a new goldpoints idea
Dec 28, 2001, 4:19 pm
#91
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: London
Programs: AA EXP, SPG Plt
Posts: 2,607
Look - they don't sell gift certificates anymore, just "Gourmet Rewards" redeemable for food only. Clearly they are capable of fixing their own loopholes. This discussion should really close down now.
Dec 29, 2001, 5:06 pm
#92
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: nurnberg, germany
Posts: 286
No, a change in the program doesn't end the discussion, it points out the fact the raping the programs causes changes that hurt the average user, the intended user, the user that is possibly generating a profit for the business involved.
By the way, AA/Kellogg's have changed the rules too, to scale back maximum redemption. FT is having an impact, and it isn't good, on a number of programs
By the way, AA/Kellogg's have changed the rules too, to scale back maximum redemption. FT is having an impact, and it isn't good, on a number of programs
Dec 29, 2001, 5:23 pm
#93
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Programs: HH Diamond, SPG Gold, PC Platinum Ambassador, Marriott Silver
Posts: 15,249
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by BobbySteel:
Look - they don't sell gift certificates anymore, just "Gourmet Rewards" redeemable for food only. Clearly they are capable of fixing their own loopholes. This discussion should really close down now.</font>
Look - they don't sell gift certificates anymore, just "Gourmet Rewards" redeemable for food only. Clearly they are capable of fixing their own loopholes. This discussion should really close down now.</font>
Dec 30, 2001, 6:02 am
#94
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sunny Switzerland
Programs: BD / BA / AF
Posts: 4,388
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by wormwood:
No, a change in the program doesn't end the discussion, it points out the fact the raping the programs causes changes that hurt the average user, the intended user, the user that is possibly generating a profit for the business involved.</font>
No, a change in the program doesn't end the discussion, it points out the fact the raping the programs causes changes that hurt the average user, the intended user, the user that is possibly generating a profit for the business involved.</font>
The end merchant uses these promotions to drive revenue. They don't care whether it comes from 10 customers or 1,000,000. While they'd love a larger customer base, they profit either way.
Goldpoints doesn't care. It earns commission on every sale. It cares about $$$ pumped through its portal. And it's loyalty scheme has worked -- many FTers now actively look to Goldpoints for good deals, and drive business to the Goldpoints portal and to its affiliate merchants.
It's the airlines who lose, on two fronts:
1) Competition with their own mileage sales schemes. They're upset you can "buy" miles more cheaply through GP than you can from their own programs.
2) Redemption of premium class awards at a significant discount. Limited to a degree by capacity controls on award tickets.
If the airlines decide that they're losing too much money by selling miles, they'll shut this thing down. Until then, enjoy these deals in the knowledge that all the parties involved are here voluntarily and have made the commercial decision to be here at the terms offered.
Dec 30, 2001, 11:50 am
#95
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: nurnberg, germany
Posts: 286
Matthew,
I don't think the airlines are the losers at all in the case of Goldpoints. I think the losers are, from biggest loser down:
The average user of the frequency program who never benefits because the opportunity was destroyed by the scorched earth approach of the multimillion point gatherers. This is the main issue for me. It is not FAIR (and I am not one of these people, I read FT so have the opportunity to get in quick if I wanted to)
Second, all frequency program users, except the rapists themselves, lose when dilution comes along or further offers are scrapped in fear of the vacuum cleaner approach used by some people. This DOES affect me and my future relations with frequency programs. This affects almost everyone except the super greedy (it does affect them as well but they are very well insulated by their greed).
Third, I feel it affects this community by promoting and propogating dishonesty, deceit, and the valuing of the profit motive above all (including 'community') Now, their are relative levels with regard to dishonesty... for example, my criticism of milespy is limited to a lack of transparency and the effect of program raping... the original idea of this thread crosses the line into dishonest and deceitful. Both I feel disrespect the community, one for outright dishonesty, the other because it is reselling what is freely available here and elsewhere (I don't deny your right to do that, I just don't like it).
If I understand correctly the airlines are winners on this particular deal because they sell the points to Goldpoints at a price they think they can carry. They'll just dilute the programs if the outstanding miles gets too big, easy enough and done before. Once again, it's everyone but the rapist who pays for that adjustment.
