I meant as a fraction of time. E.g., if the mint deal ran for 3 years, and it had widespread exposure for 2 weeks of that period, then that would be only around 1% of the total period, yet it got killed in that 1%. Sure, could still be coincidence (or just that the unprofitability came around finally), but that's still the same situation -- it was presumably unprofitable for basically the entire run of the deal, yet still survived up until one of those few periods where it was overexposed. Still seems like that's too strong a connection to disregard.

And the mint kept putting more restrictions into place after that article ran. Soon after that article was published in the WSJ there was the restriction of $1,000 in coins every 10 days. Sometimes there would be back orders on coins. I wasn't blaming the bloggers though. It was brought up by another poster these deals get killed when it starts getting rubbed in their face which is what happened with the mint. People started bragging and running their mouths to mainstream media sources.

Nail, head.

There's no way that Amazon, ST, etc. aren't aware of what's going on. They're okay with that, but they're not okay with the WSJ articles that make them look like idiots.

Mike

Exactly, nail, nail to the coffin.

If Amz is on to us and if this thread continues on and on and sooner or later someone WILL BRAG about it then they will make Amz look like idiots and guess what will happen next. "Remember the Mint" is my battle cry.

Duh. I forgot that one (the worst of all offenders!) because I try not to read it.

This is one of the many reasons I refuse to read his blog.

It has continued for 2 years, and it has been confirmed that Amazon is on to us , and yes, one day this offer will be pulled, but not because we've been running our mouths about it, but because this marketing tactics will have run their course. And I bet the first headline we'll see here will be: Bloggers Have Killed Amazon Payments. Well, no they won't. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

Would it be possible for me to ask a question about using AP? Or are we just going to keep having a meta-discussion about deal killing?

Why can't we do both? :D

Ok, allow me to interrupt briefly then :D. Looking at this for maybe a few hundred at most each month, with a slow buildup for a family member of mine, to assure hitting a spend. Family member would AP to me, and then I would pay the CC directly from the AP receiving account. I don't think there will be any issue (especially as I won't go anywhere near the limit, i will not get even halfway to it) as I have a three way circle where money comes in and goes out and it isn't the same for any one individual part of the circle. Family member and I do have the same address if that is an issue. Let me know your thoughts and also let me know if I've opened my mouth too much!

Should not be a problem and we all have opened are mouths too much. ;)

I'm used to posting in the Trick It thread so I know sometimes the line can be overstepped without even trying ;). I was pretty sure it would be ok as none of CC/AP/my bank as me would know about both of the other two, and seems far less aggressive than some other things I've read here, never mind what people don't ever mention :D. I don't plan to make this a regular thing (because I can't transfer to the family member for other reasons), but just wanted to assure that the spend would be hit. Thanks!

Ironic that we keep bumping this thread to complain about how bloggers are publicizing this deal too much.

Maybe some want to keep this thread going as misdirection? Do you really believe there is any chance of this thread dying? This is Mint Jr. :)

It's unlikely you'll have a problem using this strategy.