WJ Book

"Lee Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I don't know about you, but where I come from we don't get upset when the
> price of something we use and enjoy goes down. We take advantage of it.

My concern is about mulitiple pricing schemes. Did it go down for everyone?
Is this a tactic for renewal where the price drops as it gets closer to the
last issue? Do you have a problem with finding that out?


> Here's the good news: the same situation applies to magazines. When
> Woodcraft Magazine was first announced, a lot of people around here balked
> at the 6 issues for $39.95 subscription price. Nevertheless, some people
> bit the bullet and subscribed anyway. But the publishers obviously got
> wind
> of the dissatisfaction with what was perceived as a high price and did
> what
> any smart business people would do: they made an adjustment in response
> to
> the marketplace. Now you can subscribe to Woodcraft and get 7 issues
> for
> $19.97, a price most people find more agreeable.

Here is the bad news. I'm a Woodcraft customer. I get their weekly
newsletter and in one issue they announced the magazine and the opportunity
to subscribe. I clicked the link and it took me to the page whee I could
sign up for $39.95. I thought it was high and frankly, I expected that
loyal customers would have gotten a special deal. We did not.

What is so bad about that? I did not sign up at $19.95 either. One less
subscriber to help with their advertising rates. AJ did say t hat Woodcrat
Magazine is a separate entity from the Woodcraft stores. That is true, but
we tend to make those associations that they are somehow connected. It
makes me feel that Woodcraft is a rung or two lower on the ladder than they
could have been. Meantime, my local franchise is still a good store and I'll
probably continue to buy from them.
Ed

"A.J. Hamler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well, actually, you're wrong on two counts.
>
> First not paying doctors bills that are truly owed isn't even close to
> paying for a book for which you do not owe. People who go to the
> doctor are engaging a service for which they know a payment is
> expected. They use the services, then willingly stiff the doctor.
> These books are sent as a marketing enticement to encourage the
> recipient to engage the service. Those who choose not to engage the
> service (that is, receive more books) do not owe anything. That is why
> the follow-up letters from WWJ are not invoices, not bills, and not
> dunning letters. They fact that you interpret them to be so, does not
> make them so. They are what they are: marketing offers.
>
> Second, sending these books is a marketing campaign that has already
> figured the cost of non-returns into the campaign itself. Books that
> are not returned do not raise the price of the books that are later
> sold. It's just the opposite -- books that are later sold eliminate
> the (negligible) cost of the non-returns. These types of campaigns
> make far more money than they lose. In other words, the fact that they
> do MAKE money means that they -- the marketers of such items -- LOSE
> nothing, and therefore do not have to pass on the costs of those loses
> to others.
>
> A.J.


Dog gone it A.J. - that's too damn lucid. More fun to pull chains.

V

"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:260520052225411648%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
> Waste is factored into the price of EVERYTHING that EVERYBODY f'ing
> markets.

I see your point, I think you are missing my point. There are hundreds of
cost factors that go in to determine the price of something you will buy.
THIS METHOD OF MARKETING however points out to the consumer one of those
"wasteful" cost factors and throws it in the consumers face. When the
buying public sees such an obvious fixable waste on an item that he may
consider buying he should be insulted to think that this type marketing has
picked him to be the dummy thinking that he will not not realise that he is
the one paying for those that do not pay.

I'll refrain from offering to sell you a clue.

Once again, this topic comes up. I thought we laid this to rest a
couple of weeks ago when it was my magazine under attack. At the time,
I explained as carefully as I could that *NO OBLIGATION* is the name of
the game with these kinds of offers. There is no reason under the sun
for anyone who gets an offer of this type to get all upset and feel
guilty. If you like the offer and want more, sign up. If you don't,
send it back. If you don't like the offer, and don't want to send it
back, then don't. Just keep it as a gift. Give it to someone else as a
gift. Toss it out. Whatever.

A couple of weeks back when it was Woodcraft Magazine under attack, I
not only attempted to explain all of this, but also stood up for Rob
and WWJ's book promotions because the situations were so similar. (I
seem to recall that I was criticized for that by a couple of posters.)
But it's the same thing. There's nothing sleazy here, nothing
underhanded. Rob's a great guy and edits a fine publication. He has
better things to do than scam woodworkers. If you get a promotional
offer from his publication, or mine, or anyone else's (I got a free
cookbook last week from BH&G, with the exact same kind of offer),
there's nothing to get upset or guilty about. It's just plain old
simple marketing of an offer that we publishing folks hope you'll like.
If you like it, buy it. If you don't, ignore it. You won't hurt our
feelings, and we won't come yell at you.

