понедельник, 10 августа 2015 г.

uSephora Promises Epic Rewards, Customers Get Epic Letdownr


4 4 4 9
  • REWARDSToday was a special event if you’re a fan of cosmetics who has been spending a lot of money at Sephora: the company released just a few very valuable rewards, like valuable and rare makeup assortments, or even a trip to Paris. The rewards would be coming, Sephora told their customers, at some point during business hours today, Pacific time. Fans refreshed the page constantly looking for the prizes. Then the rewards were all gone.

    The special rewards were for people who have accumulated 1,000 or more points in their rewards accounts, with one point for every dollar spent at Sephora. (Not necessarily, though: you can get reward points as an apology for late shipping or other problems with your order, or for taking market research surveys.) They included everything from bags of products worth hundreds of dollars to a trip to Paris to visit Lancôme headquarters. Some observers never saw the higher-end rewards at all, even if they had enough points to purchase them. Which is understandable, since the rewards were very impressive.

    And they “sold” out within minutes.

    10krewards

    Even customers who were able to nab the rewards items weren’t able to make it to the checkout. Right now, Sephora’s social media customer service people appear to just be copying and pasting “we’re sorry to hear that! Please send us a DM with your issue or question so that we can assist you!” on Twitter, or using a bot to answer initial queries.

    Right now, Sephora customer service is overwhelmed, and customers are frustrated and vowing to shop at competitor Ulta forever. Except for the stuff that is exclusive to Sephora. Of course.

    If you’re one of the people whose rewards are caught in a glossy, glossy purgatory, we want to hear from you! Drop us a line at tips@consumerist.com.

    Sephora rewards are gone… In 3 minutes [Reddit]
    Sephora 1,000 pt + Rewards [Reddit]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uGoogle Reorganizing Itself Under New Company Called “Alphabet”r


4 4 4 9
ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uGift-Givers Love Gift Card Kiosks, And Retailers Love Them Even Morer


4 4 4 9
  • Depending on who you ask, gift cards are thoughtless gifts prone to losing their value, or a way to ensure that someone will get a gift that they actually like without the soullessness of cash. They’re also extremely convenient. Gift cards are available everywhere from convenience stores to upscale retailers, but how much money does the store where you bought the card get?

    Gift cards are the most-requested gift among Americans, something that the retail industry reminds us of every year, but also that only a minority of people admitted that were interested in receiving any last holiday season.

    CNN recently profiled one gift card company, Blackhawk, which is behind most of the gift card kiosks that you see in stores offering gift cards from other stores. They own the Gift Card Mall brand, for example. While the racks of cards are convenient, that isn’t why you see them in what seems like every store.

    If you’ve ever wondered, a retailer’s commission on a $100 gift card sale from a Blackhawk kiosk is about $4.50. The company takes about the same amount for itself, leaving the store the card is for with about $91.

    That retailer isn’t weeping or counting on customers to not cash in their gift cards, though: they know that a customer with a gift card will probably spend more than the face value of the gift card in the end.

    This is the most requested gift for 8 years in a row [CNN]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uAd Blockers Will Prevent You From Seeing $22B Worth Of Unwanted Ads This Yearr


4 4 4 9
  • In the U.S. alone, the report figures that nearly $11 billion in online ad revenue will be lost this year because of ad-blocking technology.

    In the U.S. alone, the report figures that nearly $11 billion in online ad revenue will be lost this year because of ad-blocking technology.

    Are you using an ad blocker on your web browser? If so, you probably don’t care what’s behind those grayed-out boxes where the ads are supposed to be. The folks who do care are the websites you visit, because they aren’t getting ad revenue from those grayed-out boxes. A new report says that ad-blocking will result in nearly $22 billion in lost ad revenue worldwide this year.

    That’s according to a report [PDF] from Adobe and PageFair, who put this year’s total at nearly double the 2014 losses of $11.7 billion. The companies project that the figure will almost double again and reach more than $41 billion next year.

    The U.S. is responsible for about half of the lost revenue, at $10.7 billion for 2015, up from $5.8 billion last year. By next year, stateside ad-blocking will be taking more than $20 billion out of websites’ pockets, according to the report.

    (This is where we remind you that Consumerist does not, and will not, accept advertising so we have no financial interest in the success of failure of ad-blocking technology.)