I keep trying to bring up the idea of self limiting, even only if for self interest, and the community can also act, albeitly less effectively, as a self limiting entity, and yet very few responses address this. Rapid, widespread communication, afforded by venues such as this and other FF info sources, combined with a minority who will 'empty the shelves' for themselves (what an inconsiderate approach) WILL lead to damage of FF programs and in some cases already has. You're right, Milespy is a small player in that dynamic, but it does represent it and the discussion was started on that topic. It is subsidiary to the overall greedbag mentality of some, ranging from simple dumb personal blind greed (buying as many points for yourself as possible with no regard to consequence on the larger dynamic) to the morally clueless who think it perfecty appropriate, merely because it CAN be done, to spend $100 on an initial purchase and 'recycle' it ad infinitum. That that approach would strike anyone as either fair or reasonable, that anyone would think they are entitled to it merely because the other player is a business, is positivelty stunning for its indication that the person behind it demonstrates absolutely value system by which to limit behavior. It's only secondary to me that it is questionably criminal.
Then you've got people already planning to cancel the magazines. I'm sorry, but weren't the points intended for actual customers, you know, people who buy things they want and are rewarded for it. Silly me.
I thought it classic, just after 9-11, when people over at the UA forum were 'thinking out of the box' indicating that this thinking was in order the 'help' UA...the suggestions amounted to what would maximize their own benefit and they were selling it as compassion for the airline (funny, the airline is a business too, as is Milespy and by that criteria, used so freely to defend greedy action, the demise of UA or failure of Milespy should be a joyous event, perfectly proper in the universe of dog-eat- dog described by the apologists for program rape... funny it doesn't apply to people known here(guess what, real people work at and own and invest in Goldpoints and UA) or to programs the rapists have a vested interest in... shouldn't we cheer the demise of UA et al as just market forces working themselves out just like at Goldpoints, Valuemags, and Hallmark et al... you may get those wishes) when in fact it isn't compassion or concern at all, it's just more greed dressed up as thoughtfulness. These same people also have plenty of helpful suggestions that there should never be a service cut of any kind because it drives away high revenue business and degrades the experience(gee, wonder if all those points is putting pressure on the bottom line necessitating cuts somewhere). With due respect to the few high rev flyers who could make that complaint, most come from people who never have and never will pay front cabin fare.
Well, I got caught by my usual tendency to multiple parenthetical thought, so I apologize for the rambling, Rosanna Rosannadanna, nature of my screed. Nonetheless, blind grees remains morally wrong, ungenerous, and ultimately destructive.
Matthew, of course this began addressed to you and then wandered off into the general, please don't take the whole as a personal address to you.
Edited for (attempted) clarity
[This message has been edited by wormwood (edited 12-30-2001).]
[This message has been edited by wormwood (edited 12-30-2001).]
I don't think the airlines are the losers at all in the case of Goldpoints. I think the losers are, from biggest loser down:
The average user of the frequency program who never benefits because the opportunity was destroyed by the scorched earth approach of the multimillion point gatherers. This is the main issue for me. It is not FAIR (and I am not one of these people, I read FT so have the opportunity to get in quick if I wanted to)
Second, all frequency program users, except the rapists themselves, lose when dilution comes along or further offers are scrapped in fear of the vacuum cleaner approach used by some people. This DOES affect me and my future relations with frequency programs. This affects almost everyone except the super greedy (it does affect them as well but they are very well insulated by their greed).
Third, I feel it affects this community by promoting and propogating dishonesty, deceit, and the valuing of the profit motive above all (including 'community') Now, their are relative levels with regard to dishonesty... for example, my criticism of milespy is limited to a lack of transparency and the effect of program raping... the original idea of this thread crosses the line into dishonest and deceitful. Both I feel disrespect the community, one for outright dishonesty, the other because it is reselling what is freely available here and elsewhere (I don't deny your right to do that, I just don't like it).
If I understand correctly the airlines are winners on this particular deal because they sell the points to Goldpoints at a price they think they can carry. They'll just dilute the programs if the outstanding miles gets too big, easy enough and done before. Once again, it's everyone but the rapist who pays for that adjustment.