As Rob says, "Read the enclosed letter." Everything you need to know
is in there.

A.J.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "A.J. Hamler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > A couple of weeks back when it was Woodcraft Magazine under attack, I
> > not only attempted to explain all of this, but also stood up for Rob
> > and WWJ's book promotions because the situations were so similar. (I
> > seem to recall that I was criticized for that by a couple of posters.)
> > But it's the same thing. There's nothing sleazy here, nothing
> > underhanded. Rob's a great guy and edits a fine publication. He has
> > better things to do than scam woodworkers.
>
>
> Hi, AJ
>
> Yes, it's me again! Please see my reply to Rob. Stand up guy that he is,
> I'm sure he will answer my question about variable subscription rates.
> Maybe it is just me, but I'm getting this distrust of the magazine
> publishing industry. Perhaps there is nothing sleazy and underhanded about
> asking for more money in April than in May for the same product. Pissed me
> off though. You really should stop and find out the facts before defending
> someone that has questionable billing policies. Do all you guys in the
> business do that? How about an insider tip as to the best time to renew
> subscriptions to get the best deal? Most all of us on this newsgroup
> subscribe to a couple of magazines and can use your insight to wind around
> the path of multi billings to the best value. Does Woodcraft Magazine to
> the same?

Your questions are better addressed to those who control those aspect
of the publications, and that person is NOT the editor. Check under
such titles as Publisher, Circulation Director and so on. The editor
works with magazine content and layout. You really should stop and find
out the facts before you criticize those who do not deal with the
subject you're objecting to.

Leon wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Your questions are better addressed to those who control those aspect
> > of the publications, and that person is NOT the editor. Check under
> > such titles as Publisher, Circulation Director and so on. The editor
> > works with magazine content and layout. You really should stop and find
> > out the facts before you criticize those who do not deal with the
> > subject you're objecting to.
> >
>
> Good point BUT why did not the Circulation Director make his comments here
> about the shipping of this no obligation book instead of the Publisher? ;~)

Why did your grandmother have children? I don't know the answer to
that, either.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> I have tha facts. The fact were stated plainly. I have the invoice in front
> of me. If Rob is not the person to ask, if AJ is not to back him up, they
> should not make statements about their publications in a public form. I did
> just that. You decided to answer me. That is your choice, that is the
> chance I took. Since Woodcraft is not involved in the practice here, AJ
> should either sit back and be quiet or be willing to answer for his comments
> also. Just as you should. You have been involved in the publishing industry
> and seem to want to be involved in this discussion. What do you think of the
> practice of offering the same renewal at differing prices? Sleazy? Good
> business? I'm sure it is perfectly legal, but that does not mean it is
> received well in the eyes of the consumer.
>
> I saw the mail last night and yes, it did tick me off to see that I could
> have saved five bucks by waiting. I was really not sure if it was worth
> bothering with, writing a letter, tell others about it, or just forget about
> it. Wow, to my surprise there is a full blown bona fide representative from
> Woodworker's Journal making public commentary. Why not ask the
> professional? The President of the United States takes all sorts of
> questions. Why would these guys want to shy away when they have the stage,
> front and center, to explain their position. That is what honest journalism
> is about, open information, not a bunch of industry insiders patting each
> other's backs. What do you, as a journalist, think?

First, I'd be glad that prices have gone down on something these days.
To my certain knowledge, lowering prices has been a time-tested way of
increasing sales. It bugs you? Life's like that.

Second, you didn't really ask questions. You sniped.

George Bush takes all sorts of questions? Pardon me while I wait for my
the laugh pains in my sides to subside.

Journalism is not about answering questions on an internet forum. I
read one guy supporting another who felt the first person was unfairly
castigated. You read a conspiracy, or something, of industry insiders
patting each other on the back.

We disagree.

Oh, if I were you, I'd toss the invoices.

