Grocery Store Cards
Marilee J. Layman
pre-card, 49.17 (before tax) after card.
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com/
Kevrob
An outfit near my house changed hands, and made us sign up for new
cards with the new chain's logo on them. As I can no longer use the
one I found at a bus stop, I signed up for one.
They now have Mr. Gully Foyle in their database. :)
Kevin
Dorothy J Heydt
Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Jan 23, 5:43 pm, Marilee J. Layman <mari...@mjlayman.com> wrote:
>> Days like today are when I actually like having one -- $75.55
>> pre-card, 49.17 (before tax) after card.
>> --
>
>cards with the new chain's logo on them. As I can no longer use the
>one I found at a bus stop, I signed up for one.
>
>They now have Mr. Gully Foyle in their database. :)
Bravo. When we used to shop at Safeway regularly, Hal took out
one in the name of Baron Munchhausen, and gave his street address
as the address of the Safeway store itself. One clerk, count
him, one, recognized the name, and smiled. No one ever seemed to
twig to the address.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Keith F. Lynch
have them. When Safeway, Giant, and Fresh Fields adopted them, I
wrote to their respective presidents, explaining how much I had spent
in their stores, and that I wouldn't return until they got rid of
those cards. And Fresh Fields listened, and got rid of their cards.
I shopped there just yesterday. And at Trader Joe's, which never
had cards, last Thursday. I also go to Magruders and Shoppers Food
Warehouse.
I find I'm saving money, too. I wouldn't be pleased if my groceries
cost $49, even if some other poor sucker paid $75 for the same
groceries in the same store.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
David Harmon
Layman <mar...@mjlayman.com> wrote,
>Days like today are when I actually like having one -- $75.55
>pre-card, 49.17 (before tax) after card.
Just remember that without the existence of the tracking card program
the sale price would have been approximately $49.17 anyway.
Keith F. Lynch
> Just remember that without the existence of the tracking card
> program the sale price would have been approximately $49.17 anyway.
It would have been *less*, since running the card program costs
something. Hence the generally lower prices in cardless stores.
Mark Atwood
>
> Bravo. When we used to shop at Safeway regularly, Hal took out
> one in the name of Baron Munchhausen, and gave his street address
> as the address of the Safeway store itself. One clerk, count
> him, one, recognized the name, and smiled. No one ever seemed to
> twig to the address.
Most grocery store loyalty card programs let you key in your
phone number, instead of carrying around the card. Someone
here in Seattle has registered the old M$ switchboard number
with all the grocery stores. I use it, and so do a number
of other people, so I'm often treated to a note at the bottom
of my receipt telling me that "I" have "saved" several thousand
dollars on groceries this year.
--
Mark Atwood When you do things right, people won't be sure
m...@mark.atwood.name you've done anything at all.
http://mark.atwood.name/ http://fallenpegasus.livejournal.com/
Kevrob
On Jan 23, 9:41 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> David Harmon <b...@example.invalid> wrote:
> > Just remember that without the existence of the tracking card
> > program the sale price would have been approximately $49.17 anyway.It would have been *less*, since running the card program costs
> something. Hence the generally lower prices in cardless stores.
> --
>
The store "Mr. Foyle" signed up with has a competitor down the block
that doesn't use a card. They provide a sale flier, and require you to
present coupons for many of the sale items. I usually shop at the
store that makes me tear or cut out the coupons, even though the card
is more convenient. The card-using store has some items the
coupon-using joint doesn't carry, and vice versa. There are usually
items on sale at one shop that are full price at the other.
The fliers cost something, but both stores use them, so that's a wash.
At one place they expect me to go through the slight annoyance of
removing coupons from the flier. If I couldn't spoof the card system,
I would avoid shopping at the store that uses it. I also avoid buying
non-sale items at both stores. If I'm going to do that, I travel a bit
further to a shop with better prices than both of them!
I'm sure the stores with cards believe that the data they collect,
either on individuals or in the aggregate, is well worth the price of
running the card program. I just want to avoid junk mail and junk
phone calls.
Kevin
Evelyn C. Leeper
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>> Bravo. When we used to shop at Safeway regularly, Hal took out
>> one in the name of Baron Munchhausen, and gave his street address
>> as the address of the Safeway store itself. One clerk, count
>> him, one, recognized the name, and smiled. No one ever seemed to
>> twig to the address.
>
> Most grocery store loyalty card programs let you key in your
> phone number, instead of carrying around the card. Someone
> here in Seattle has registered the old M$ switchboard number
> with all the grocery stores. I use it, and so do a number
> of other people, so I'm often treated to a note at the bottom
> of my receipt telling me that "I" have "saved" several thousand
> dollars on groceries this year.
My store card also gives me frequent flier miles. (No, not my credit
card--my *store* card!)
I think all the grocery stores anywhere near me have cards. At any
rate, the one I used all the time before the cards has them, and it's
the one I still use all the time because it has a *major* kosher foods
section (an entire aisle, both sides, *plus* fresh kosher meat, a kosher
fish department, and a kosher hot deli).
They used to have coupons and still do occasionally, but not as much.
(I suspect come Passover they will have the "free matzoh with minimum
$xx purchase" coupon again. xx keeps going up each year, though/)
I do frequent the local produce store, which has cheaper prices on a lot
of items.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
--By trying we can easily learn to endure adversity.
Another man's, I mean. -Mark Twain
Bernard Peek
<djh...@kithrup.com> writes
The UK version of those schemes don't offer discounts at point of sale.
Instead they mail vouchers to the registered address. The selection of
vouchers depends in part on what you bought and how much you spent.
--
Bernard Peek
back in search of cognoscenti
Kevrob
On Jan 24, 5:28 am, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> In message <JCCK6o....@kithrup.com>, Dorothy J Heydt
> <djhe...@kithrup.com> writes
>
> >In article <1169597020.796648.128...@13g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
Rge one I signed "Gully" up for marks the prices down at the checkout,
and reports what you would have paid, what you did pay, and the
difference. I was told that every once in a while special offers would
be mailed to me, which will be too bad, since I gave a phony address.
Well, if they kick Foyle from the list, I guess "Jubal Harshaw" can get
a card.
Kevin
Dorothy J Heydt
Evelyn C. Leeper <ele...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>I think all the grocery stores anywhere near me have cards. At any
>rate, the one I used all the time before the cards has them, and it's
>the one I still use all the time because it has a *major* kosher foods
>section (an entire aisle, both sides, *plus* fresh kosher meat, a kosher
>fish department, and a kosher hot deli).
Reason enough.
>
>They used to have coupons and still do occasionally, but not as much.
>(I suspect come Passover they will have the "free matzoh with minimum
>$xx purchase" coupon again. xx keeps going up each year, though/)
>
>I do frequent the local produce store, which has cheaper prices on a lot
>of items.
So there are no specific kosher rules about produce, and any
vendor will do?
mike weber
wrote:
I doubt it, since the non-card prices at the stores herearound that
have the cards track fairly closely with those of the one that
doesn't.
--
mike weber (fairp...@gmail.com)
============================
My Website: http://electronictiger.com
===================================
No use looking for the answers when the questions are in doubt - Fred leBlanc, "The Love of My Life"
Bernard Peek
<fairp...@gmail.com> writes
>On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 03:33:00 GMT, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:43:29 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, Marilee J.
>>Layman <mar...@mjlayman.com> wrote,
>>>Days like today are when I actually like having one -- $75.55
>>>pre-card, 49.17 (before tax) after card.
>>
>>Just remember that without the existence of the tracking card program
>>the sale price would have been approximately $49.17 anyway.
>
>I doubt it, since the non-card prices at the stores herearound that
>have the cards track fairly closely with those of the one that
>doesn't.
Stores run this sort of scheme because it's profitable to do so. The
companies that do it well can sell their stock for less or take more
profits, most likely both.
Konrad Gaertner
Around here, the no-card chain is generally competitive with the
card chains. So I have a bunch of cards so I can get the best
price from whoever has the best deal this week.
And why are people calling them "loyalty cards"? They have nothing
to do with loyalty; it's all data mining.
--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - - - email: gae...@aol.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
-- James Nicoll
Dorothy J Heydt
Konrad Gaertner <gae...@aol.com> wrote:
>David Harmon wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:43:29 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, Marilee J.
>> Layman <mar...@mjlayman.com> wrote,
>> >Days like today are when I actually like having one -- $75.55
>> >pre-card, 49.17 (before tax) after card.
>>
>> Just remember that without the existence of the tracking card program
>> the sale price would have been approximately $49.17 anyway.
>
>Around here, the no-card chain is generally competitive with the
>card chains. So I have a bunch of cards so I can get the best
>price from whoever has the best deal this week.
>
>And why are people calling them "loyalty cards"? They have nothing
>to do with loyalty; it's all data mining.