I keep trying to bring up the idea of self limiting, even only if for self interest, and the community can also act, albeitly less effectively, as a self limiting entity, and yet very few responses address this. Rapid, widespread communication, afforded by venues such as this and other FF info sources, combined with a minority who will 'empty the shelves' for themselves (what an inconsiderate approach) WILL lead to damage of FF programs and in some cases already has. You're right, Milespy is a small player in that dynamic, but it does represent it and the discussion was started on that topic. It is subsidiary to the overall greedbag mentality of some, ranging from simple dumb personal blind greed (buying as many points for yourself as possible with no regard to consequence on the larger dynamic) to the morally clueless who think it perfecty appropriate, merely because it CAN be done, to spend $100 on an initial purchase and 'recycle' it ad infinitum. That that approach would strike anyone as either fair or reasonable, that anyone would think they are entitled to it merely because the other player is a business, is positivelty stunning for its indication that the person behind it demonstrates absolutely value system by which to limit behavior. It's only secondary to me that it is questionably criminal.
Then you've got people already planning to cancel the magazines. I'm sorry, but weren't the points intended for actual customers, you know, people who buy things they want and are rewarded for it. Silly me.
I thought it classic, just after 9-11, when people over at the UA forum were 'thinking out of the box' indicating that this thinking was in order the 'help' UA...the suggestions amounted to what would maximize their own benefit and they were selling it as compassion for the airline (funny, the airline is a business too, as is Milespy and by that criteria, used so freely to defend greedy action, the demise of UA or failure of Milespy should be a joyous event, perfectly proper in the universe of dog-eat- dog described by the apologists for program rape... funny it doesn't apply to people known here(guess what, real people work at and own and invest in Goldpoints and UA) or to programs the rapists have a vested interest in... shouldn't we cheer the demise of UA et al as just market forces working themselves out just like at Goldpoints, Valuemags, and Hallmark et al... you may get those wishes) when in fact it isn't compassion or concern at all, it's just more greed dressed up as thoughtfulness. These same people also have plenty of helpful suggestions that there should never be a service cut of any kind because it drives away high revenue business and degrades the experience(gee, wonder if all those points is putting pressure on the bottom line necessitating cuts somewhere). With due respect to the few high rev flyers who could make that complaint, most come from people who never have and never will pay front cabin fare.
Well, I got caught by my usual tendency to multiple parenthetical thought, so I apologize for the rambling, Rosanna Rosannadanna, nature of my screed. Nonetheless, blind grees remains morally wrong, ungenerous, and ultimately destructive.
Matthew, of course this began addressed to you and then wandered off into the general, please don't take the whole as a personal address to you.
Edited for (attempted) clarity
[This message has been edited by wormwood (edited 12-30-2001).]
[This message has been edited by wormwood (edited 12-30-2001).]
Dec 30, 2001, 2:07 pm
#96
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 53
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by wormwood:
The average user of the frequency program who never benefits because the opportunity was destroyed
Second, all frequency program users, except the rapists themselves, lose when dilution comes along or further offers are scrapped in fear of the vacuum cleaner approach used by some people.</font>
The average user of the frequency program who never benefits because the opportunity was destroyed
Second, all frequency program users, except the rapists themselves, lose when dilution comes along or further offers are scrapped in fear of the vacuum cleaner approach used by some people.</font>
"Until 12/1 or while supplies last" "Maximum 4 per customer" "Program may be ended at any time" etc.
The results of these types of programs are constantly analyzed both in real-time and after the fact. Even if you are correct that this type of usage is something that hurts these companies, the types of "average" users you mention won't get hurt in that case, wormwood, because these programs will not go away. They just might have a mileage cap or other conditions that make no difference to those average users but will thwart the "vaccum cleaners."
I strongly suspect that in this specific case, however, that's not the case and one of these two scenarios is likely to apply:
a) All of the large purchases by users here are still just a drop in the bucket compared to the whole program size.
b) The economics of the deal are similar to or cheaper than other marketing programs the companies have (advertising, etc.) and the amount of usage (even per user) doesn't matter at all.
To be clear, I think there's a big difference and feel very differently about someone just using a program A LOT more than expected vs someone who tries to exploit a program by trying to circumvent program rules (ie: cancelling subscriptions, etc.).
Dec 30, 2001, 2:22 pm
#97
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: A Southern locale that ain't the South.
Programs: Bah, HUMBUG!