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <Q9nle.641$zb.194@trndny02>, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I am curious to know if this is a standard industry practice or something
> >that recently happened to reduce prices. Why do you feel I'm wrong in
> >wanting to know that? Airlines sell tickets to the same destination on the
> >same plane at different rates at different times. I just want to know if
> >magazines do that.
>
> I'm *sure* it's standard industry practice. ISTM that *most* magazines do
> that: send out the initial renewal invoice six to nine months before your
> subscription expires and hope you renew; then, if you don't, as your
> subscription expiry date approaches, send out further invoices at
> progressively lower prices until you finally take the hook.
>
It has gone on for decades. Something over 35 years ago, we had a
subscription to Life, at about a nickel a copy. We didn't have time to
read it, so let it lapse (this was about '67 or '68). It kept coming
until we left that address in late '72. But the nickel a copy, IIRC,
was down from something like 15-20 cents for a regular subscription,
which was a dime or more under newsstand rates.

Of course, if you want hear about a real scam artist, talk to A.J.
about the outfit that is still trying to sell Woodshop News subs for
about $72. Nothing to do with WSN, but they do suck some people in
(they also sell subs to Newsweek and similar mags at exorbitant rates).

Well, actually, you're wrong on two counts.

First not paying doctors bills that are truly owed isn't even close to
paying for a book for which you do not owe. People who go to the
doctor are engaging a service for which they know a payment is
expected. They use the services, then willingly stiff the doctor.
These books are sent as a marketing enticement to encourage the
recipient to engage the service. Those who choose not to engage the
service (that is, receive more books) do not owe anything. That is why
the follow-up letters from WWJ are not invoices, not bills, and not
dunning letters. They fact that you interpret them to be so, does not
make them so. They are what they are: marketing offers.

Second, sending these books is a marketing campaign that has already
figured the cost of non-returns into the campaign itself. Books that
are not returned do not raise the price of the books that are later
sold. It's just the opposite -- books that are later sold eliminate
the (negligible) cost of the non-returns. These types of campaigns
make far more money than they lose. In other words, the fact that they
do MAKE money means that they -- the marketers of such items -- LOSE
nothing, and therefore do not have to pass on the costs of those loses
to others.

A.J.

And don't forget to use food-safe finish.

A.J.

>>If any of the numerous invoices I've received had an option that said: "I'm not returning this unsolicited book, not paying for it and want you to stop sending me these invoices"; I'd have checked it and sent the invoice back.<<

They did not include that option because they were not invoices.

A.J.

"Gary" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> This is my gripe too. If any of the numerous invoices I've received
> had an option that said: "I'm not returning this unsolicited book,
> not paying for it and want you to stop sending me these invoices";
> I'd have checked it and sent the invoice back.
>


You could do what I do - mail it back. No check, no check mark, certainly
no book, just an envelope full of their crap and whatever other daily junk
mail I can fit in it. In fact, one of my favorite hobbies is mailing junk
mail back to the sender in their prepaid envelopes. It doesn't help reduce
the junkmail, the senders are too stupid to get the hint, but it does give
me a satisfied feeling. For a second or two.

--
Bill Pounds
http://www.billpounds.com/woodshop

"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:260520051847400346%

> There is no waste involved in this example, except perhaps the
> annnoying invoices being sent.

Umm, product being given away has a cost. Period.

> This is a planned campaign whose cost has already been factored into
> budgets.

Yes it is, the wast is factored in to the price of everything that they
market. Those that pay for the product pay for the factored in waste.

[email protected] (Rob Johnstone) wrote:

>The Woodworker's Journal book
>
>It is disturbing for me to read the thread about the Woodworker's
>Journal book. I can assure you that there was no intention of causing
>aggravation and for that I apologize.

Nice reply, I don't have first-hand knowledge of this situation, but
have some comments based on the notes here.

First of all, I suspect that you are legally in the clear, and I
suspect that what is being characterized here as followup bills for
the book are probably technically repeat invitations to pay for that
book and join the club. If not, maybe you need to think about getting
a new lawyer. If so, maybe you need to think about getting a new ad
copy writer.

Seriously, no matter if your communications are okay from a legal
perspective, they clearly are ticking off some folks here. That should
raise a red flag for you that some things are being [mis]interpreted
in ways you did not intend. Surely you don't want lots of your
subscribers getting upset at you. While it is a small number
complaining here, you probably also have only a small number of
subscribers here, and I don't know what percentage it might be of that
very small sample of your readership.

