posted on January 10, 2001 05:15:57 AM
I went in and checked my preferences yesterday. I have one account, which is active and has been since early 1999.
The Telemarketing preference and Snail Mail preference were both reset to Yes.
I don't need ebay being a parent for me, deciding how I feel about something. What is their problem? Talk about control issues.
posted on January 10, 2001 05:42:37 AM
I was registered before April of 2000. I have bought very little this last year and I have not received any spam from Ebay yet that all of you are discussing.
I have noticed something that has happened since my D filled out a request that we did not want to be spammed by phone for a law that was passed and just came into effect or soon will.
Since that request was filed I have noticed 2 different solicitation calls where the approach was a little different.
Both were from credit card accounts that we have. Both calls started with these beginning words "This is a courtesy call from #$# and then proceed with the same old line.
When I told them I did not want to be bothered with solicitation they were quick to inform me that this was not solicitation that it was a "Courtesy Call" but it was still solicitation no matter what they call it and I hung up.
They just got a little further those 2 times because their words, "Courtesy" but no longer.
I was wondering then if companies are intending to get around this new law by using the words, "Courtesy Call" and if this might have something to do with Ebay's resetting your preferences? Both companies were wanting to sell us a new service.
posted on January 10, 2001 06:21:02 AM
Hey gang - maybe I'm a little dense but I couldn't find the don't-contact-me-don't-spam-me setting in my account on E-Bay. My account was created eons ago but it looks like some folks are being contacted anyway.
posted on January 10, 2001 07:53:41 AM
I have wasted countless numbers of emails sending Spam to Ebay so they could handle it.
Each time they said contact the persons ISP and complain.
NOW we find out it was Ebay all along???
This place has gone to hell.
Pursgloves answers just do not set well with me.
BTW
I just noticed my auctions are not in gallery even though I paid for it.
Anyone else tired of Ebay Babysitting
and trying to keep them honest??
What really floors me, even more than what eBay is doing, is what TrustE reportedly did:
"Online privacy group TrustE said the eBay changes raise privacy concerns and it plans to grill execs about it in the next few days. This is a change of mind for TrustE, one of several groups that eBay briefed on the details before changing people's preferences. TrustE at first gave its okay." [emphases are mine]
Amazing, absolutely amazing. TrustE is supposed to be an online privacy group, but did not suggest sending what I suggested early in this thread, namely that eBay not change the preferences themselves, just send a note explaining the "problem" and then leave it up to the customer to decide???? It was an easy suggestion for me to think of (one of the first things to occur to me when reading the cited notes), and I'm not even part of a formal organization.
TrustE just lost some further credibility in my mind. No wonder I still don't shop online outside of eBay, privacy seals or not.
----
What's being done in the name of direct marketing nowadays is crazy.
The above are all just my opinions, except where I cite facts as such.
Oh, I am not dc9a320 anywhere except AW. Any others are not me.
Is eBay is changing from a world bazaar into a bizarre world?
posted on January 10, 2001 10:44:01 AM
abacaxi -- Thanks for the site!!!! E-Bay had in fact changed my prefrences for me and my acount was created in 99
posted on January 10, 2001 12:26:24 PM
TRUSTe is a joke!! TRUSTe is Not a consumer advocacy group. It was created by industry leaders in response to consumer privacy groups wanting the government to intervene and pass strict laws relating to the internet privacy issue. It was formed by the very industry that is VIOLATING our privacy to convince the government that self-regulating works and to appease the privacy advocates.
QUOTE
"All the TRUSTe seal means that the Web site has met the core tenets of the TRUSTe program: disclosure, choice, access and security. While that may be good news to casual visitors of www.aol.com, AOL's Internet Access customers cannot depend on TRUSTe to cover any misuse of their personal data. Think you're protected when you download that nifty plug-in? Again, be careful: in most cases, TRUSTe covers the site, but not the software. It's even more serious when you scour the fine print of most member policies: TRUSTe's trustmark does not protect you from ad networks and their rampant harvesting of your personal data, even if their banners appear on a TRUSTe licensee site."