Posts: 8,014
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by wormwood:
The average user of the frequency program who never benefits because the opportunity was destroyed by the scorched earth approach of the multimillion point gatherers. This is the main issue for me. It is not FAIR (and I am not one of these people, I read FT so have the opportunity to get in quick if I wanted to)
Second, all frequency program users, except the rapists themselves, lose when dilution comes along or further offers are scrapped in fear of the vacuum cleaner approach used by some people. This DOES affect me and my future relations with frequency programs. This affects almost everyone except the super greedy (it does affect them as well but they are very well insulated by their greed).</font>
The average user of the frequency program who never benefits because the opportunity was destroyed by the scorched earth approach of the multimillion point gatherers. This is the main issue for me. It is not FAIR (and I am not one of these people, I read FT so have the opportunity to get in quick if I wanted to)
Second, all frequency program users, except the rapists themselves, lose when dilution comes along or further offers are scrapped in fear of the vacuum cleaner approach used by some people. This DOES affect me and my future relations with frequency programs. This affects almost everyone except the super greedy (it does affect them as well but they are very well insulated by their greed).</font>
I also believe that you are blowing out of proportion the consequences of the ValueMags promotion. If the amount of current activity was a problem, why would they not do as Kellogg's did with the AA promotion and limit redemption of mileage per account? The limit they chose was 200,000 miles. For most people, this is a ludicrous amount. For some of us, 200k miles might not be as many as we wanted, but it's certainly a decent amount.
As far as those who would attempt to defraud the program; bad apples will be around as long as humans walk the earth. Criminals will be a part of our lives for eternity and that's just a fact of life. It's up to the people running the promotion to protect themselves from such slime.
Dec 30, 2001, 5:22 pm
#99
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sunny Switzerland
Programs: BD / BA / AF
Posts: 4,388
jmoreita, the more important question is:
By whom was the program ended? For some time, people here speculated that Valuemags must be losing a fortune. Valuemags confirmed that this was a hugely successful promo.
...and by the way, I don't mean who actually pulled the plug. Where was the pressure coming from to end the promotion?
Discover that, and you'll discover the loser in this equation. Whether they are actually losing or just perceive that they are is another question...
By whom was the program ended? For some time, people here speculated that Valuemags must be losing a fortune. Valuemags confirmed that this was a hugely successful promo.
...and by the way, I don't mean who actually pulled the plug. Where was the pressure coming from to end the promotion?
Discover that, and you'll discover the loser in this equation. Whether they are actually losing or just perceive that they are is another question...
Dec 30, 2001, 5:58 pm
#100
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Houston, TX USA
Posts: 387
I guess we look at this in a different way.
Because I don't really care who ended the program, or who put pressure on them to do so. The fact of the matter is that the promotion was ended. And we all suffer because of that. Was it ended because of "Milespy" - I doubt that was the sole reason. But I would guess that it was a large part of the reason. Was the Valuemags promotion ended because of pressure from American Airlines - maybe. Randy claims to know the reason but he's not telling us. So we can only guess.
But no matter who put the pressure on Valuemags to end this promotion we all suffer. And not just because this promotion was ended. But also because of the future promotions that will never be offered out of fear that someone like yourself will start another "Milespy".
When the frequent flyer programs started back in 1981 there were no rules about buying and selling miles. There we also no capacity controls on the award seats, and your awards could be ticketed at your local travel agency. And it wasn't until a company called Coupon Bank abused the programs that all of the airlines added wording to their prgrams that made it against the rules of the program to sell your miles, seats became capacity controlled, and ticketing buy your local travel agency were no longer permitted. And if you don't believe that to be true - ask Randy.
So what does that have to do with "Milespy"?
Well Milespy didn't break any rules, but neither did Coupon Bank, but my guess is that we will all suffer because of these two companies.
just my .02 worth
[This message has been edited by jmoreita (edited 12-30-2001).]
[This message has been edited by jmoreita (edited 12-30-2001).]
[This message has been edited by jmoreita (edited 12-30-2001).]
Because I don't really care who ended the program, or who put pressure on them to do so. The fact of the matter is that the promotion was ended. And we all suffer because of that. Was it ended because of "Milespy" - I doubt that was the sole reason. But I would guess that it was a large part of the reason. Was the Valuemags promotion ended because of pressure from American Airlines - maybe. Randy claims to know the reason but he's not telling us. So we can only guess.