Of course it is. But the idea is that because you have a
discount card from that store, you'll shop preferentially at that
store. Assuming you don't care who knows what you buy, and are
generally dumb.
David Friedman
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> Of course it is. But the idea is that because you have a
> discount card from that store, you'll shop preferentially at that
> store. Assuming you don't care who knows what you buy, and are
> generally dumb.
I'm curious--why do you, or many other people, care if the store knows
what you buy? Would you care more or less if the same thing was
happening with old technology--a local store where the proprietor knows
his customers and remembers what they buy, the same way our local
chinese restaurant knows what we usually start dinner with (won-ton soup
and potstickers)?
It strikes me that posting to Usenet is a much greater loss of privacy,
at least if you do it under your own name--and you do. The information
is available to the world, is searchable, and probably tells much more
about you than your shopping pattern does. Yet lots of us choose to post.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
Jette Goldie
"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:JCDx7...@kithrup.com...
Why would you care that the store knows what you buy?
Are you ashamed of your groceries?
--
Jette Goldie
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Bernard Peek
<boss...@scotlandmail.com> writes
>
>Why would you care that the store knows what you buy?
>Are you ashamed of your groceries?
One thing to bear in mind is that the US doesn't have data protection
laws. There's nothing stopping the supermarket from selling you details
to anyone else. Of course if you give the correct name and address but
incorrect demographic data you get the worst of both worlds. Your
address will be bought by people who will send you junk mail advertising
products that you definitely don't want. If you give accurate data you
get better targeted advertising and the advertisers save money spent on
worthless mailshots, and can cut selling prices (and make more profit
too.)
Bernard Peek
Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
>In article <JCDx7...@kithrup.com>,
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>> Of course it is. But the idea is that because you have a
>> discount card from that store, you'll shop preferentially at that
>> store. Assuming you don't care who knows what you buy, and are
>> generally dumb.
>
>I'm curious--why do you, or many other people, care if the store knows
>what you buy? Would you care more or less if the same thing was
>happening with old technology--a local store where the proprietor knows
>his customers and remembers what they buy, the same way our local
>chinese restaurant knows what we usually start dinner with (won-ton soup
>and potstickers)?
The way these systems are run there is a net benefit if you tell the
store what products you buy and when. It makes it more likely that the
place will stock the type of product that you will buy - which is of
course also a gain for the store owners. If you try to game the UK
system by giving false contact details the store still gets their sales
data but you don't get the discount. The US system seems broken to me,
as an advertising person. It allows people to give false addresses and
that pollutes the marketing data.
From that I deduce that the data mining systems used in the US are
somewhat cruder than those used here. With the data collected in the US
you can tell what the sales were at a given store, but you can't get any
more detail than that. The UK's data gives you data down to individual
street level (and in theory to individual hoses.) That allows the
analyst to tell which direction their customers arrive from, and how far
they travel.
That data doesn't help so much in planning stock levels but its vital
when planning where to open your next store. The biggest supermarket
chain in the UK (Tesco) has now reached saturation point, and there
aren't any more gaps to fill with full-size stores. Instead they are
opening smaller and cheaper sites to cream off high margin sales in
areas between their main sites.
>
>It strikes me that posting to Usenet is a much greater loss of privacy,
>at least if you do it under your own name--and you do. The information
>is available to the world, is searchable, and probably tells much more
>about you than your shopping pattern does. Yet lots of us choose to post.
--
Kevrob
On Jan 24, 12:49 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:
> In article <JCDx7B....@kithrup.com>,
> djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
> > Of course it is. But the idea is that because you have a
> > discount card from that store, you'll shop preferentially at that
> > store. Assuming you don't care who knows what you buy, and are
> > generally dumb.I'm curious--why do you, or many other people, care if the store knows
> what you buy? Would you care more or less if the same thing was
> happening with old technology--a local store where the proprietor knows
> his customers and remembers what they buy, the same way our local
> chinese restaurant knows what we usually start dinner with (won-ton soup
> and potstickers)?
>
> It strikes me that posting to Usenet is a much greater loss of privacy,
> at least if you do it under your own name--and you do. The information
> is available to the world, is searchable, and probably tells much more
> about you than your shopping pattern does. Yet lots of us choose to post.
>
> --
>
My reluctance to participate in these programs the way the way the
firms expect me to is mainly based on a mistrust of the security of the
data. Even if the store offers an opt-out (I'd prefer they use an
opt-IN) from the use of your snail mail and/or e-mail addresses and
phone number in their marketing program, and, what's even worse,
transfer of that info to third parties, I'm not convinced that they
will take good care of it. Banks and credit card companies have had
their customer data cracked by cybercrooks. I've got to figure that
they take greater precautions than S-Mart.
The stores I've been referencing are both "drug" stores which also sell
all kinds of sundries, including food. Aside from prescription records,
which they would have to keep anyway, I don't need my purchase of
personal hygiene products tracked, where it would be available to any
snoop. Imagine being involved in a lawsuit and having your shopping
records show up in the discovery process. No thanks. Lucky for me that
my "found" loyalty card still works at the large supermarket I where
often shop. Several years ago I asked them for an application to get a
card in my own name, and it included a line for my Social Security
number. I wasn't about to give them that. One hopes they are more
clueful nowadays. The smaller neighborhood place I use for the
convenience of it, their specilty items and deli, or the better beer
selection (!) doesn't have any such program.
I used to work where they had a loyalty program that used phone-numbers
as the basis of the key record, but eschewed cards. Sometimes members
got special benefits, but the main thrust of the program was that a
sliver of what you spent was donated to a local charitable or
educational program that you picked from a list of about 20 upon
sign-up. We had to have an alternate key record generation protocol
when someone had qualms about giving up the digits. We were emphatic
that we didn't rent or sell our list to anyone, and that co-marketed
mailings a member would receive were under our control, not that of our
marketing partners. Still, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of
Mailmerge could have surreptitiously ported The List onto a diskette or
tape and made off with it. The same was true for our charge account
customer info. Files could have been transferred via modem, but this
was back in the days of 28.8 connections, before the company went
online. I would hope that the data is more secure, nowadays.
The fellow that sells me a bag of Cheetos after midnight at the
all-night store in my neighborhood does know my first name, as I know
his. It's right there on my credit card, whose info I have to trust
he's not rotter enough to steal. I guess if I'm ever falsely accused of
something that friendliness might yield an alibi. "I was out buying
toilet paper and hemorrhoid ointment. Ask Bob, he rang me up." But
normally, I'd rather keep that info to myself.
Kevin
Evelyn C. Leeper
>
> The stores I've been referencing are both "drug" stores which also sell
> all kinds of sundries, including food. Aside from prescription records,
> which they would have to keep anyway, I don't need my purchase of
> personal hygiene products tracked, where it would be available to any
> snoop.
Well, you could always just not use your card if you're buying condoms
or whatever.
Evelyn C. Leeper
For our interpretation of kosher, yes. For that matter, they don't have
a separate produce section at the supermarket, so I suspect that most
people's interpretations would allow that. If you're really orthodox,
then there are other considerations having to do with when and where it
is grown, etc. (It's way too complicated for me to explain. See
<http://oukosher.org/index.php/common/article/19> if you really are
interested.)
Dorothy J Heydt
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <JCDx7...@kithrup.com>,
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>> Of course it is. But the idea is that because you have a
>> discount card from that store, you'll shop preferentially at that
>> store. Assuming you don't care who knows what you buy, and are
>> generally dumb.
>
>I'm curious--why do you, or many other people, care if the store knows
>what you buy? Would you care more or less if the same thing was
>happening with old technology--a local store where the proprietor knows
>his customers and remembers what they buy, the same way our local
>chinese restaurant knows what we usually start dinner with (won-ton soup
>and potstickers)?
Because then they will feel justified in sending me advertising
about it. And anyway, what business is it of theirs?
>
>It strikes me that posting to Usenet is a much greater loss of privacy,
>at least if you do it under your own name--and you do. The information
>is available to the world, is searchable, and probably tells much more
>about you than your shopping pattern does.
Not commercially valuable information. Not "Here's a list of
people who buy lots of mayonnaise and never buy horseradish,"
e.g. About the only thing you could get from this group is
"Here's a list of people, most of whom probably buy cat food."
Dorothy J Heydt
Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>In message <ddfr-1767BD.1...@news.isp.giganews.com>, David
>Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
>>In article <JCDx7...@kithrup.com>,
>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>
>>> Of course it is. But the idea is that because you have a
>>> discount card from that store, you'll shop preferentially at that
>>> store. Assuming you don't care who knows what you buy, and are
>>> generally dumb.
>>
>>I'm curious--why do you, or many other people, care if the store knows
>>what you buy? Would you care more or less if the same thing was
>>happening with old technology--a local store where the proprietor knows
>>his customers and remembers what they buy, the same way our local
>>chinese restaurant knows what we usually start dinner with (won-ton soup
>>and potstickers)?