So, explaining here is good, but look inward, too.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

In article <[email protected]>, Rob
Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:

> That's all clearly stated in the
> letter that comes with the book.

The anger, as I read the posts, sprang from the fact that WJ sent
invoices for the "no obligation" book after it was sent.

If you're sending people a free gift, great. But don't bill them for it
later. Miss Manners will back me up.

djb

--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>

In article <[email protected]>, Leon
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I did not mean to take my comparison quite so literally. I was only
> demonstrating that waste costs all consumers directly or indirectly.

There is no waste involved in this example, except perhaps the
annnoying invoices being sent.

This is a planned campaign whose cost has already been factored into
budgets.

--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>

In article <[email protected]>, Mike Marlow
<[email protected]> wrote:

> It doesn't matter Leon - the books were bought and paid for before they were
> shipped out. It was a marketing gamble. Returning the book will do nothing
> to impact the cost of purchasing them and shipping them out.

What? You mean if a company makes more profit because of lower cost
they don't lower their prices to offset it?

Shocking!

--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>

In article <[email protected]>, Duane Bozarth
<[email protected]> wrote:

> A lotta' those useless things called trees might not have agreed... :)

It's okay to use paper... It grows on trees.

Example. The mill we buy our newsprint from has a fixed harvest area in
northern Alberta. They harvest and pulp exactly zero trees per year.
Instead, they lease rights to sawmills and buy the chips, which they
then pulp and turn into what's recognized as the highest quality
newsprint in North America.

Now, if cutting trees for lumber and using the chips for pulp offends
thee, you're definitely in the wrong newsgroup.

--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>

In article <[email protected]>, Leon
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Yes it is, the wast is factored in to the price of everything that they
> market. Those that pay for the product pay for the factored in waste.

Waste is factored into the price of EVERYTHING that EVERYBODY f'ing
markets. Do you buy tools? Waste is factored into the f'ing cost. Do
you buy wood? Waste is factored into the f'ing cost. Do you buy food?
Waste is factored into the f'ing cost. Do you buy clothes? Waste is
factored into the f'ing cost. Do you buy vehicles? Waste is factored
into the f'ing cost. Do you buy paint? Waste is factored into the f'ing
cost. Do you buy stain? Waste is factored into the f'ing cost. Do you
buy sandpaper? Waste is factored into the f'ing cost. Do you buy
toothpaste? Waste is factored into the f'ing cost. Do you buy anything
at all? Waste is factored into the f'ing cost!

Do you have a PayPal account? I'll send you a buck if you'll use it to
buy a clue about this subject.

--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>

"Vic Baron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>
> Ah - but if I never buy another book from them it only costs those who
> DO!!
> Ergo, it's still f**king free to me!

Do you pay doctor bills? There are many people that do not pay their bills
because they know the clinic will eventually absorb the charges and raise
their rates, insurance premiums go up and so on. The patients paying the
bills basically pay for those that don't. Same thing here except the
publisher is encouraging this practice by the attached letter to not pay or
return if you don't want to. Those that do buy the book from that
publisher partially pay for the book that they encouraged you to keep.

Leon wrote:
...
> No obligation on the cover of the box does not assure me that I am not going
> to have to do something to keep from being obligated. I personally would
> have rather not had to even open the box to find out any details at all
> before I threw the contents away.

You don't <ever> have to...as the info posted from the USPS stated,
<any> unsolicited material is not encumbent upon the recipient in any
regard by law. You can trash it or simply write "Refused" or other
indication on it and leave it for the mailman. If somebody else takes
it instead, no problem.

Robatoy wrote:
>
....
>
> PS..when a telemarketer calls, I always ask for his/her home-phone
> number so I can call them back....or I answer in a language I make up as
> I go along.

I just lay the phone down and let 'em talk until they finally figure out
there's no response...at least they're bothering one other poor soul for
just a few less minutes... :)

Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Leon
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I did not mean to take my comparison quite so literally. I was only
> > demonstrating that waste costs all consumers directly or indirectly.
>
> There is no waste involved in this example, except perhaps the
> annnoying invoices being sent.
...

A lotta' those useless things called trees might not have agreed... :)

Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Duane Bozarth
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > A lotta' those useless things called trees might not have agreed... :)
>
> It's okay to use paper... It grows on trees.
>
...
>
> Now, if cutting trees for lumber and using the chips for pulp offends
> thee, you're definitely in the wrong newsgroup.