But no matter who put the pressure on Valuemags to end this promotion we all suffer. And not just because this promotion was ended. But also because of the future promotions that will never be offered out of fear that someone like yourself will start another "Milespy".
When the frequent flyer programs started back in 1981 there were no rules about buying and selling miles. There we also no capacity controls on the award seats, and your awards could be ticketed at your local travel agency. And it wasn't until a company called Coupon Bank abused the programs that all of the airlines added wording to their prgrams that made it against the rules of the program to sell your miles, seats became capacity controlled, and ticketing buy your local travel agency were no longer permitted. And if you don't believe that to be true - ask Randy.
So what does that have to do with "Milespy"?
Well Milespy didn't break any rules, but neither did Coupon Bank, but my guess is that we will all suffer because of these two companies.
just my .02 worth
[This message has been edited by jmoreita (edited 12-30-2001).]
[This message has been edited by jmoreita (edited 12-30-2001).]
[This message has been edited by jmoreita (edited 12-30-2001).]
Dec 30, 2001, 6:29 pm
#101
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Silicon Valley
Programs: AA:PLT&3MM, HGP:DIA, SPG:GOLD
Posts: 1,896
If Milespy did not come along with their offer, somebody else will. That's how the free market operates. I don't think anybody here thinks Milespy has broken the rules nor the law. Otherwise, their offer would have been considered fraudulent. Let's quit hiding behind the wall of morals and ethics and fairness etcetera ad nauseam and just face it... the Milespy people (Steve and Matthew) have proven to be smart, quick on the draw, opportunistic perhaps... and we're just jealous!
Dec 30, 2001, 7:20 pm
#102
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: nurnberg, germany
Posts: 286
I'm tired of hearing 'i must be jealous' I am NOT jealous. I am tired of hearing 'if they didn't do it someone else would have' that thinking can justify anything. There are things that ought not to be done, even if they CAN be done, simply because it's better in the long run. Every decision should not be based on in the what is in it for me NOW evaluation. There is more to decision making than instant-blind-grasping-gouge-out-as-much-for-yourself-as-you-can rationalization labeled as 'a free market.'
You know, one of the definitions of 'a free market, check Adam Smith, is that both parties have, I am paraphrasing perhaps, 'perfect information' meaning the freely-entered-into arrangement is transparent. Transparency of market is a hallmark of 'a free market.' The trouble with a lot of free marketeers is that they want to have transparency without offering it. This is called gaining an advantage but it then ceases to be a free exchange when both parties do not have 'perfect information.' Everybody wants a free market so long as THEY are free and the other guy isn't. Over in other threads people are hollering because the offers have changed or been pulled. Isn't that the 'free market' doesn't it cut BOTH ways, apparently not. A great part of the history of so called free markets have been attempts to make the market less than free, under the guise of free markets, in order to profit inordinately (can you say the Hunts, can you say Enron). In reality most markets are to some degree less than free and the sloganeering about free markets is one-sided.
Even Churchill knew the folly of so-called totally free markets...
"We are for private enterprise with all its ingenuity, thrift and contrivance, and we believe it can flourish best within a strict and well-understood system of prevention and correction of abuses."
You know, one of the definitions of 'a free market, check Adam Smith, is that both parties have, I am paraphrasing perhaps, 'perfect information' meaning the freely-entered-into arrangement is transparent. Transparency of market is a hallmark of 'a free market.' The trouble with a lot of free marketeers is that they want to have transparency without offering it. This is called gaining an advantage but it then ceases to be a free exchange when both parties do not have 'perfect information.' Everybody wants a free market so long as THEY are free and the other guy isn't. Over in other threads people are hollering because the offers have changed or been pulled. Isn't that the 'free market' doesn't it cut BOTH ways, apparently not. A great part of the history of so called free markets have been attempts to make the market less than free, under the guise of free markets, in order to profit inordinately (can you say the Hunts, can you say Enron). In reality most markets are to some degree less than free and the sloganeering about free markets is one-sided.
Even Churchill knew the folly of so-called totally free markets...
"We are for private enterprise with all its ingenuity, thrift and contrivance, and we believe it can flourish best within a strict and well-understood system of prevention and correction of abuses."