>
>The way these systems are run there is a net benefit if you tell the
>store what products you buy and when. It makes it more likely that the
>place will stock the type of product that you will buy - which is of
>course also a gain for the store owners. If you try to game the UK
>system by giving false contact details the store still gets their sales
>data but you don't get the discount. The US system seems broken to me,
>as an advertising person. It allows people to give false addresses and
>that pollutes the marketing data.
I'm all for that! Let's pollute the marketing data! Let's leave
the bastards COMPLETELY CLUELESS about what kind of advertising
to send us!
Dorothy J Heydt
Jette Goldie <boss...@scotlandmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
>news:JCDx7...@kithrup.com...
>> In article <45B78E49...@worldnet.att.net>,
>> Konrad Gaertner <gae...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>David Harmon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:43:29 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, Marilee J.
>>>> Layman <mar...@mjlayman.com> wrote,
>>>> >Days like today are when I actually like having one -- $75.55
>>>> >pre-card, 49.17 (before tax) after card.
>>>>
>>>> Just remember that without the existence of the tracking card program
>>>> the sale price would have been approximately $49.17 anyway.
>>>
>>>Around here, the no-card chain is generally competitive with the
>>>card chains. So I have a bunch of cards so I can get the best
>>>price from whoever has the best deal this week.
>>>
>>>And why are people calling them "loyalty cards"? They have nothing
>>>to do with loyalty; it's all data mining.
>>
>> Of course it is. But the idea is that because you have a
>> discount card from that store, you'll shop preferentially at that
>> store. Assuming you don't care who knows what you buy, and are
>> generally dumb.
>
>
>Why would you care that the store knows what you buy?
>Are you ashamed of your groceries?
The store, maybe not. But who are they going to sell the
information to? Who-all are going to send me advertising for X
because some third party has informed them I typically buy X? I
want to make it as hard as possible for advertisers to know what
kind of advertising to fling at me.
Dorothy J Heydt
Bernard, we've had discussions of this kind on this group before
and you generally make statements like the above. What you, and
your employers, presumably don't understand that we don't want
targeted advertising, we don't want ANY advertising. We get it
anyway ... every day the mailman brings a sheaf of brightly-colored
slick-paper ads. I don't read them. I don't know anybody who
DOES read them. They are instantly recognizable by their bright
colors and slick paper, and it takes about five seconds to weed
them out from the real mail and then into the recycling bin they
go.
"Targeting" the advertising wouldn't make any difference. Say I
want to buy canned tuna. Say the flyer from the supermarket is
advertising canned tuna. It's not going to make me go there to
buy it. If I were going to shop at that store anyway, I'd go
there and buy tuna even if there were no advertising flyers. If
I weren't going to go there, their advertising won't make me go
there.
I have absolutely no animosity against you. Your employers
though, or more specifically their USian equivalents, can go jump
in the lake.
Far away on the distant horizon I see a world in which there
won't be advertising any more, only websites that people can look
up data on those products that they actually want to buy, when
they want to buy them, and not otherwise or until. I probably
won't live to see it, but it's a nice thought.
Kevrob
On Jan 24, 2:19 pm, "Evelyn C. Leeper" <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Kevrob wrote:
>
> > The stores I've been referencing are both "drug" stores which also sell
> > all kinds of sundries, including food. Aside from prescription records,
> > which they would have to keep anyway, I don't need my purchase of
> > personal hygiene products tracked, where it would be available to any
> > snoop.Well, you could always just not use your card if you're buying condoms
> or whatever.
>
> --
>
Ha! Would that my life were that interesting.
Kevin
Peter Trei
>
> On Jan 24, 12:49 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> wrote:
>> In article <JCDx7B....@kithrup.com>,
>> djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>
>>> Of course it is. But the idea is that because you have a
>>> discount card from that store, you'll shop preferentially at that
>>> store. Assuming you don't care who knows what you buy, and are
>>> generally dumb.I'm curious--why do you, or many other people, care if the store knows
>> what you buy?
[...]
> The stores I've been referencing are both "drug" stores which also sell
> all kinds of sundries, including food. Aside from prescription records,
> which they would have to keep anyway, I don't need my purchase of
> personal hygiene products tracked, where it would be available to any
> snoop. Imagine being involved in a lawsuit and having your shopping
> records show up in the discovery process. No thanks.
[...]
It happens.
I recall, a few years back, a divorce case in the Bay Area where
"loyalty" card records were called into discovery and used to make
the case that one of the parties was an alcoholic.
Peter Trei
Bernard Peek
<djh...@kithrup.com> writes
>Bernard, we've had discussions of this kind on this group before
>and you generally make statements like the above. What you, and
>your employers, presumably don't understand that we don't want
>targeted advertising, we don't want ANY advertising.
Oh we understand OK, but that's not an option that's available to you in
a free society. So your choices are targeted advertising or scattergun.
If you want less junk mail then make sure that the advertisers know what
not to send you.
In the absence of data protection legislation there is every reason to
be doubtful about giving this sort of information away. But giving the
advertisers incorrect information doesn't win you much and it pushes up
prices for you and everyone else.
Evelyn C. Leeper
On the other hand, I have two supermarkets across the street from each
other. If the one I don't usually go to has canned tuna on sale, my
regular store doesn't, and I want canned tuna, I'll buy it there.
Jette Goldie
"Evelyn C. Leeper" <ele...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ulQth.1$FX...@newsfe09.lga...
I regularly shop at several different supermarkets, for different
things. Since most UK supermarkets don't do "loyalty card"
in the same way the US ones do, (leastways, not most of the
ones I use) I don't have a "loyalty card" for any of them, but I
do have an "Advantage Card" for Boots (UK drug store chain),
I have a membership card for Matelan (cheapo clothing chain
that insists you are a "member" to purchase) - and yes, I may
get targetted advertising as a result - but I'd be getting advertising
anyway, so I'd rather it was targetted. My Boots card gives
me "reward points" (1 point for each pound spent) which can
be accrued and used like store credit - and gives me money
off vouchers for the things *I* buy regularly.
David Dyer-Bennet
> From that I deduce that the data mining systems used in the US are
> somewhat cruder than those used here. With the data collected in the US
> you can tell what the sales were at a given store, but you can't get any
> more detail than that. The UK's data gives you data down to individual
> street level (and in theory to individual hoses.) That allows the
> analyst to tell which direction their customers arrive from, and how far
> they travel.
They probably *think* it lets them tell that, *but it doesn't*. I often
go to the grocery store as the last step in a set of errands, so I'm
very frequently NOT coming from home (or work). Anything they think
they know about distance or direction of travel is probably *wrong*, and
any effort they spend based on what they think they know is quite
possibly wasted and may even be directly counter-productive.
It is precisely this sort of attempt to read too much into data that
gives data-mining a bad name. Well, that plus its uses to violate privacy.
David Dyer-Bennet
> In message <JCE41...@kithrup.com>, Dorothy J Heydt
> <djh...@kithrup.com> writes
>
>
>> Bernard, we've had discussions of this kind on this group before
>> and you generally make statements like the above. What you, and
>> your employers, presumably don't understand that we don't want
>> targeted advertising, we don't want ANY advertising.
>
> Oh we understand OK, but that's not an option that's available to you in
> a free society. So your choices are targeted advertising or scattergun.
> If you want less junk mail then make sure that the advertisers know what
> not to send you.
I'll take scattergun; it makes them waste more money, so they do less of it.
> In the absence of data protection legislation there is every reason to
> be doubtful about giving this sort of information away. But giving the
> advertisers incorrect information doesn't win you much and it pushes up
> prices for you and everyone else.
There is at least equal doubt *with* data protection legislation; the
state is the greatest danger to my privacy.
Dorothy J Heydt
Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>In message <JCE41...@kithrup.com>, Dorothy J Heydt
><djh...@kithrup.com> writes
>
>
>>Bernard, we've had discussions of this kind on this group before
>>and you generally make statements like the above. What you, and
>>your employers, presumably don't understand that we don't want
>>targeted advertising, we don't want ANY advertising.
>
>Oh we understand OK, but that's not an option that's available to you in
>a free society. So your choices are targeted advertising or scattergun.
>If you want less junk mail then make sure that the advertisers know what
>not to send you.
But they won't accept "Don't send me any at all."
They want to send me something that will induce me to buy their
clients' products. They have not yet come to the realization that
nothing will induce me to buy a product because it's the product
of their clients. If I want to buy something, and it's a
substantial enough purchase that I don't just go to the local
store and buy whatever I see, I'll go to the web and see all the
available choices, and make my decision based on such facts as I
can find there, not on flashy artwork or flashy slogans.
>In the absence of data protection legislation there is every reason to
>be doubtful about giving this sort of information away. But giving the
>advertisers incorrect information doesn't win you much and it pushes up
>prices for you and everyone else.
I intend to give them NO information, to the best of my ability.
