Question is ....

Is it fair to "not share" the deal by not spoon feeding / circles + arrows / pictures / etc knowing full well all the details are available in the forum if someone takes the time to read?

You can tell people don't even bother reading a couple pages back with the repeat questions. And those are the people who are asking, multiply by your lurker factor.

How "fair" is it to the community to explicitly provide instructions likely resulting in quantity spikes which directionally can not help the aggregate community cause?

Is it too much to ask to set the filter at "read the thread"? I think it is fair to expect someone to invest the slightest amount of time to figure it out. They'll be better off for it. And it will keep riff raff out. Its not like the information isn't available, it is. Of course this won't stop the CC pimps from pushing new "solutions" to help you make that spend requirement.

It is not going to be difficult for CVS to add one more SKU to the banned list, they just went through the exercise and unless I'm missing something, the product is question is effectively the same as the banned ones in regards to liability/ cc fee/ supplier / etc, except a dollar in price. So how about we just let this lay and stop talking about it? Yes there are other alternatives, but continuing to explicitly lead the flock around isn't helping open up new ones faster than old ones are getting closed. Eventually the MS stool runs out of time/cost effective legs to stand on.

CVS master thread
 

As a datapoint, the NJ area I'm at is 100% completely cash only. Went to 5 different CVS.

No, it's not the same. VRs are a specific small market -- GCs are a much larger market with lots of competition. In addition, CVS seems to have made VRs cash-only because a change in their cost made the deal untenable. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with increased volume.

Your suggestions are at base selfish. I'm going to keep helping people. Sorry.

I get tired of reading the same questions every day as well and don't think people who obviously have put in no effort and have only posted once should be given detailed instructions. That being said telling someone to read the thread isn't all that useful either. This thread has 8500+ posts in it and a lot of those posts are completely useless now. I'm still trying to figure out what my next move is in NYC with the loss of VRs, although I have a general idea of what I am going to do and I am just trying to figure out the most cost effective method.

Make that 8501+

I can tell you have been in the game a long time..

Has anyone considered that maybe this was a tactic used by CVS to negotiate a lower fee from InComm? The CVS memo did give as a reason an increase in fees which made continued selling of VR via CC not worthwhile. After the dust settles and a comparison can be made between first and second quarter sales of VR, maybe InComm will be persuaded to strike a new fee arrangement which will be beneficial to both parties. Don't be surprised if the cash only policy gets reversed later in the year.

I am referring to CVS, so it is indeed the same. People who didn't have CVS are directly unaffected by the change. The affected ones are looking for alternatives. It is very convenient if the alternative is at the same store.

An influx to other stores (namely their competitors) from the sheep isn't going to help. Let alone the second step independent of where the GC is acquired. That is a social interaction bomb ready to go off.

Reasons are all speculation. Someone had a good management analogy earlier. People are told what they need to hear at times, not the truth. The end is the same. If CVS bans OV next month, doesn't mean people can say "I told you so", just doesn't look good. Nobody knows the thresholds or triggers. It could have been completely independent of volume (criminal issues or change to fee structure with Incomm). Implying someone knows is implying they have no clue. I once was told, the most important thing is knowing what you don't know.

I think we all can agree, increasing quantity is not going to help, and likely hurt. Both the red flags with the bean counters and employee interactions.

Do as you see fit. Start a blog. Buy a billboard. Go on CNN. I think the community consensus would be otherwise.

Call it what you want.

Understand: join date, post count, and epeen status badges are directionally proportional to knowledge and experience. You win.

The war is still going on... The lone survival - white knight - is fiercely fighting...

http://i61.tinypic.com/332chu9.jpg

So nice of you to rub it in ...

Definitely no override unfortunately. I was just at a CVS with a very willing to help manager who could do nothing to make the purchase go through...

Thanks.

Id be very surprised to see the VRs return using CCs. If anything I wouldnt be at all surprised to see all GCs going no CC either

There were too many scams running , the main one was people called up the stores as if they were Execs with MVD or CV and got the employees to scratch off the card and tell them the pin. Or the IRS scam which went the same way but John Q public bought the VRs and sent in the info. Once the card is activated and they have the pin the $$ was in their pocket

With a reg GC you need the actual card to get the $$ off of it. I can think of a few things they can do to get them but its not as smooth and easy as the VRs were. Once the amount of fraud starts rising with the GCs they too will go ca$h only, just as it is in some supermarkets

A reminder that CVS is the topic of this thread, not other members, their relative newness or whether they should or should not have access as those are wider issues better discussed on separate threads.

tcook052
Manufactured Spending Forum Moderator