    In terms of the content with the most frequently blocked ads, the report finds that sites related to gaming have by far the most visitors likely to block advertising content, followed by social media sites, tech/Internet-themed sites, education, and then sports. At the other end of the spectrum are government/legal sites, where ad-blocking consumers don’t often go.

    Though ad-blocking on Safari saw the highest rate of increase (71%), that increase still only brought up to 9 million users the number of Safari folks deploying ad-blocking tech. Compare that to Chrome, which now has some 126 million users blocking ads, an increase of 51% from the same time last year.

    Interestingly, while the use of mobile devices for web-browsing has increased significantly in recent years, ad blocking is virtually unheard of, with only 2% of mobile users employing an ad blocker. The report notes that this could change with the upcoming release of iOS 9, as iPhone users will be more easily able to obtain and use ad-blocking apps.

    The Internet’s ability to track ad views (and clicks, and sell-throughs, and more) is undoubtedly a huge innovation over traditional advertising and its vague accounting.

    On TV or radio, an advertiser might know how many viewers a show has, but they don’t know if these people are turning down the volume or leaving the room during commercial breaks. And print advertising is a crap shoot, hoping that enough people pick up a magazine or newspaper and come across your ad.

    Online advertisers know more precisely how many times their message was seen, where it was seen, and whether people cared enough to do anything about the ad.

    But the fact is that, outside a handful of Super Bowl and Oscar spots, most people don’t like advertising and if you give them an easy way to avoid it, they will. Look at the near-universality of the DVR. TV viewers don’t just like being able to record shows, they like not having to sit through seven minutes of auto insurance ads to find out who Gordon Ramsay is going to yell at.

    At the same time, nearly every “free” website you read relies primarily, if not solely, on advertising revenue to remain in existence. If too many visitors start blocking ads, some websites may need to charge for content or find other revenue streams.

    Last fall, Google launched its “Contributors” program, which would let people pay money to their favorite sites in exchange for seeing fewer ads, but the model hasn’t exactly caught fire among consumers.

    Perhaps the only way to make online advertising more acceptable to concerned consumers is to make it less invasive. The ad in my copy of Vogue doesn’t know anything about me, so why should an ad on Vogue.com know everything about me?

    “No matter your views on whose rights trump whose, the economic impact of ad blocking is real and measurable,” says Campbell Foster, Adobe’s Director Product Marketing, in the report.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uCVS Must Pay $450K To Settle Claims That Pharmacies Filled Bogus Prescriptionsr


4 4 4 9
  • CVS Health agreed to pay $450,000 to settle a years-long investigation by Rhode Island and the Drug Enforcement Administration that several of its locations filled forged and invalid painkiller prescriptions in violation of federal laws.

    The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Rhode Island announced today that CVS agreed to settle allegations that several stores violated the federal Controlled Substances Act.

    In settling the investigation – which began after authorities found individuals in Rhode Island prescribing various controlled substances without the authority to do so – CVS did not admit any wrongdoing.

    Under the Controlled Substances Act, substances such as painkillers and opioids can only be prescribed for legitimate medical purposes by a physician.

    According to the settlement [PDF], starting in March 2010, several CVS pharmacies in Rhode Island didn’t follow those rules, filling a number of forged prescriptions.

    In some cases, the complaint states that orders were filled with invalid DEA numbers or that pharmacists actually knew or had reason to know that the prescriptions were invalid or unauthorized.

    Additionally, investigators alleged that some CVS pharmacists filled multiple prescriptions written by psychiatric nurse practitioners for the opioid painkiller hydrocodone, despite the fact that these practitioners were not legally permitted to prescribe the drugs.

    “It should come as no surprise to any Rhode Island citizen – individual or corporate –that diversion and misuse of prescription painkillers are a public health crisis in the State of Rhode Island,” U.S. Attorney Peter Neronha said in a statement.

    Monday’s settlement is the second in four months that CVS has faced regarding the filling of questionable painkiller prescriptions.

    Back in May, the company agreed to pay $22 million to resolve a two-year investigation into two area pharmacies – which had their DEA registrations revoked in 2012 – that filled painkiller prescriptions far in excess of the average pharmacy.

    Drug Diversion Claims Against CVS Health Corp. Resolved With $450,000 Civil Settlement [U.S. Attorney’s Office District of Rhode Island]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uWorld’s Most Expensive Wine Will Set You Back $15,000r


4 4 4 9
  • While many of us are debating whether to spring for the $15 bottle of wine instead of the cheapest, $9 selection, someone out there could be considering an upgrade to a $15,000 bottle.