Eventually, with luck, they'll do enough surveys to realize that
things have reached the state where no advertising makes any
difference to what people buy, and take up some other line of
work I guess. I acknowledge that that time hasn't come yet, but
I intend to live as if it had, just as I live as if (e.g.) nobody
in the US gave a damn about race any more.
Kevrob
Bernard Peek wrote:
> But giving the advertisers incorrect information doesn't win you
> much and it pushes up prices for you and everyone else.
>
This is not strictly true. It might drive up COSTS for a particular
firm. It will only lead to higher prices if the market will bear them.
Not every retailer has "pricing power," and certainly not on every
product.
Kevin
Bernard Peek
Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes
>Bernard Peek wrote:
>
>> From that I deduce that the data mining systems used in the US are
>>somewhat cruder than those used here. With the data collected in the
>>US you can tell what the sales were at a given store, but you can't
>>get any more detail than that. The UK's data gives you data down to
>>individual street level (and in theory to individual hoses.) That
>>allows the analyst to tell which direction their customers arrive
>>from, and how far they travel.
>
>They probably *think* it lets them tell that, *but it doesn't*. I
>often go to the grocery store as the last step in a set of errands, so
>I'm very frequently NOT coming from home (or work). Anything they
>think they know about distance or direction of travel is probably
>*wrong*, and any effort they spend based on what they think they know
>is quite possibly wasted and may even be directly counter-productive.
The mathematical models I worked on certainly handle this sort of
situation. The models don't attempt to model individual instantaneous
behaviour. What they will handle is the averages of the users of a
particular store at any given time, and the average behaviour of most
individuals over an extended time.
Lots of people think that their behaviour is unpredictable. In fact
almost everyone will tell you that they aren't predictable. Almost
everyone has below average predictability. But the models still work
despite what people say.
>
>It is precisely this sort of attempt to read too much into data that
>gives data-mining a bad name. Well, that plus its uses to violate
>privacy.
The right to privacy is probably important enough to justify another
constitutional amendment.
Bernard Peek
Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes
>Bernard Peek wrote:
>> In message <JCE41...@kithrup.com>, Dorothy J Heydt
>><djh...@kithrup.com> writes
>>
>>> Bernard, we've had discussions of this kind on this group before
>>> and you generally make statements like the above. What you, and
>>> your employers, presumably don't understand that we don't want
>>> targeted advertising, we don't want ANY advertising.
>> Oh we understand OK, but that's not an option that's available to
>>you in a free society. So your choices are targeted advertising or
>>scattergun. If you want less junk mail then make sure that the
>>advertisers know what not to send you.
>
>I'll take scattergun; it makes them waste more money, so they do less of it.
Nope. It makes them do more, and the customer pays. If every advertiser
has to spend the money there's little cost to the business, because
every one can pass the costs on.
>
>> In the absence of data protection legislation there is every reason
>>to be doubtful about giving this sort of information away. But giving
>>the advertisers incorrect information doesn't win you much and it
>>pushes up prices for you and everyone else.
>
>There is at least equal doubt *with* data protection legislation; the
>state is the greatest danger to my privacy.
Same here.
Bernard Peek
>In article <0dXsmcH$98tF...@delta.shrdlu.com>,
>Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>>In message <JCE41...@kithrup.com>, Dorothy J Heydt
>><djh...@kithrup.com> writes
>>
>>
>>>Bernard, we've had discussions of this kind on this group before
>>>and you generally make statements like the above. What you, and
>>>your employers, presumably don't understand that we don't want
>>>targeted advertising, we don't want ANY advertising.
>>
>>Oh we understand OK, but that's not an option that's available to you in
>>a free society. So your choices are targeted advertising or scattergun.
>>If you want less junk mail then make sure that the advertisers know what
>>not to send you.
>
>But they won't accept "Don't send me any at all."
Well, no. That's the price you pay for freedom of speech.
>
>They want to send me something that will induce me to buy their
>clients' products. They have not yet come to the realization that
>nothing will induce me to buy a product because it's the product
>of their clients.
Sure, 99.99% of the population are completely impervious to advertising.
>If I want to buy something, and it's a
>substantial enough purchase that I don't just go to the local
>store and buy whatever I see, I'll go to the web and see all the
>available choices, and make my decision based on such facts as I
>can find there, not on flashy artwork or flashy slogans.
>
>>In the absence of data protection legislation there is every reason to
>>be doubtful about giving this sort of information away. But giving the
>>advertisers incorrect information doesn't win you much and it pushes up
>>prices for you and everyone else.
>
>I intend to give them NO information, to the best of my ability.
>Eventually, with luck, they'll do enough surveys to realize that
>things have reached the state where no advertising makes any
>difference to what people buy, and take up some other line of
>work I guess.
They do those surveys, so they know for sure that the advertising does
work. They also know that targeted advertising gets the same results for
less money.
> I acknowledge that that time hasn't come yet, but
>I intend to live as if it had, just as I live as if (e.g.) nobody
>in the US gave a damn about race any more.
>
>Dorothy J. Heydt
>Albany, California
>djh...@kithrup.com
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
Maybe you're better off giving them a minuscule amount, e.g., if they
don't have any info on you, you get everything, but if all you have
bought is milk and eggs, they will send only milk and egg offers.
Seth Breidbart
Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>The way these systems are run there is a net benefit if you tell the
>store what products you buy and when. It makes it more likely that the
>place will stock the type of product that you will buy - which is of
>course also a gain for the store owners.
The store already knows what they _sell_; how do they gain by knowing
that I buy it rather than my neighbor or the guy 4 blocks away?
Seth
Seth Breidbart
Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>In message <45b7d6c7$0$15013$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net>, David
>Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes
>>I'll take scattergun; it makes them waste more money, so they do less of it.
>
>Nope. It makes them do more, and the customer pays. If every advertiser
>has to spend the money there's little cost to the business, because
>every one can pass the costs on.
But they don't; I remember, many years ago, one supermarket decided
not to advertise after one blitz. They said (and had big banners in
their stores) that they'd let their competitors do the advertising,
and beat all the advertised prices by 1 cent with their savings from
not buying ads.
A glossy brochure costs, say, $1 to print and mail. If you can target
people who are likely to buy a lot from it, you'll send them out. If
you can't, a scattershot approach leads to $.50 of profit on average,
you won't send any.
Seth
Nate Edel
> I'm sure the stores with cards believe that the data they collect,
> either on individuals or in the aggregate, is well worth the price of
> running the card program. I just want to avoid junk mail and junk
> phone calls.
Given the ubiquity of purchasing with credit/debit cards, the privacy
implications are only an issue for those who pay cash. I don't ever
actually bother to carry a card, but have no objection to punching in my
phone number at one store, or the phone number of my wife's pre-marriage
apartment at the other chain nearby.
If I'm paying cash at Safeway, however, I enter a fictious phone number
which will be remembered by fans of 80s pop music. I've never checked at
Albertsons.
--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
"What's the use of yearning for Elysian Fields when you know you can't get
'em, and would only let 'em out on building leases if you had 'em?" (WSG)
Nate Edel
> Oh we understand OK, but that's not an option that's available to you in
> a free society. So your choices are targeted advertising or scattergun.
Or meaningful opt-out legislation.
Nate Edel
> The right to privacy is probably important enough to justify another
> constitutional amendment.
IMO, the proper formulation would be to strike "probably", and replace
"justify" with "make imperative."
Mark Atwood
There was a neat hack in yesterday's Make blog, obvious in retrospect.
Someone took all the barcode based affinity cards they used, and
regenerated the barcodes all onto one laminated card.
--
Mark Atwood When you do things right, people won't be sure
m...@mark.atwood.name you've done anything at all.
http://mark.atwood.name/ http://fallenpegasus.livejournal.com/
Keith F. Lynch
> But they don't; I remember, many years ago, one supermarket decided
> not to advertise after one blitz. They said (and had big banners in
> their stores) that they'd let their competitors do the advertising,
> and beat all the advertised prices by 1 cent with their savings from
> not buying ads.
Did it work? Or did they eventually go out of business or resume
advertising?
> A glossy brochure costs, say, $1 to print and mail. If you can
> target people who are likely to buy a lot from it, you'll send them
> out. If you can't, a scattershot approach leads to $.50 of profit
> on average, you won't send any.
Last week I once again found a glossy Avon cosmetics catalog on my
front door. It was printed entirely in Spanish. I don't use or
buy cosmetics, and I don't read Spanish.
Nearly 20 years ago I attended a talk at a Jewish Community Center.
I foolishly gave them my name and address when asked. Since then,
I've gotten somewhere around a thousand letters and phone calls from
various Jewish charities asking for donations. I've never responded,
but they keep coming.
So much for targeting.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
David Friedman
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> I
> want to make it as hard as possible for advertisers to know what
> kind of advertising to fling at me.
