these references when settling a dispute on word usage ;) SilentC 21:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a little silly now and you make an excellent point, what's your opinion of the OED (subscription only)? As for this whole debate, I hope you're not too frustrated with my ignorance! --Lox (t,c) 21:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that if you wanted to subscribe to an online dictionary, you could hardly go wrong with the OED but it's very expensive. I find for most things I get what I want by typing "define:term" in Google (doesn't work for rebate though!). I subscribe to the Macquarie because it's the authority on Aussie english (I think I was having an argument not unlike this one with someone else). The tendency with these online dictionaries is for them to put their most basic abridged versions online free and offer the more complete ones for a fee. For the most part, the basic ones are good enough. Regarding the debate, I participate in them with good humour. We all have our points of view and it would be a bad day that you did not learn something new :) SilentC 21:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all's well that ends well. I already have access to the OED for some unbeknown reason, but I tend not to use it because others can't confirm what I'm stating. Still, I can't see any reason for this article not getting moved back (I've also changed my vote), nice discussion! --Lox (t,c) 22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The wooddorkers of the world thank you, but you did interfere with my last attempted edit. :-) This is what I was going to say when you rudely [ ;-) ] interrupted me: FWIW, I do have a copy of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, only two volumes and 3,749 pages. There are four separate entries for rebate: two nouns and two verbs. By separate I mean a different entry starting on a different line, not just sub-entries or definitions for the same word. The verb to rebate in the marketing/business/reduction sense has five sub-entries or definitions, while the woodworking verb has two definitions. Now we need to move on to the most common spelling of the word in North America, which is "rabbit". :-) Luigizanasi 22:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wooddorkers? Come on Luigi, I thought you were one of us? :D SilentC 22:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting point you raise there: "because others can't confirm what I'm stating". If the facts can't be found free online, it doesn't necessarily mean that a statement you make based on them is not true. If you look something up in the OED online, you can be certain that it can be verified by going to the local library and looking it up in the same source. Are we bound to adhere only to facts that can be verified easily online? Hope not!! SilentC 22:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Confidence tricks

[edit]

I'm removing the confidence tricks category from this article. I realize that people have been burned by them, but they're really not confidence tricks. Aaronw 19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for letting us know! --Lox (t,c) 20:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add rebates are almost exclusive to United States. We don't have them here, and if we do they are really rare, and are instant rebates. ie. they go on your cell phone bill etc. Poo Americans always get screwed. I used to work for a rebate center, many different clients. I can tell you the insides and outs. Fr0 05:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overtly Negative POV

[edit]

There is quite a bit that can be done to this article to make it more NPOV. It's written from a view that Rebates are always scams and you will always loss your money. Anyone who has dealt with rebates frequently know that this is not the case. While there are unscrupulous Rebate processing centers, there are twice as many legit ones and some of the valid reasons behind rebates have already been posted.

We need to maintain the compliants (and the "Rebate tips" section is really good), we need to keep it under a "complaints" section and not let it over run the entire article. Have more citations and sources will also give those complaints a more solid footing. Right now it just looks like ranting. I'm going to do some tweaking to article over the next day or so. Some "Wish list" items for the article would be

  • An image of a what a UPC looks like
  • Listing of some of the more popular rebate centers and major mfg/retailers they are linked with
  • Sources cited for lawsuits filed against fraudalent rebate centers or news articles
  • Maybe an expanded history section of how rebates evolved to be so popular. (it is lighted touched on) Agne27 01:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job of cleaning up the article Agne. One other thing that I wonder about is whether these rebates are a disincentive to purchase. I don't know of any data on the topic other than some strongly phrased anecdotal viewpoints to the effect that "I wouldn't buy x if it had a rebate." Since the rebate is a marketing tool it would be nice to know if it was in fact reducing the overall marketability of an item.--gargoyle888 18:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that would be an interesting angle. I looked a little on google and I couldn't find any published sources. (I'm curious as to what actual marketing literature would have).Agne27 02:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very US-centric content

[edit]

Mail-in rebates are almost unknown in many other countries. There should be a note saying the content is specific to the United States. -- 84.130.59.8 16:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not only the US where you find this. It's quite popular in Canada as well. You appear to be in Germany. My German wife informs me that these kinds of promtional techniques are not used there. I wonder if there is a problem with legality there?
As a marketing technique it is a valid means of promoting a product. As such it has no national boundary nor attachment. Though it would be nice to know how much it is used in other countries and whether it has been banned in any country.--gargoyle888 00:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They do occur here in Australia but they go by a different name: "cash back offer". One example is where a car dealer advertises a car with $1000 cash back, which means that when you buy the car, you apply for the cash back. It's much more common these days for the retailer to 'throw in $x worth of accessories' or whatever, rather than cash. Something that was popular awhile ago was an offer of $x worth of petrol. I once bought a coffee machine that had a $50 cash back offer. The retailer was supposed to give me a coupon which I would mail to the manufacturer to claim the $50. They didn't have any coupons in the shop and I couldn't be bothered going back to get it. I guess that sort of thing happens a lot. A cynic would probably say that they NEVER have any coupons in the shop. SilentC 00:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images?

[edit]

I would like to ad some images but I'm not sure if it's possible to get a "generic" enough copy of a Rebate form or a Rebate check that won't appear as advertizing something. Any thoughts? Agne 07:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Price discrimination??