No, what bugs me is the end use of it as simply adding (for the most
part) to the landfill or burn pile as most mass-mailings are.

Rob and A.J.,

While I applaud you for answering directly to the newsgroup, do realize that
you did nothing wrong and the few who "thought" (and I mean that very
loosely) to express themselves this way probably have nothing better to do.

I imagine the silent majority is not upset.

Thank you,
Mike


"Rob Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Woodworker's Journal book
>
> It is disturbing for me to read the thread about the Woodworker's
> Journal book. I can assure you that there was no intention of causing
> aggravation and for that I apologize...

"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
> You don't <ever> have to...as the info posted from the USPS stated,
> <any> unsolicited material is not encumbent upon the recipient in any
> regard by law. You can trash it or simply write "Refused" or other
> indication on it and leave it for the mailman. If somebody else takes
> it instead, no problem.

Yes this is true but I get a LOT of this kind of stuff and much of it I do
order. I am therefore obligated to pay for it. If I have a bunch of bogus
products being sent to me such as this book and I have to cull through which
really needs to be paid and which does not this becomes a nuisance to me.
This is an old vendor trick played on many businesses. Send a company your
product although they did not order it and maybe they will pay for it.
While in the automotive business I often had products sent to me that I did
not order. No packing slip but the main office would receive the bill.
Fortunately our office was on the ball and matched a packing slip to EVERY
bill. Believe it or not many businesses simply pay the bill. It is
marketing at its sleaziest IMHO.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Vic Baron" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:lDmle.21435
> > <snip>
> >
> > Well. my two cents also -
> >
>
> > Keep sending out the free books boys - love freebies!!!!
>
>
> Well, they have apparently sold you that the book is free if you do not
want
> to pay for it but NOTHING in life is free.
> SOME ONE pays for those books that are not returned and not paid for. The
> next book you buy will help pay for that book that you did not return and
> did not pay for.
>
>

It doesn't matter Leon - the books were bought and paid for before they were
shipped out. It was a marketing gamble. Returning the book will do nothing
to impact the cost of purchasing them and shipping them out.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Vic Baron" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:lDmle.21435
> <snip>
>
> Well. my two cents also -
>

> Keep sending out the free books boys - love freebies!!!!


Well, they have apparently sold you that the book is free if you do not want
to pay for it but NOTHING in life is free.
SOME ONE pays for those books that are not returned and not paid for. The
next book you buy will help pay for that book that you did not return and
did not pay for.

"Lee Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote:

> <<Dog gone it A.J. - that's too damn lucid. More fun to pull chains.>>
>
> "Pull the chain." That was the phrase my dad used to use to mean
> "flush the toilet."

I actually remember those toilets! Tank was fixed High on the wall. I had
to stand on the rim to 'pull the chain' and always feared slipping off into
the bowl.

>
> Lee
>
>

"Lee Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <<Dog gone it A.J. - that's too damn lucid. More fun to pull chains.>>
>
> "Pull the chain." That was the phrase my dad used to use to mean "flush
the
> toilet."
>
> Lee
>
>
> --
> To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"
>
>

I'd say "Whatever floats - bit that brings unpleasant visuals to mind :)

"Vic Baron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "A.J. Hamler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Well, actually, you're wrong on two counts.


I did not mean to take my comparison quite so literally. I was only
demonstrating that waste costs all consumers directly or indirectly.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Vic Baron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >
> > Ah - but if I never buy another book from them it only costs those who
> > DO!!
> > Ergo, it's still f**king free to me!
>
> Do you pay doctor bills? There are many people that do not pay their
bills
> because they know the clinic will eventually absorb the charges and raise
> their rates, insurance premiums go up and so on. The patients paying the
> bills basically pay for those that don't. Same thing here except the
> publisher is encouraging this practice by the attached letter to not pay
or
> return if you don't want to. Those that do buy the book from that
> publisher partially pay for the book that they encouraged you to keep.
>
>

Gee, Leon - you're breaking my heart. That's tough for them, I'll still keep
the book and if they send me another one, I'll keep that too.

As far as them that has paying for them that hasn't( or won't) - welcome to
reality. It's a tough life but someone's gotta live it.