Whereas I want to make it as easy as possible. The better advertisers
know what sort of advertising I'm interested in--i.e. what sort is
likely to result in my buying something--the larger the fraction of
advertising I get that I want to get.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
David Friedman
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> What you, and
> your employers, presumably don't understand that we don't want
> targeted advertising, we don't want ANY advertising.
Where "we" means "Dorothy and Hal" or "Dorothy and other people with
similar tastes?"
David Friedman
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> There is at least equal doubt *with* data protection legislation; the
> state is the greatest danger to my privacy.
As I like to put it, there are only two ways to protect your privacy,
and one of them doesn't work.
The one that doesn't work is the approach embedded in U.S. credit bureau
legislation; I don't know how European laws work. It consists of letting
out information about yourself and then trying to use the law to control
who gets it.
The one that does work is not letting the information out in the first
place. The policy of people who don't give their real name and address
for loyalty cards is an example of that approach.
David Friedman
Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> The way these systems are run there is a net benefit if you tell the
> store what products you buy and when. It makes it more likely that the
> place will stock the type of product that you will buy - which is of
> course also a gain for the store owners.
It's a negligable gain for me. I may be better off if lots of people who
share my taste use the cards, but a single customer will have a very
small effect on the store's stocking policy.
> From that I deduce that the data mining systems used in the US are
> somewhat cruder than those used here. With the data collected in the US
> you can tell what the sales were at a given store, but you can't get any
> more detail than that.
You can also tell that the customer who buys X often buys Y, which is
relevant to how you arrange your shelves.
David Friedman
se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
The only gain I can see is that they know that the person who buys X
also buys Y, which is relevant to how to arrange the store.
David Friedman
arch...@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:
> Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> > The right to privacy is probably important enough to justify another
> > constitutional amendment.
>
> IMO, the proper formulation would be to strike "probably", and replace
> "justify" with "make imperative."
I think defining what privacy means, what the right to privacy means,
and how it could be legally enforced is a seriously non-trivial problem.
For my efforts on the general question see:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/privacy_chapter/privacy.htm
and
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Privacy%20and%20Technology.html
David Friedman
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> I'm all for that! Let's pollute the marketing data! Let's leave
> the bastards COMPLETELY CLUELESS about what kind of advertising
> to send us!
I'm struck but what seems to me the wholly unjustified degree of
hostility in that comment.
Do you ever try to persuade anyone of anything? Do you or Hal ever write
anything, online or in hardcopy, arguing your views on some subject? If
so, should anyone who has to read the first line you write before
deciding he isn't interested describe you as bastards?
Keith F. Lynch
> Well, no. That's the price you pay for freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech means the right to communicate with someone who
consents to the communication. It means the government can't say to a
pair of consenting adults, "you're not allowed to talk," or, "You're
not allowed to express that subversive idea."
It doesn't mean the right to, without permission, stuff someone's
nailbox, postal or electronic, with unwanted junk, or to use up the
paper in their fax machine, or to phone them at all hours, or to
knock on their door despite a "no solicitors" sign.
> Sure, 99.99% of the population are completely impervious to
> advertising.
Closer to 95%. Somewhat less for the prime target age groups,
teenagers and 20-somethings, somewhat more for the rest of us.
That's for the best targeted ads.
In the case of spam, all but about one in ten million are impervious.
In the case of Nigerian 419 spam, all but about one in *a billion* are
impervious. But if the average Nigerian 419 spammer sends 100 million
spams, then one in ten of those crooks nets some gullible idiot's life
savings, and can retire and live like a king by third world standards.
> They also know that targeted advertising gets the same results for
> less money.
Certainly. And if paper junk mail got a better return on investment,
there would be more of it. And I'd have to go to the post office
to pick up my mail, since it wouldn't fit in my mailbox. I don't
want that.
Keith F. Lynch
> Lots of people think that their behaviour is unpredictable. In fact
> almost everyone will tell you that they aren't predictable. Almost
> everyone has below average predictability. But the models still work
> despite what people say.
When I was WSFA's secretary, I used massive amounts of computer power
on decades of attendance data to predict who would attend the next
meeting and put their names on the sign-in sheet for them to check
off. It was so accurate, it gave some people the creeps. "How could
it know that we'd decide at the last minute to come?"
> The right to privacy is probably important enough to justify another
> constitutional amendment.
Why bother, when the government ignores the ones we already have? And
when they, at other times, find that unwritten right somewhere between
the lines? (The Supreme Court has occasionally cited the right to
privacy.)
Keith F. Lynch
> Bernard Peek wrote:
>> Oh we understand OK, but that's not an option that's available to
>> you in a free society.
Why shouldn't I have the right to insist that people not mail me?
How is that incompatible with a free society? If I were to knock on
your door to try to sell you a widget, and you told me you weren't
interested, but I refused to leave, and kept knocking, I don't think
you'd be pleased. Similarly with mail, email, fax, or phone calls.
> I'll take scattergun; it makes them waste more money, so they do
> less of it.
Likewise. More than once I've returned from a weekend out of town to
find a note in my mailbox that my mail wouldn't fit, and I had to make
a trip to the post office to pick it up. And when I went to the post
office, I usually found nothing but junk mail, so I left the post
office empty handed, with all of my junk mail in their dumpster.
If I were to get on more junk mail lists, I'd get those notes every
day, and have to waste a significant proportion of my life traveling
to and from the post office, and leafing through tons of wastepaper
in search of my bills and bank statements.
> There is at least equal doubt *with* data protection legislation;
> the state is the greatest danger to my privacy.
Certainly. And any data that Safeway gets, Homeland Security will
soon have, if they want it.
Keith F. Lynch
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>> What you, and your employers, presumably don't understand that we
>> don't want targeted advertising, we don't want ANY advertising.
> Where "we" means "Dorothy and Hal" or "Dorothy and other people with
> similar tastes?"
And me. And, I suspect, the majority of people.
I'm speaking only of "push" ads: Ones that appear in my mailbox, in
my email box, on my door, on my answering machine, etc. I have no
objection to "pull" ads, ones that are available when I go looking for
them. For instance ones on the Web, in newspapers, in magazines, in
the Yellow Pages, and in stores.
Keith F. Lynch
> You can also tell that the customer who buys X often buys Y, which
> is relevant to how you arrange your shelves.
They don't need cards, or to know anyone's name, address, or phone
number to do that. All they need to look at is their own cash
register tapes.
Kevrob
On Jan 24, 7:00 pm, archm...@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I'm sure the stores with cards believe that the data they collect,
> > either on individuals or in the aggregate, is well worth the price of
> > running the card program. I just want to avoid junk mail and junk
> > phone calls.Given the ubiquity of purchasing with credit/debit cards, the privacy
> implications are only an issue for those who pay cash.
I don't think the merchant is allowed to track purchases by my debit
card or credit card number. The issuer of the card could, depending on
their privacy policy, and whether I opt in or out of any marketing they
do. Am I wrong?
> I don't ever
> actually bother to carry a card, but have no objection to punching in my
> phone number at one store, or the phone number of my wife's pre-marriage
> apartment at the other chain nearby.
>
> If I'm paying cash at Safeway, however, I enter a fictious phone number
> which will be remembered by fans of 80s pop music.
Perhaps... http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/8675309.asp ?
Kevin
David Friedman
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > You can also tell that the customer who buys X often buys Y, which
> > is relevant to how you arrange your shelves.
>
> They don't need cards, or to know anyone's name, address, or phone
> number to do that. All they need to look at is their own cash
> register tapes.
That doesn't work if you bought X today and Y yesterday.
Keith F. Lynch
> One thing to bear in mind is that the US doesn't have data
> protection laws. There's nothing stopping the supermarket from
> selling you details to anyone else.
And in one case, where the store specifically promised not to do so,
when it went bankrupt it did so, as it was then *required* to do so,
its database being an transferable asset.
It seems to me that such a promise is binding, and makes the database
*not* a transferable asset, but IANAL.
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>> You can also tell that the customer who buys X often buys Y, which
>>> is relevant to how you arrange your shelves.
>> They don't need cards, or to know anyone's name, address, or phone
>> number to do that. All they need to look at is their own cash
>> register tapes.
> That doesn't work if you bought X today and Y yesterday.
True, but how many people do that? I don't, and I'm pretty much at
the extreme of making frequent small shopping trips. The people in
line ahead of me always seem to be stocking up as if they expect the
imminent collapse of civilization.
Keith F. Lynch
> I'm curious--why do you, or many other people, care if the store
> knows what you buy?
That's backwards. They know what I buy. What they don't know is who
I am.
> Would you care more or less if the same thing was happening with old
> technology--a local store where the proprietor knows his customers
> and remembers what they buy, the same way our local chinese restaurant
> knows what we usually start dinner with (won-ton soup and potstickers)?
If we had gotten to talking, and I had introduced myself to him, fine.