Dec 30, 2001, 8:23 pm
#103
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: STL, MO, USA;BCN, Spain;LGW, UK
Posts: 840
Wormwood, I ask you again, what is gouging? Buying $100 of magazines or whatever is on offer? $1,000? 10,000? Who decides? I assume from your other posts that you will say that we should self limit. Well, if someone is filthy rich and buys 100K's worth but could afford to buy 1MM worth is that not self limiting? Ultimately isn't it up to the people running the promotions to limit them? If not then why not? Why do we as consumers have to make business decisions on their behalf?
I believe that what you were talking about was that in order to have "perfect" markets (i.e. markets that find the perfect price or balance between supply and demand) all participants must have perfect information. Free markets are not perfect in the real world.
I think that the gouging and "get as much as you can get before the deal is gone" is the way that business has been done for at least the last 50 years. Businesses that see an opportunity will take as much advantage of it as possible before it disappears. Look at the fisheries, the logging industry, the oil industry to name a few. You may very well not like it but that is the business environment of today. The self limiters will lose out big time because while they are self limiting the rest of the hoard is not. Whether we like it or not, or choose to play or not for our own reasons, those are the rules by which the game is played these days. And you are right, in the end we will all suffer because of the dilution of the programs that we, myself included, are shoveling miles in to.
The people I feel for are the people who actually fly all those miles like an earlier poster who had flow 500K this past year(there should definitely be something more than EXP for people who do those kinds of miles). How fair is it to them that I will accrue more miles than them this year though I will have flown 1/10 as many?
I would be happier with a program where miles could only be accrued by flying. It would be fairer to the people actually doing all the flying and also serve them better. The airlines must know this but I suspect that they do quite well off all these mileage deals with companies like goldpoints and Kelloggs. Looking at the whole FF. issue from this perspective one might even welcome the demise of deals like those offered by valuemags/goldpoints.
[This message has been edited by Mvic (edited 12-30-2001).]
I believe that what you were talking about was that in order to have "perfect" markets (i.e. markets that find the perfect price or balance between supply and demand) all participants must have perfect information. Free markets are not perfect in the real world.
I think that the gouging and "get as much as you can get before the deal is gone" is the way that business has been done for at least the last 50 years. Businesses that see an opportunity will take as much advantage of it as possible before it disappears. Look at the fisheries, the logging industry, the oil industry to name a few. You may very well not like it but that is the business environment of today. The self limiters will lose out big time because while they are self limiting the rest of the hoard is not. Whether we like it or not, or choose to play or not for our own reasons, those are the rules by which the game is played these days. And you are right, in the end we will all suffer because of the dilution of the programs that we, myself included, are shoveling miles in to.
The people I feel for are the people who actually fly all those miles like an earlier poster who had flow 500K this past year(there should definitely be something more than EXP for people who do those kinds of miles). How fair is it to them that I will accrue more miles than them this year though I will have flown 1/10 as many?
I would be happier with a program where miles could only be accrued by flying. It would be fairer to the people actually doing all the flying and also serve them better. The airlines must know this but I suspect that they do quite well off all these mileage deals with companies like goldpoints and Kelloggs. Looking at the whole FF. issue from this perspective one might even welcome the demise of deals like those offered by valuemags/goldpoints.
[This message has been edited by Mvic (edited 12-30-2001).]
Dec 30, 2001, 10:50 pm
#104
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Kingston, Ont, the limestone city
Posts: 975
I wonder how many people actually ordered during such a short period from MilesSpy? FTers who know about this offer will unlikely order from them... then, how effective was their advertising to outsiders during such a short period?
I don't think they had that many customers but it's the fact that this website exists and offers a potential to be abused that got Goldpoints worried.
Perhaps Matthews can give us some hint on a ballpark figure while maintaining his company's confidentialty.
I don't think they had that many customers but it's the fact that this website exists and offers a potential to be abused that got Goldpoints worried.
Perhaps Matthews can give us some hint on a ballpark figure while maintaining his company's confidentialty.
Dec 31, 2001, 4:17 am
#105
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sunny Switzerland
Programs: BD / BA / AF
Posts: 4,388
Our actual number of orders was reasonably low, but the value of orders was significant.
We were (and still are) working closely with Valuemags, who are happy to do business with us. They certainly didn't feel that our program threatened their promotion.
We were (and still are) working closely with Valuemags, who are happy to do business with us. They certainly didn't feel that our program threatened their promotion.