END QUOTE
http://www.freedom.net/resources/features/truste/
Just take a look at some of their Corporate Sponsors and the companies that formed their Privacy Partnership campaign which include AltaVista, Yahoo, Intuit, Microsoft, Geocities, Deja.com. AOL, RealNetworks, Ecite, Netscape AND their Contributing Corporate Sponsors which include AdForce, Bell Atlantic and Engage. These companies are BLATANT offenders of the principles relating to internet privacy and use high tech target marketing to track users.
posted on January 10, 2001 03:43:58 PM
Well, that's a troubling pedigree. No wonder I still felt uneasy about TrustE: I must have heard their pedigree awhile back, but before I really started seeing the seal anywhere.
Nonetheless, this isn't the first time I've questioned TrustE; I said "lost some further credibility in my mind." They've done other things that have made me question their motives, and now I know why. The reason I haven't dug deeper is I don't really care much about the seals as they currently exist. The principles they are based on, namely full disclosure and auditing of what a website does with the information, while a step forward from none at all, would still leave me having to digest long privacy statements written in legalese and hope I understood them and that the company isn't trying to find ways to sneak around (like eBay), whereas the only thing I'm looking for in privacy statements or seals is something to this effect:
Customer information (including: name, address, phone number, email address, credit card information, item(s) purchased, IP number, browser type and version, and any related cookies) shall be used solely for the purpose of the customer making and the company fulfilling the order or improving our own internal processes, and beyond the shipping company (to send your order) and the bank (to resolve payment), both of which are bound by similar rules of privacy, this information will not be sold or distributed outside of this company, or added to any internal marketing lists, with only the following exceptions:
1) Customer explicitly adds a checkmark to options saying "Yes, I would like to hear about other exciting offers from our company," and/or, "Yes, I would like to hear about other exciting offers from our partners."
2) A court order specifically asking for information about a certain customer.
Okay, I know I'm dreaming, but....
Between privacy and CC security concerns, dot-coms are losing surely income, whether they realize it or not. Telemarketing and spam are almost universally despised (which makes the wording of eBay's notes sound even more bizarre), and CC info hacking and identity theft stories crop up with fair regularity.
The following are pure speculation on my part; I'd love to hear if there has been a study to put hard numbers to the following.
Say 40 million Americans are online. Say half of them each balk on $50 of purchases. That's a billion dollars right there. The U.S. online consumer market was reportedly estimated (by CNN I think -- I don't know their source) as something like $17 billion for 2000, IIRC. To regain just a single lost $50 would take the selling of 100-1000* (* = usually closer this) customer sales records to direct marketers, at the typical rates of $50*-500 per 1000 records. To make up for $1 billion lost revenue would take the sales of roughly 2-20* billion customer purchase records. Well, if there was "only" $17 billion in actual sales, each purchase would have had to be only $8.50 to 85 cents* to be able to have enough purchase records to sell to make up for the $1 billion (hypothetically) lost -- and ***that would assume every company would sell out every single one of its customers, which I know does not happen, so the maximum per purchase price would be capped even lower.
Say instead we have six brackets of 4 million people each, one bracket balking on $400 each person, another on $250, $150, $100, $50, and $25, and that the remaining 40% don't care. That's $4 billion. It would take selling 8-80* billion records, and at only $17 billion of actual consumer e-commerce, purchase size could average no more than $2.12 - 21cents* (*** again, probably much lower) apiece to support direct marketing.
Losses could be even higher for all I know, either by underestimating the above or failing to consider the number of people that might be slow to join the Internet because of the stories they've heard.
These numbers are only speculative, but regardless, I have a hard time seeing the gains from direct marketing (average response rate: 0.5% or lower) outweighing the losses from lack of trust. I agree with whoever said spam (and its other direct marketing ilk) is bad for business, especially for online business where the customer must always give up personal information to make the purchase. It may also be the lost margin that is costing many dot-coms their existence, IMO (yes, I know there is more than just that, but that certainly isn't helping).
It's just that a direct marketer's money in hand is far, far easier for a company like eBay to see than the uncertain numbers lost over trust.
Ultimately, no matter how many ads are being flung about by whom, people eventually have to buy things to support everything, and if what's available to buy isn't sufficiently compelling to overcome the worries of fraud, CC theft, spam, etc., consumer e-commerce won't grow as fast as it could.
Besides, eBay has other issues that need a greater degree of fixing. They're messing around with Annuncio and DoubleClick (or whoever it now is), while fundamental problems of stability and fraud keep making the news (and costing them bids and money).
eBay may be getting lots of direct marketing money from this underhanded, in my opinion, alteration of preferences, but what is it costing them in the long run? I have no idea. eBay may actually be somewhat more immune, but overall, I think the damage is sorely costing everyone else.