But if he were to summarily demand that I give him my name and address
unless I want to pay a higher price than everyone else, I'd consider
that extremely rude, and I'd turn right around and leave.
How do you feel when a stranger approaches you and demands to know
your name, address, and phone number?
> It strikes me that posting to Usenet is a much greater loss of
> privacy, ...
It's my choice how much of my privacy to give up. Astute readers
might notice there are many aspects of my life about which I say
almost nothing on Usenet.
mike weber
Heydt) wrote:
>In article <3LpMDrBG...@delta.shrdlu.com>,
>Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>>In message <ddfr-1767BD.1...@news.isp.giganews.com>, David
>>Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
>>>In article <JCDx7...@kithrup.com>,
>>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Of course it is. But the idea is that because you have a
>>>> discount card from that store, you'll shop preferentially at that
>>>> store. Assuming you don't care who knows what you buy, and are
>>>> generally dumb.
>>>
>>>I'm curious--why do you, or many other people, care if the store knows
>>>what you buy? Would you care more or less if the same thing was
>>>happening with old technology--a local store where the proprietor knows
>>>his customers and remembers what they buy, the same way our local
>>>chinese restaurant knows what we usually start dinner with (won-ton soup
>>>and potstickers)?
>>
>>The way these systems are run there is a net benefit if you tell the
>>store what products you buy and when. It makes it more likely that the
>>place will stock the type of product that you will buy - which is of
>>course also a gain for the store owners. If you try to game the UK
>>system by giving false contact details the store still gets their sales
>>data but you don't get the discount. The US system seems broken to me,
>>as an advertising person. It allows people to give false addresses and
>>that pollutes the marketing data.
>
>I'm all for that! Let's pollute the marketing data! Let's leave
>the bastards COMPLETELY CLUELESS about what kind of advertising
>to send us!
>
Which will, in the long run, tend to raise prices, because the sores
will not be able to tailor inventories to as closely match locales,
which will basically require every store in a chain to carry basically
the same stock mix.
And also will, as Bernard points out, be forced to use even more
guesswork as to where the best locations are to open new stores, thus
resulting in store that perform sub-optimally, or fail quickly.
Whenever people who post to Usenet under ther real names begin going
on about the ee-vulls of store tracking card programs, i flash back to
the "Dilbert" strip where Dilbert, as he hands over his credit card to
the waitress to take to the back to run, explains that, of course, he
would *never* give his card data for a purchase online, because you
can't be sure who's really getting the data, or what they'll use it
for...
And then pauses to sign without looking the slip handed to him by the
waitress who is now wearing a mink stole, tennis bracelets on bith
wrists, and a diamond tiara.
--
mike weber (fairp...@gmail.com)
============================
My Website: http://electronictiger.com
===================================
No use looking for the answers when the questions are in doubt - Fred leBlanc, "The Love of My Life"
Marilee J. Layman
>
>
>On Jan 23, 5:43 pm, Marilee J. Layman <mari...@mjlayman.com> wrote:
>> Days like today are when I actually like having one -- $75.55
>> pre-card, 49.17 (before tax) after card.
>> --
>> Marilee J. Laymanhttp://mjlayman.livejournal.com/
>
>An outfit near my house changed hands, and made us sign up for new
>cards with the new chain's logo on them. As I can no longer use the
>one I found at a bus stop, I signed up for one.
>
>They now have Mr. Gully Foyle in their database. :)
LOL I never thought of lying.
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com/
mike weber
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <iacl84x...@mail.sfchat.org>,
> arch...@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:
>
>> Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>> > The right to privacy is probably important enough to justify another
>> > constitutional amendment.
>>
>> IMO, the proper formulation would be to strike "probably", and replace
>> "justify" with "make imperative."
>
>I think defining what privacy means, what the right to privacy means,
>and how it could be legally enforced is a seriously non-trivial problem.
>
And a bit too serious of implication to allow politicians to mess with
it.
Marilee J. Layman
<ele...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Mark Atwood wrote:
>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>> Bravo. When we used to shop at Safeway regularly, Hal took out
>>> one in the name of Baron Munchhausen, and gave his street address
>>> as the address of the Safeway store itself. One clerk, count
>>> him, one, recognized the name, and smiled. No one ever seemed to
>>> twig to the address.
>>
>> Most grocery store loyalty card programs let you key in your
>> phone number, instead of carrying around the card. Someone
>> here in Seattle has registered the old M$ switchboard number
>> with all the grocery stores. I use it, and so do a number
>> of other people, so I'm often treated to a note at the bottom
>> of my receipt telling me that "I" have "saved" several thousand
>> dollars on groceries this year.
>
>My store card also gives me frequent flier miles. (No, not my credit
>card--my *store* card!)
>
>I think all the grocery stores anywhere near me have cards. At any
>rate, the one I used all the time before the cards has them, and it's
>the one I still use all the time because it has a *major* kosher foods
>section (an entire aisle, both sides, *plus* fresh kosher meat, a kosher
>fish department, and a kosher hot deli).
>
>They used to have coupons and still do occasionally, but not as much.
>(I suspect come Passover they will have the "free matzoh with minimum
>$xx purchase" coupon again. xx keeps going up each year, though/)
I get free coupons at home from the grocery for things that I buy a
lot.
>I do frequent the local produce store, which has cheaper prices on a lot
>of items.
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>In message <JCCK6...@kithrup.com>, Dorothy J Heydt
><djh...@kithrup.com> writes
>>In article <1169597020.7...@13g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
>>Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>On Jan 23, 5:43 pm, Marilee J. Layman <mari...@mjlayman.com> wrote:
>>>> Days like today are when I actually like having one -- $75.55
>>>> pre-card, 49.17 (before tax) after card.
>>>> --
>>>
>>>An outfit near my house changed hands, and made us sign up for new
>>>cards with the new chain's logo on them. As I can no longer use the
>>>one I found at a bus stop, I signed up for one.
>>>
>>>They now have Mr. Gully Foyle in their database. :)
>>
>>Bravo. When we used to shop at Safeway regularly, Hal took out
>>one in the name of Baron Munchhausen, and gave his street address
>>as the address of the Safeway store itself. One clerk, count
>>him, one, recognized the name, and smiled. No one ever seemed to
>>twig to the address.
>
>The UK version of those schemes don't offer discounts at point of sale.
>Instead they mail vouchers to the registered address. The selection of
>vouchers depends in part on what you bought and how much you spent.
I get those as well as discounts at the register.
mike weber
wrote:
>And
>when they, at other times, find that unwritten right somewhere between
>the lines? (The Supreme Court has occasionally cited the right to
>privacy.)
Fourth Amendment, i believe:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
mike weber
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <ep8qhc$rbi$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>
>> In article <3LpMDrBG...@delta.shrdlu.com>,
>> Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The way these systems are run there is a net benefit if you tell the
>> >store what products you buy and when. It makes it more likely that the
>> >place will stock the type of product that you will buy - which is of
>> >course also a gain for the store owners.
>>
>> The store already knows what they _sell_; how do they gain by knowing
>> that I buy it rather than my neighbor or the guy 4 blocks away?
>
>The only gain I can see is that they know that the person who buys X
>also buys Y, which is relevant to how to arrange the store.
And to decide how much Y to stock, given that you stock A amount of
X...
Or whether to stock Y at all.
And at what price levels Y will sell best. (and X as well)
mike weber
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <3LpMDrBG...@delta.shrdlu.com>,
> Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>
>> The way these systems are run there is a net benefit if you tell the
>> store what products you buy and when. It makes it more likely that the
>> place will stock the type of product that you will buy - which is of
>> course also a gain for the store owners.
>
>It's a negligable gain for me. I may be better off if lots of people who
>share my taste use the cards, but a single customer will have a very
>small effect on the store's stocking policy.
>
>> From that I deduce that the data mining systems used in the US are
>> somewhat cruder than those used here. With the data collected in the US
>> you can tell what the sales were at a given store, but you can't get any
>> more detail than that.
>
>You can also tell that the customer who buys X often buys Y, which is
>relevant to how you arrange your shelves.
Have you ever noticed that the bread and the milk are generally on
opposite sides of the store? And cereals are somewhere else?
This is traditional/intentional; it is believed that if you have to
traverse major portions of the store to get all of the staples you're
more likely to impulse buy other stuff.
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>I do my part to abolish them by only shopping at stores that don't
>have them. When Safeway, Giant, and Fresh Fields adopted them, I
>wrote to their respective presidents, explaining how much I had spent
>in their stores, and that I wouldn't return until they got rid of
>those cards. And Fresh Fields listened, and got rid of their cards.
>I shopped there just yesterday. And at Trader Joe's, which never
>had cards, last Thursday. I also go to Magruders and Shoppers Food
>Warehouse.
>
>I find I'm saving money, too. I wouldn't be pleased if my groceries
>cost $49, even if some other poor sucker paid $75 for the same
>groceries in the same store.