[edit]

The price discrimination section has a problem where the word "discrimination" is used in both the social and the economic sense (which are very different) without making a distinction between them. A policy that discriminates against a lower economic class is in fact the opposite of what is usually called "price discrimination" since those who have less ability to pay incur a higher price. I looked at the article from the Mid American Journal of Business and it correctly avoids the term "price discrimination", in order to forestall this confusion. Hence, the reference to this article should be moved elsewhere in this entry because technically speaking it has nothing whatsoever to do with price discrimination. Sparohok 07:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need more Refs in the "Consumer caveats" section

[edit]

Right now it looks pretty heave on the OR side and I think it's getting to the point where we need to either add some refs to it or it needs to go. I'd hate to lose it because it does have valuable information but it is hard to deny the OR look to it. Agne 21:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been any references added. Admittedly, after looking myself, they are hard to find (at least some good non-blog sources). So for some time being, I'm removing the section from the article and putting it it here on the talk page. It is really hard to look at it and not say that it is original research, especially without any real referencing. (outside of the one Circuit City FAQ but that could be said to be exclusive to CC). It's better then outright deleting it and hopefully we'll be able to find some sources and be able to rewrite this in a Non-ORish tone. Agne 06:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer caveats

[edit]
  • State tax law requires that Sales tax be calculated on the initial purchase price, not the price after the rebate. A $199 item with a $150 rebate is advertised as only "$49", but the customer must pay tax on $199. Rebates will not refund the sales tax, the cost of the postage or envelope, or the interest value of the refund during the waiting period before its arrival. In the US, it is customary to advertise the net price of an item (before tax) rather than the gross price (including tax) as is customary in most of the world.
  • As above, once the UPC has been removed from the box, retailers may not accept a return of the item. Customers should ensure that they do not need to return the item before mailing the rebate. Some allow or require a copy of the UPC code instead.
  • Consumers should always read rebate rules carefully and follow them to the letter. The following are common:
    • Rebates usually require the consumer to submit either original or a copy of UPC from the product's box and mail it with the rebate form. This will typically need to be cut out from the product packaging.
      • UPC codes can also be called the "EDP Label", adding to confusion. When in doubt over multiple "barcoded" items on the box, cut them all out and affix them to a page to be submitted with the rebate. Rebate companies cannot decline your rebate for sending in "too much" information.
    • Rebates usually require the consumer to submit the original sales receipt (or sometimes a copy), and circle the item purchased.
    • Rebates usually require the consumer to accompany the UPC and the receipt with a properly filled-out rebate form. Some rebate forms have a place for a signature. It is important to include it, otherwise the rebate will be rejected.
    • Multiple rebates for a single item should be sent in separate envelopes.[1]
  • Consumers should make copies of all the materials they are mailing in case the rebate is rejected.
  • To help ensure that the small UPC cut out is not lost, affix by paperclip the UPC to the rebate form. Some rebate forms have explicit rules against stapling items to the rebate form.
  • For high-value rebates, consumers should send materials via certified mail to ensure proof of both the mail date and the receipt. If the rebate goes to a PO box, do not send by certified mail as only the post office will sign for it, not the company.
  • Since rebate turnaround time is typically months away, consumers should keep records for the rebates they send in. It also helps to set up reminders to go back and check on the status of rebate submissions.
  • If the rebate is rejected, it may be difficult to resubmit it, since required documentation such as the original receipt is usually sent with the original request and sometimes copies may not be accepted. Normally rebate clearinghouses will give the customer some recourse to allow for resubmission within a short time frame. If you receive a rejection notice, ask about your options and, if need be, go to the site of purchase and see what they maybe able to help with.
  • Some sellers may cancel rebates without prior notice. Buyers could end up purchasing the item without knowing that the rebates were no longer active. Most retailers will honor cancelled rebates if they were still advertising them after the cancellation period. It is best to contact the company's Customer Relations department if you encounter this type of issue.
  • Watch your mail carefully. Sometimes rebate "checks" can appear to be junk mail or post cards and get accidentally discarded.

Omax section

[edit]

While the section could be rewritten, I objected to the wholesale reversion for a couple of reasons. 1.) It messed up the reference format which made it inconsistent the referencing. 2.) Second, it gave the false impression that mail in rebates are completely eliminated from Office Max, while they are actually in the process of eliminating them. Take a look at yesterday's paper with their sale ad and you will see while a lot of items don't have them, they are still around (like in software). The reverted editions more accurately portrayed that this was a process elimination. 3.) It explained WHY Office Max was eliminating there rebates and in POV fashion. This article has to tip toe a fine POV line between presenting the benefits to retailers and customers that rebates give versus the negative sterotypes and disadvantages that rebates have consumers. In this case, the negative feedback from OMax customers cause them to move in this way. Again, I have no problem with the section being rewritten in order to better cover the info but the 3 points above should be addressed in some matter with the revision. Agne 19:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

while I understand your points and agree to some degree to what you say, I still believe there is too much focus on OfficeMAX overall and I believe a little trimming is still in order. Payam81 00:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

problems

[edit]

other problems with rebates is that people often forget about the rebate and never chase the company down for the money. since the rebate can take months to get to the customer, the customer often forgets about the cheque. another problem is chasing the company down. it can be quite difficult to chase the company down in charge of the rebate because they are often administered by a third party. for example, if i buy a compaq computer from bestbuy, the rebate is handled by neither bestbuy nor compaq. most of the time people have no idea who is administering it. if you dont know who is administering it, how can you chase them down. both compaq, and bestbuy can deny responsiblity or simply play dumb and the customer may never get the money. for the amount of time it would take to chase down the $20 rebate, it is simply not worth it. the final problem is timing. rebate cheques often take months to process. it is not entirely impossible that the cheque takes too long to get to the person and many rebates have 90 limits on when you can cash a cheque. i have had cheques arrive as much as 5 months after i bought the product, and the cheque has already expired, and in that case, i was not able to cash it and the company just denied responsibility. a good way for them to avoid paying up.

  1. ^ Can I put all of my rebates in one envelope? - Circuit City Rebate FAQ
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rebate_(marketing)/Archive_1&oldid=995417101"