"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>
> I'd be interested in seeing a scan of the alleged 'Invoice' or the
> alleged 'Not An Invoice'. Any takers?

Agree. I sent mine back. I don't recall the wording, but it sure had the
'look and feel" of a bill. Someone has to have one.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Rob Johnstone) wrote:
[snip]
>The first book in a series like this always contains a "no strings
>attached" offer. If you like it, and would like to see more, you can
>buy it. If you don't like it, there are two choices. You can return
>it, at our expense (return label is included), or simply consider it a
>free gift and do with it as you will.

Oddly enough, however, it seems that a number of people who received this free
gift have later *also* received multiple invoices billing them for it.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Vic Baron" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:lDmle.21435
> > <snip>
> >
> > Well. my two cents also -
> >
>
> > Keep sending out the free books boys - love freebies!!!!
>
>
> Well, they have apparently sold you that the book is free if you do not
want
> to pay for it but NOTHING in life is free.
> SOME ONE pays for those books that are not returned and not paid for. The
> next book you buy will help pay for that book that you did not return and
> did not pay for.
>

Ah - but if I never buy another book from them it only costs those who DO!!
Ergo, it's still f**king free to me!

"John Flatley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ed,
>
> When you renewed your subscription for $24.95 you got a
> deal/service/bargain
> that you wanted. I assume you thought that was a fair price, that's why
> you
> renewed.


Since I replied to this, I received an email from WJ. With their
explanation, I seems I'm getting a good deal. I'm at work and my papers are
at home, but I have no reason to doubt what they told me.

I asked, they answered. That is what my message was about. Rob was willing
to come forward yesterday, one of his associates contacted me today. I
appreciate that and it helps keep a good relationship between us.
Ed

Thanks for helping me make my point. What little free time I have to read this group has become more of a chore than an
enjoyment because of all the off-topic babble and sniping I have to wade through. Here are a couple of stand-up guys
apologizing for not dumbing down their mailing enough to suit the masses, and all they get is more abuse!
Sorry I didn't answer your post immediately...I was making sawdust.


>
> ...and what does any of THIS have to do with woodworking, Jonah?
> Did the plight of the publishing industry catch your interest?
> Did you have too much time on your hands? Were you sitting at your
> computer when you had all that time on your hands?
> You weren't throwing stones at all of us, were you, Jonah?
>
> Jonah?
>
> *tap, tap, tap*
>
> "Is this thing on???"

You or the circulation department/consultant are relying on the following
1. I get this material that I never requested
2. I maybe like it but would never have ordered/need it
3. Jeesh I hate to keep something I sorta like with out paying for it, even
if they say keep it
4 I don't have time to go to the PO to ship it back, so I'll keep it
5. I still kinda feel guilty ....hmm now I'm pissed

Don't send something of measurable value without permission of the receiver

Only my opinion
Joey

"Rob Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Woodworker's Journal book
>
> It is disturbing for me to read the thread about the Woodworker's
> Journal book. I can assure you that there was no intention of causing
> aggravation and for that I apologize.
>
> Most of the people getting the book offer in the mail are on (or have
> been on) our subscriber list. The book project was created for a
> couple of reasons. First off, we have 29 years of woodworking content,
> the majority of which is now out of print. We get hundreds of queries
> asking for these plans every year. Our only recourse at this time is
> to photocopy the plans, which is not a great solution for our
> customers or for us. After thinking about it for a while, we thought a
> good way to put those projects back in print would be to put them into
> a book series. The problem was that, while we know how to make and
> sell magazines . we don't know much about selling books. (And as
> pedestrian as it sounds, we are a "for profit" organization. That is
> the second reason.) So we hired a marketing company to help us do
> that. Their suggestion was a continuity series sent through the mail.
> We tested the concept (10,000 books on the first mailing), and got a
> favorable response.
> The first book in a series like this always contains a "no strings
> attached" offer. If you like it, and would like to see more, you can
> buy it. If you don't like it, there are two choices. You can return
> it, at our expense (return label is included), or simply consider it a
> free gift and do with it as you will. That's all clearly stated in the
> letter that comes with the book. As a side point, we have recently
> added a good-sized "bubble" on the outside of the book packaging
> that says "No obligation opportunity. Please read enclosed letter"
> just to be very clear. Again, I apologize for the aggravation.
>
> Rob Johnstone,
> Editor, Woodworker's Journal