That's because I didn't buy just groceries. The big cost & savings is
glucosamine which is $9.99 per bottle and was on sale for
buy-one-get-one-free. The rest of the savings were soup, veggies, and
ramen. Without the glucosamine and the Refresh Celluvisc, I would
have spent about $17.
I think I should get to take OTC meds that the doctors insist I take
off my taxes. I sure spend enough on them.
mike weber
>My reluctance to participate in these programs the way the way the
>firms expect me to is mainly based on a mistrust of the security of the
>data. Even if the store offers an opt-out (I'd prefer they use an
>opt-IN) from the use of your snail mail and/or e-mail addresses and
>phone number in their marketing program, and, what's even worse,
>transfer of that info to third parties, I'm not convinced that they
>will take good care of it. Banks and credit card companies have had
>their customer data cracked by cybercrooks. I've got to figure that
>they take greater precautions than S-Mart.
Banks are legally allowed to give/sell your *full* financial data to
anyone with whom they have a contractual working arrangement.
Stores aren't
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:43:29 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, Marilee J.
>Layman <mar...@mjlayman.com> wrote,
>>Days like today are when I actually like having one -- $75.55
>>pre-card, 49.17 (before tax) after card.
>
>Just remember that without the existence of the tracking card program
>the sale price would have been approximately $49.17 anyway.
I'm 51, I remember that. The only reason I took the card initially is
so points could go to the local elementary school. I can't afford to
give them as much money as they get through the program. But I do
like having it when I have to buy OTC meds and they're on sale.
mike weber
wrote:
>I recall, a few years back, a divorce case in the Bay Area where
>"loyalty" card records were called into discovery and used to make
>the case that one of the parties was an alcoholic.
There have been nasty divorce cases where *fanzines* were entered into
evidence.
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>David Harmon <b...@example.invalid> wrote:
>> Just remember that without the existence of the tracking card
>> program the sale price would have been approximately $49.17 anyway.
>
>It would have been *less*, since running the card program costs
>something. Hence the generally lower prices in cardless stores.
It's not the card system that makes prices less at those stores, it's
lack of unions.
Keith F. Lynch
> There have been nasty divorce cases where *fanzines* were entered
> into evidence.
To prove what?
mike weber
wrote:
>Seth Breidbart <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>> But they don't; I remember, many years ago, one supermarket decided
>> not to advertise after one blitz. They said (and had big banners in
>> their stores) that they'd let their competitors do the advertising,
>> and beat all the advertised prices by 1 cent with their savings from
>> not buying ads.
>
>Did it work? Or did they eventually go out of business or resume
>advertising?
>
Probabaly ether or both - i don't know (offhand) of any stores of
significant size that don't do advertising.
And the store that did the one-cent trick was still advertising; they
were just hot-linking and stealing someone else's bandwifth.
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>In message <ddfr-1767BD.1...@news.isp.giganews.com>, David
>Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
>>In article <JCDx7...@kithrup.com>,
>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>
>>> Of course it is. But the idea is that because you have a
>>> discount card from that store, you'll shop preferentially at that
>>> store. Assuming you don't care who knows what you buy, and are
>>> generally dumb.
>>
>>I'm curious--why do you, or many other people, care if the store knows
>>what you buy? Would you care more or less if the same thing was
>>happening with old technology--a local store where the proprietor knows
>>his customers and remembers what they buy, the same way our local
>>chinese restaurant knows what we usually start dinner with (won-ton soup
>>and potstickers)?
>
>The way these systems are run there is a net benefit if you tell the
>store what products you buy and when. It makes it more likely that the
>place will stock the type of product that you will buy - which is of
>course also a gain for the store owners. If you try to game the UK
>system by giving false contact details the store still gets their sales
>data but you don't get the discount. The US system seems broken to me,
>as an advertising person. It allows people to give false addresses and
>that pollutes the marketing data.
> From that I deduce that the data mining systems used in the US are
>somewhat cruder than those used here. With the data collected in the US
>you can tell what the sales were at a given store, but you can't get any
>more detail than that. The UK's data gives you data down to individual
>street level (and in theory to individual hoses.) That allows the
>analyst to tell which direction their customers arrive from, and how far
>they travel.
In my grocery store, they have a record of everything I buy, not just
the sales. And if people don't have cards, the clerks will usually
enter some kind of default phone number for them, so they get the cost
reductions.
>That data doesn't help so much in planning stock levels but its vital
>when planning where to open your next store. The biggest supermarket
>chain in the UK (Tesco) has now reached saturation point, and there
>aren't any more gaps to fill with full-size stores. Instead they are
>opening smaller and cheaper sites to cream off high margin sales in
>areas between their main sites.
>
>>
>>It strikes me that posting to Usenet is a much greater loss of privacy,
>>at least if you do it under your own name--and you do. The information
>>is available to the world, is searchable, and probably tells much more
>>about you than your shopping pattern does. Yet lots of us choose to post.
Keith F. Lynch
> It's not the card system that makes prices less at those stores,
> it's lack of unions.
Maybe at Magruders, but isn't Fresh Fields supposed to be one of the
best companies to work for?
Marilee J. Layman
Heydt) wrote:
>In article <ddfr-1767BD.1...@news.isp.giganews.com>,
>David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>In article <JCDx7...@kithrup.com>,
>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>
>>> Of course it is. But the idea is that because you have a
>>> discount card from that store, you'll shop preferentially at that
>>> store. Assuming you don't care who knows what you buy, and are
>>> generally dumb.
>>
>>I'm curious--why do you, or many other people, care if the store knows
>>what you buy? Would you care more or less if the same thing was
>>happening with old technology--a local store where the proprietor knows
>>his customers and remembers what they buy, the same way our local
>>chinese restaurant knows what we usually start dinner with (won-ton soup
>>and potstickers)?
>
>Because then they will feel justified in sending me advertising
>about it. And anyway, what business is it of theirs?
The grocery store never sends me advertising without coupons/vouchers
aimed at me.
>>It strikes me that posting to Usenet is a much greater loss of privacy,
>>at least if you do it under your own name--and you do. The information
>>is available to the world, is searchable, and probably tells much more
>>about you than your shopping pattern does.
>
>Not commercially valuable information. Not "Here's a list of
>people who buy lots of mayonnaise and never buy horseradish,"
>e.g. About the only thing you could get from this group is
>"Here's a list of people, most of whom probably buy cat food."
Actually, you discuss your diet enough that we probably do have a good
idea of what you eat.
Marilee J. Layman
Heydt) wrote:
>"Targeting" the advertising wouldn't make any difference. Say I
>want to buy canned tuna. Say the flyer from the supermarket is
>advertising canned tuna. It's not going to make me go there to
>buy it. If I were going to shop at that store anyway, I'd go
>there and buy tuna even if there were no advertising flyers. If
>I weren't going to go there, their advertising won't make me go
>there.
Now, see, I often save coupons that come from those slick papers until
the product is also on sale at the grocery store, so I save even more
money. I know people who do this for multiple stores, but I'm not
well enough to do that. Plus I get most of my food from Peapod which
definitely knows where I live and what I buy.
mike weber
Heydt) wrote:
>But they won't accept "Don't send me any at all."
Actually, there are direct-mail equivalents to the "Do Not Call" list.
They won't necessarily get it all, but they'll cut it down quite a
bit.
from clarkhoward.com:
{quote}
Nov 14, 2005 -- Stop catalogs from coming to your home!
Clark’s mailbox gets filled every day with catalogs, most of which his
family has never ordered. It’s like a new exercise program because
Clark has to lift them out of the mailbox and carry them inside every
day. Business Week published a story on how many catalogs people are
receiving these days. You can stop these catalogs from coming simply
by contacting the Direct Marketing Association or DMA. You can either
sign up to stop the mailings online by paying $1, or you can write a
letter to the DMA for free. The address is above.
{/quote}
{the fee is now $1 either way}
{quote}
Jun 20, 2005 -- Eliminate junk mail for just $1
About 90,000 people have put themselves on the national “Do Not Call”
list. It’s frustrated telemarketers to no end. So, they’re coming up
with new ways to pitch us their products. The latest way is to send
you advertisements in the mail. The Boston Globe reports that half of
all businesses are planning to increase their spending on junk mail in
the next year. The good news is that you can stop the junk mail coming
to your house with one, quick registration. Go to dmaconsumers.org,
fill out the form and pay just $5. You’ll eliminate about 70 percent
of the junk mail coming to your home if you sign up.
{/quote}
https://www.dmaconsumers.org/cgi/offmailing
{quote}
Getting off mailing lists/Mail Preference Service
To receive less national advertising mail, you can register for the
Direct Marketing Association's (DMA's) Mail Preference Service (MPS).
Please note that DMA does not provide marketers with consumer mailing
lists or do consumer mailings. Rather, the Mail Preference Service is
available to marketers for the sole purpose of removing your name and
address from their prospect mailing lists. Members of the DMA are
required to use our name-removal service, and other marketers are
encouraged to use it.
Although you will see a great reduction in the unsolicited mail you
receive, not all commercial mail will stop. You may continue to
receive mail from companies with which you already do business and
from non-DMA member companies that do not use our service. In
addition, you may continue to receive mail from local merchants,
professional and alumni associations, political candidates and office
holders, and mail addressed to "resident/occupant." Please note that
MPS applies only to home addresses, not business addresses.
How to Register
You can register in two ways:
Fill out the online form below with all required information. There is
a $1 fee, payable by credit card, which verifies your registration and
helps to protect our system from fraud. DMA uses secure payment
transaction processing to protect your credit card information.
Registering online is the fastest way to see results.
OR
Fill out the mail-in registration form below with all required
information. Print the form and mail it with a $1 check or money
order, payable to the Direct Marketing Association, to the address on
the form. Processing by mail takes longer than online registration.
{/quote}
https://www.dmaconsumers.org/cgi/offmailing
mike weber
<ele...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On the other hand, I have two supermarkets across the street from each
>other. If the one I don't usually go to has canned tuna on sale, my
>regular store doesn't, and I want canned tuna, I'll buy it there.
I have four supermarkets (one a local "chain" of three stores) and
Wal-Mart (multiple instances of a couple of the chains, too) within a
convenient distance of my home
Weekly, i tend to stop by each and make some small purchase, noting
surrent prices, and then plan the week's shopping to hit any or all of
them as prices dictate.
mike weber
wrote:
>Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>> One thing to bear in mind is that the US doesn't have data
>> protection laws. There's nothing stopping the supermarket from
>> selling you details to anyone else.
>
>And in one case, where the store specifically promised not to do so,
>when it went bankrupt it did so, as it was then *required* to do so,
>its database being an transferable asset.
>
>It seems to me that such a promise is binding, and makes the database
>*not* a transferable asset, but IANAL.
Bnding on the store, not the bankruptcy court/referee.
Keith F. Lynch
> Actually, there are direct-mail equivalents to the "Do Not Call" list.
Sound like extortion to me.
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <JCE3o...@kithrup.com>,>> I
>> want to make it as hard as possible for advertisers to know what
>> kind of advertising to fling at me.
>
> Whereas I want to make it as easy as possible. The better advertisers
> know what sort of advertising I'm interested in--i.e. what sort is
> likely to result in my buying something--the larger the fraction of
> advertising I get that I want to get.
It's a nice theory, but it doesn't work. I'm simply not interested in
any advertising I've ever seen from a grocery store.
And I have to bundle the damned shit up and haul it out for recycling,
and in the meantime it clutters up the front hall, which is what really
pisses me off. I'm pretty sure handling the paper junk mail takes me
more time and energy than handling email spam.
David Dyer-Bennet
>>> But they won't accept "Don't send me any at all."
>
>
> Freedom of speech means the right to communicate with someone who
> consents to the communication. It means the government can't say to a
> pair of consenting adults, "you're not allowed to talk," or, "You're
> not allowed to express that subversive idea."
The most important meaning of freedom of speech is the right to tell the
government they've fucked up (again). Since they never want to hear
that, under your definition that most important right is exactly the one
that would be lost.
Randolph Fritz
>
> And why are people calling them "loyalty cards"? They have nothing
> to do with loyalty; it's all data mining.
>
Well, I call them "nosy cards," m'self, but they're marketed as
rewards to loyal customers. Sophistry is a required course in
marketing.
Randolph
SAMK
> I think I should get to take OTC meds that the doctors insist I take
> off my taxes. I sure spend enough on them.
If you itemize, such meds are now deductible. If you itemize medical
expenses.
SAMK
Randolph Fritz
> In article <JCDx7...@kithrup.com>,
>> discount card from that store, you'll shop preferentially at that
>> store. Assuming you don't care who knows what you buy, and are
>> generally dumb.
>
> I'm curious--why do you, or many other people, care if the store knows
> what you buy?
>
Because it's abusable surveillance. Consider, for instance, the uses
of the lists of books one buys or, say, ammunition. *Abused*
surveillance, rather--part of the reason this is so widespread in the
USA is that the various intelligence agencies monitor the data. Very
different, if it's the personal knowlege of a local store owner, and
goes no further.
Randolph
Randolph Fritz
> In message <P%Nth.666$9S5...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Jette Goldie
><boss...@scotlandmail.com> writes
>
>
>>
>>Why would you care that the store knows what you buy?
>>Are you ashamed of your groceries?
>
> One thing to bear in mind is that the US doesn't have data protection
> laws. There's nothing stopping the supermarket from selling you details
> incorrect demographic data you get the worst of both worlds. Your
> address will be bought by people who will send you junk mail advertising
> products that you definitely don't want.
>
Also by people who mess with your credit record. It's pretty good for
identity theives, too, and the security on this stuff is rotten.
Randolph
Randolph Fritz
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:02:28 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>
>>But they won't accept "Don't send me any at all."
>
> Actually, there are direct-mail equivalents to the "Do Not Call" list.
> They won't necessarily get it all, but they'll cut it down quite a
> bit.
>
<http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/optoutalrt.htm>. No fees
required.
If I never get another piece of junk mail directed to my deceased
mother, it will be too soon.
Randolph
Randolph Fritz
>
> Why would you care that the store knows what you buy?
> Are you ashamed of your groceries?
>
You just don't have a sufficiently suspicious mind. To begin with,
Homeland Security and the NSA both have free access to this data; if
they see something they don't like, they can make you pretty
miserable. But that's only the beginning--the Mob (of any of a dozen
different nationalities) can get it too. The possibilities for
identity theft, fraud, con games, blackmail and other crimes I haven't
thought of yet are endless.
Randolh
Randolph Fritz
>
>
> On Jan 24, 7:00 pm, archm...@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:
>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > I'm sure the stores with cards believe that the data they collect,
>> > either on individuals or in the aggregate, is well worth the price of
>> > running the card program. I just want to avoid junk mail and junk
>> > phone calls.Given the ubiquity of purchasing with credit/debit cards, the privacy
>> implications are only an issue for those who pay cash.
>
> I don't think the merchant is allowed to track purchases by my debit
> card or credit card number. The issuer of the card could, depending on
> their privacy policy, and whether I opt in or out of any marketing they
> do. Am I wrong?
>
The issuer, or one of their intermediaries, usually do. I don't
believe you can opt out; there's a dossier on you--on all of us--full
of errors, which you can't see, but which can affect things like your
insurance, credit, you-name-it.
Randolph
Kevrob
On an annual basis (working from memory here) my bank and any credit
card companies I deal with send me summaries of their privacy policies.
They also send them whenever they make a change in them. I have been
given the choice in several cases to restrict any marketing contacts to
the company I am actually doing business with, and exclude the sharing
of info with third parties. I've also been invited to opt-in or
opt-pit of mailings and offers from said companies. What you have to
watch out for are those envelopes that are sent to you by your bank or
CC co. that look for all the world like yet another come-on for yet
another new credit card or metal/color upgrade, which actually contain
changes to your contractual relationship. If you don't keep a balance,
and subsequently don't have to pay a monthly CC bill, or you pay your
balance online just file your paper bill or have stopped receiving it,
you are likely to put that important infor right into the shredder.
You all DO have shredders, right? [Cats with unclipped claws don't
count.]
As for credit dossiers, here in the States we have a Fair Credit
Reporting Act, which ostensibly limits access to that info to those
with a legitimate reason for access to it - e.g. someone to whom you
are applying for credit. Firms prospecting for business are not
supposed to be able to get access without your permission, though it
would not surprise me much if that rule was frequently broken.
Kevin
David Harmon
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote,
>> They don't need cards, or to know anyone's name, address, or phone
>> number to do that. All they need to look at is their own cash
>> register tapes.
>
>That doesn't work if you bought X today and Y yesterday.
If people buy X and Y at different times, there's no point in
rearranging where they are shelved.
Dorothy J Heydt
Marilee J. Layman <mar...@mjlayman.com> wrote:
>I get free coupons at home from the grocery for things that I buy a
>lot.
I get free coupons at the grocery occasionally, but never for
anything I want. Their "if you like X you'll like Y" algorithms
are even worse than Amazon's; they assume e.g. that if you bought
cat food you will welcome a discount coupon for dog food.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
David Harmon
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>I have no
>objection to "pull" ads, ones that are available when I go looking for
>them. For instance ones on the Web, in newspapers, in magazines, in
>the Yellow Pages,
By coincidence I got a Yellow Pages dropped on my doorstep today.
It's two inches thick and weighs 3.4 lbs. It's not published by the
phone company, but by an independent advertising company, in addition to
the _larger_ book from the phone company. It's in the can now, and
eventually I'll carry the can down two flights of stairs and dump it in
the dumpster.