Well, more than enough rambling from me for one day. Sorry about the length. I'll put my soapbox away for awhile, especially since the lack of some numbers above probably left me on shaky ground.
[ Edited to add a parenthetical. ]
[ edited by dc9a320 on Jan 10, 2001 03:47 PM ]
posted on January 10, 2001 03:50:04 PM
Give me a break. I do not believe that they cannot keep this from happening. If a user can change their preferences, then ebay could also change all the yesses to no's. They are hoping that people do not respond so that they can force feed their users this by default.
For approximately 6 million eBay accounts, all personalized registration settings that were marked "no" will be reset to the default "yes" settings, meaning that users who decided not to receive telemarketing calls or emails from the company may now receive such solicitations and messages.
The online auction giant blamed the problem on a bug in its software that randomly changed registration settings. Users who want to keep their initial settings have 14 days to change their preferences, after which time the changes will take affect
posted on January 10, 2001 03:52:53 PM
Oh, forgot to say thanks for the information and links, Blanche and everyone else. Interesting reading, learn something new everyday.
Unfortunately, eBay did not notify everyone who had their user preferences changed. My preferences were changed without my consent and I received a promotional email on December 28 from eBay. I was not given a chance to change my preferences back and now eBay tells me that my name may be on mailing lists for the next 4-6 weeks...
At least that was what they told me in response to my complaint...
posted on January 10, 2001 04:37:05 PM
ptimko -
Nonsense! The changes should be efective in "up to 14 days" if you believe the preferences page. WHAT! You don't believe eBay!
posted on January 10, 2001 05:43:39 PM
My account on eBay was created in April, 1999. My preferences were changed without my consent. I received a promotional email from eBay on December 28, 2000. I complained to eBay that same day. The response I received from eBay said that they had, upon receiving my complaint, reset my preferences so that I would no longer receive promotional email. They advised me that it might take 4-6 weeks for the changes to come into effect because mailing lists are sometimes pulled weeks in advance of the actual mailings...
I'll have to post the exact quote from the email later. I've been using an email account at netscape but I've been having more and more trouble accessing it in the past couple of weeks. Right now all I'm getting for netscape is a "document contains no data" error when I try to access my email acount...
posted on January 10, 2001 05:52:36 PM
I finally managed to access my email!
Here's the quote from the letter of apology from eBay...
You can then change your preferences to suit your needs. Please
remember that although your preferences are updated immediately, the
mailing lists may have already been pulled for certain promotions and
mailings.
You may receive emails that aren't indicated on your notification
preferences as some mailing lists are pulled 4-6 weeks before the actual
mailing occurs.
As if I didn't have enough SPAM email already, now because of eBay's "error" I'm looking at an additional load for the next 4-6 weeks...
posted on January 10, 2001 05:59:49 PM
"You may receive emails that aren't indicated on your notification
preferences as some mailing lists are pulled 4-6 weeks before the actual mailing occurs."
posted on January 11, 2001 04:36:18 AM
Hmmmmm ... if I were a conspiracy theorist, I would say that they changed a bunch of preferences and tried a small spam run to "test the waters". The reaction of the spammees was so negative and immediate, so they had to somehow explain away the changes because with typical eBay incompetence they failed to save the original choices.
So, they concocted the story about the input error to cover their tracks. Unfortunately, the changes were sloppily made and accounts outside this supposed error's time were also changed, leaving Kevin Purseglove with egg on his face (again).
Small excerpts:
*************
"It's tough to explain dysfunctional corporate decision making, but the cause here seems just a typical case of an avaricious marketer bent on improving his numbers telling an airhead PR flack to put a sugar coating on a communications laxative pill," said Jason Catlett of privacy advocacy website Junkbusters.
"The result is dazzling in its stupidity and its effrontery: 'Sorry, our previous decision not to spam you was an administrative error. We sincerely regret having temporarily respected your privacy and promise that it won't happen again,'" Catlett added.
*******
Peppers firmly believes that if eBay had sent the e-mail to bolster its marketing list, "they'd have to be the lowest IQ marketers on the planet."
"I think a more logical explanation is that it was a simple software glitch, and that the marketers tried to make up for what they saw as a lost opportunity, but they did so in a less than customer-friendly way."