    The deep-pocketed out there with a taste for the finer things in life may not blink at the average $15,195 price tag on a wine from Burgundy, a 1985 Richebourg Grand Cru by Henri Jayer Richebourg. But it’s a staggering price for us normals, who might not even buy 1,000 bottles of $15 wine over the course of an adult drinking lifetime.

    The results are part of an annual ranking by UK site WineSearcher, which issues a list of the top 50 most expensive wines every year.

    Prices from 55,000 wine merchants encompassing more than seven million wines were compared against each other, with France dominating the best of the best: almost all the wines on the list were French, with 40 of the top 50 coming specifically from Burgundy.

    Two German winemakers made it on the list with two bottles each, while the only other non-French wine came from a California vintner, Stanley Kroenke’s Screaming Eagle Cabernet Sauvignon at 14th place with a $2,884 price tag.

    (H/T to France 24)



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uGroups Say Proposed Student Loan Plan Doesn’t Provide Enough Assistancer


4 4 4 9
  • The Dept. of Education recently proposed regulations intended to make the student loan repayment process less burdensome and drawn-out. Nearly two dozen consumer advocacy groups say that while these rules should help borrowers, more could be done to ensure that all students benefit.

    The Institute for College Access & Success, along with 22 other organizations – including the Center for Responsible Lending, Student Debt Crisis and Americans for Financial Reform – submitted comments [PDF] to the Dept. of Education to strengthen its proposed rules [PDF] in order to help even more consumers stuck under piles of mounting student loan debt.

    The Department’s proposed regulations include a new income-driven repayment plan, called Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE), that would let all federal Direct student loan borrowers cap their monthly payments at 10% of their discretionary income, regardless of when they borrowed or their debt-to-income ratio.

    Discretionary income is defined as earnings above 150% of the poverty line and applies to what can be put toward non-necessities.

    Additionally, the plan provides benefits such as preventing ballooning loan balances by limiting interest accrual for borrowers with low income relative to their debt and removing the “standard payment cap” so higher income borrowers pay the same share of their income as lower-income borrowers.

    While the consumer groups say the plan would likely help struggling borrowers stay on top of their payments and avoid default, it doesn’t go far enough. Instead, the groups have asked the Dept. to implement several additional changes to ensure all borrowers are afforded the same assistance.

    The organizations believe that the Dept. should provide loan forgiveness to all borrowers in REPAYE after 20 years of payments.

    Under the current proposal, borrowers in REPAYE who have graduate school loans will be required to make 25 years of payments on all of their loans before any remaining debt is forgiven, while borrowers with only undergraduate loans can receive forgiveness after 20 years.

    “Though many borrowers will repay their loans in full before the 20-year period is over, capping loan repayment at 20 years helps borrowers focus sooner on other important priorities, like saving for retirement and their own children’s education,” the groups say.

    The organizations also believe that all qualifying payments made before or after consolidation of loans should count toward their forgiveness timeframe.

    As the proposal stands, student loans under the REPAYE program would be forgiven after 20 to 25 years of qualified repayments. However, if a borrower were to consolidate their loans prior to enrolling in REPAYE, any payments they made before that time are not considered qualifying.

    The groups also take issue with the Department’s use of debt-to-income ration in REPAYE, as the threshold has no relevance, they write.

    “It is simply a carryover from other income-driven repayment plans that have different eligibility requirements,” the groups state in their comments. “Capitalizing interest when the borrower’s debt-to-income ratio hits an arbitrary threshold adds unnecessary complexity…and can also increase costs for borrowers whose incomes are low for extended periods of time.”

    Finally, the groups suggest that the Dept. implement the use of “multi-year consent” when evaluating a borrower’s income information.

    Under the proposal, borrowers who are part of the REPAYE plan must provide the Dept. with new income information each year. If they fail to submit the data they could be bumped to a different repayment plan or dismissed from the program all together.

    A multi-year consent would allow the department to automatically access required tax information.

    “Implementing multi-year consent for income-driven repayment plans will help ensure that struggling borrowers are able to keep their monthly loan payments manageable and avoid delinquency and default,” the comments state. “It will also significantly reduce the administrative burden for both borrowers and servicers. Borrowers used to be able to provide multi-year consent, and they should be able to again.”

    The Department of Education is expected to view all comments related to the proposed regulations and make a determination by this fall.



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist