dave99

People are spending $10,000. at valuemags to get 4,500,000 goldpoints. Is this abuse of a program to the possible detriment of others?

You go to the supermarket. An item that you buy all the time is on sale at 90 percent off, you fill your cart and buy their entire inventory. Is this abuse of a sale to the possible detriment others?

I don't think either case is an "abuse" or "unethical." The sellers can set the guidelines if they think that it's abuse. Valuemags can limit the size of orders. The supermarket can say "One sale item per customer."

If you have any doubt that sellers are reluctant to change policies, review some of the 20/20 AA promotion threads. Companies changed their policies right and left.

A nice person named Karen monitors FT for Radisson. Goldpoints is part of the same corporation. If either were being abused or defrauded by people buying $10,000 in magazines, I'm sure that they would have acted to end the practice.

As to the shelves being empty for late comers to the supermarket, I'd say first come first served (although a raincheck might be possible). Another good lesson from 20/20, if somebody posts a terrific deal that you're interested in, don't wait a couple of weeks to give it a try.

wormwood

I don't think I ever said I had a problem with people loading up on goldpoints via magazines, though I am not crazy about the idea from a dilution point of view. What I protested was recycling gift certificates ad infinitum or marketing the knowledge of a promotion and not having a transparent offer. This is quite different from emptying the shelves at a supermarket when there is a sale. I am mystified that some folks see no difference from taking a business up on thier offer on a product and something that goes far beyond that. Okay, if you go with live and let die as an attitude it makes sense, but I don't see that as fair or productive either short or long term. Blind greed is blind greed. The fact that it is 'allowed' in a capitalist system (which I favor by the way) doesn't make it right. There is more to decision making than simply 'I can do this/I can get away with this.' I can't imagine Goldpoints/Radisson intended people to spend a hundred bucks and roll it into an endless amount of points (even if they neglected to plug the hole) and I can't imagine anyone, on introspection, thinks it would be fair to do so. I wouldn't want that person for a customer, a business partner, or a friend. As far as I know I don't have any customers, business partners or friends who would think doing such was fair. I must be lucky.

[This message has been edited by wormwood (edited 12-24-2001).]

Kremmen

I am mystified that you make this distinction. The business makes the rules. Some businesses make an offer one time/item only. Some make an otherwise repeatable offer bounded, such as 6 times per year. Some limit the number of points/miles/etc you can earn by a method per time. Some limit the amount you can buy. Some don't make limits.

It's their business decision to write the rules as they see fit and for their customers to follow those rules.

My view is that on some sort of moral scale, taking advantage of a $27 air fare to Europe are way worse than this, yet you don't mind that as much.

The $27 air fares are obviously a mistake, probably by some data entry person and have no upside for the company. All the other "loopholes" discussed here are caused by companies wanting to make a deal attractive and, in turn, attracts customers. That's to be expected.

ryan754

I am looking at this *******g and thinking that the people running this must be very happy, imagine the money being made by all those companies involved... Hell, If I hadn't spend soooo much money on mileage runs, then I would be doing this too for the miles

wormwood

Kremmen,

Do you think goldpoints Radisson intended for a person to make one purchase and get credit for points hundreds of times? That is what the scheme proposed by this thread involved. I think if you purchase once you get one benefit. Anything else is stealing. The 27 fare you bought a ticket, you flew, you got miles for one trip. You bought two, flew two, got two...pretty straightforward. You did not buy one, then mail in the ticket 100 times in order to get 100 times credit. That would be fraud and stealing. I don't know if you saw the original proposal but that is what it was suggesting. You believe that would be moral? If so, I would question your morals.

bcalsk

Suretugh to follow the posts without the idea. i toowould request a email elling me wt te ide is hopefully nefore the program is over in case I deem it ethical and moral from my perspective, then I can use it otherwise I will disregard but at l east can understand the discussion. Merry Christmas to all. [email protected]

bcalsk

sorry about the spelling am typing in
the dark

artboy

There have been times that i have intended to purchase a ticket, reserved it online but forgot about it for a few days, and went back to finish the purchase but the fare had gone up.

I had to pay the higher fare because, quite frankly, the airline doesn't care what i intended. What they care about is how much money goes from my bank account to theirs.

FF miles are not generosity or kindness or a gesture of goodwill -- they are a mathematically calculated amount of invisible tokens in the game the ailines have set up. If everyone actually cashed in these tokens, the airlines could never make good of them -- this sounds like a ponzi scheme, but it isn't because they have mathematically determined the real amount of financial liability that they have for those outstanding miles.

They bank (literally) on the fact that even the outrageously generous offers won't hurt them because the vast majority of those miles will never be used. For every $10,000 people are spending on magazines to get miles, they know for a fact that most of those miles will never be used, so they don't care.

If it turns out they were wrong, they'll change the rules to make themselves right again.

This is like going to vegas and complaining that a certain slot machine gives better odds to the player. Is it immoral to play that machine?

In the end, the house ALWAYS wins.

The entire point of the game is to try and take advantage of the statistical anomolies that show up in the course of the game so that individual players come out ahead from time to time. The house can change the rules whenever they please --- if selling these subscriptions is hurting them, they WILL change the rules. If they feel it was against the spirit of the offer, they can retroactively take away all the miles you earned -- thats in the rules, too!

They make the rules, they can change them at will, they can even change them AFTER THE FACT! Yet we're concerned their side of the game isn't getting a fair shake? We give them cold, hard cash -- they give us virtual tokens that have no value except whatever arbitrary value THEY decide on the day we decide to ask for something of tangible value in return.

Let me repeat -- IN THE END, THE HOUSE ALWAYS WINS.

fscher

Goldpoints issues GOLDPOINTS. Even though most of us cash in for air miles, plenty of people get other gift certificates and incentives when they redeem things. If it is only the people that cash in for airmiles that abuse the system (not by ordering something offered-I don't say that large orders are abuse, I am talking about trying to get something we are not really entitled to)maybe they will take away this reward choice like Greenpoints did and only offer toasters and rental movie coupons.
We have a good thing here and it would be a shame to blow it.

dave99

I very much doubt that Radisson would eliminate (or reduce) rewards with its airline partners based on the valuemags deal or any other one time promotion by Goldpoints their sister company. As many have pointed out, they define "abuse" and have the tools to eliminate it.

Kremmen

I didn't see the original, so I can't comment on it directly. However, it should be a simple matter for the company whose promotion it is to remove the infinite loop if they have created one, just as it is easy for the company accidentally selling $27 air fares to remove them.

AshleyF

As some on who flies over 500K of 'real' miles a year , I find it a little worrying that my hard earned patronage is equated to someone who buys subscriptions to get themselves to an equiv tier.

It is particularly distressing to read this thread and see that there are a fair amount of individuals who seem unable to identify clearly what is morally correct .

Sophistry will always allow one to fool oneselves (and others) , but at the end of the day I hope that there are enough concerned pople who will stand up and be counted.

Naive- undoubtedly but then again my view of the world fits in with John Donne's vis a vis 'No man is an island' .
Interesting thread tho.

Mikey likes it

Jesus. What do you do for a living?!

bp888

I've been following the morality/ethics discussion here and find it interesting. However, the longer the discussion goes on, the more obvious it becomes that people move the goal post to suit their own needs/actions.

My 2 cents is: nobody among us , I mean nobody, has the moral/ethical superiority to be the morality police. When one is so sure that what someone else is doing is wrong/immoral/unethical -- isn't that how all the "isms" of this world are born?

wormwood

I'm not trying to be morality police, or any other kind of police for that matter. I'm just here to state my opinion in the hopes it moves a few minds. I have no illusions about my ability to influence, it is quite limited but nonetheless worth the amount of effort I chose to exert. I don't claim to be perfect either. As I've said, we will all draw our own lines of what is fair or moral or ethical. And I'll go right on pointing out what I think is over those lines as I draw them as well as continue to point out that it is my belief that continued blind greed, intensfied by the sharing of information available here on FT will diminish and destroy the value of frequency programs with a total dimunition or destruction far in excess of the rake off a very few will get. In that regard you could say I was acting 'selfishly'

I am also perfectly willing to be 'sure' of what I think is wrong in many instances, subject to modification given new information. The recent concept that no one can judge anything is pure nonsense (see, I just decided something else is wrong, and I am sure of it). That idea is just a way of excusing everything... we had the WTC coming to us (wrong, I'm sure of it)... on an entirely different scale, recycling gift certificates for an extreme amount of points (wrong, I'm sure of it)... gouging a program so hard the rules are changed to the detriment of many many other people (wrong, I'm sure of it). Remember, I'm only being 'sure' for myself but I'll **** well be sure for myself thank you very much. You can go right on being unwilling to be sure about everything if that makes you happy.

[This message has been edited by wormwood (edited 12-27-2001).]

[This message has been edited by wormwood (edited 12-27-2001).]