"John Flatley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ed,
>
> When you renewed your subscription for $24.95 you got a
> deal/service/bargain
> that you wanted. I assume you thought that was a fair price, that's why
> you
> renewed. At a later point a the magazine changed the offer. Why they
> lowered the price, doesn't really doesn't matter, they did. That's a
> business decision they made. I don't understand why that should bother
> you.
> You renewed your subscription. At a price you wanted to pay. If you feel
> taken, ask for the reduced price or get a refund. Just remember, you got
> what you wanted at a price you wanted to pay.
>
> The Woulda, Coulda and Shoulda game is only to be played to learn and
> grow.
> Learn something and move on.

I did learn something. Don't trust the first offer from a publisher. As I
stated, I did not intend to bother with anything, but the opportunity to
learn about it came up. So, why not learn? Is knowing the standard
practice a bad thing? Is knowing how to save money for the same
product/service a bad thing? Is sharing that information in a newsgroup a
bad thing?

I am curious to know if this is a standard industry practice or something
that recently happened to reduce prices. Why do you feel I'm wrong in
wanting to know that? Airlines sell tickets to the same destination on the
same plane at different rates at different times. I just want to know if
magazines do that.

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


> Why did your grandmother have children? I don't know the answer to
> that, either.

LOL.. Just yankin you chain Charlie...

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> First, I'd be glad that prices have gone down on something these days.
> To my certain knowledge, lowering prices has been a time-tested way of
> increasing sales. It bugs you? Life's like that.

Well, Charlie, you told me to get facts. Can I assume that you know ofr a
fact that prices did go down for everyone all the time? That is my
question. Is there stages of pricing depending on when and how you renew?
When is the best time to renew? Are you speaking for WJ or for yourself
with your statement above?

>
> Second, you didn't really ask questions. You sniped.

One man's question is another man's snipe.


>
> Journalism is not about answering questions on an internet forum. I
> read one guy supporting another who felt the first person was unfairly
> castigated. You read a conspiracy, or something, of industry insiders
> patting each other on the back.
>
> We disagree.
>
> Oh, if I were you, I'd toss the invoices.

That was my first inclination. On later thought (Rob opened the door) I
decided that bringing this practice to the attention of others is important.
I can possibly save a few bucks for others that choose to buy the magazine.
I probably won't take the time to cancel, but I will definitely has second
thought at renewal time next year. This situation also determines what I do
with other discretionary spending. The Rockler family is involved with this
publication. Once the association is made, you have to wonder about other
things.

"Rob Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Snip


> The first book in a series like this always contains a "no strings
> attached" offer. If you like it, and would like to see more, you can
> buy it. If you don't like it, there are two choices. You can return
> it, at our expense (return label is included), or simply consider it a
> free gift and do with it as you will. That's all clearly stated in the
> letter that comes with the book. As a side point, we have recently
> added a good-sized "bubble" on the outside of the book packaging
> that says "No obligation opportunity. Please read enclosed letter"
> just to be very clear. Again, I apologize for the aggravation.


Well I give you credit for coming and explaining HOWEVER, The cover of the
container should have said, FREE GIFT ENCLOSED. Then the letter inside
could have said pay if you like, return if you like, bla, bla, bla.
Returning it would have required me to drive to the post office as my mail
box will not accommodate the size of the package.

No obligation on the cover of the box does not assure me that I am not going
to have to do something to keep from being obligated. I personally would
have rather not had to even open the box to find out any details at all
before I threw the contents away.

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> It doesn't matter Leon - the books were bought and paid for before they
> were
> shipped out.

EXACTLY!

It was a marketing gamble.

EXACTLY!

Returning the book will do nothing to impact the cost of purchasing them
and shipping them out.

No, it will not. No bearing on the cost at all but the profit on the
campaign goes down as they realise it will. Sooo when deciding what price
to charge for the book they simply offer the book at a higher price across
the board to start with to make up for the ones that they speculate will not
be paid for. Those that do buy the book are also paying for the books that
are not paid for.

But you need to remember that the cost of the book is a fixed cost. The
price to you and I if we decide to buy the book is jacked up to compensate
for that percentave that they figured will not be paid for when distributed
in this maner.

The price of the book is marked up to hopefully produce a given percentage
of profit after factoring all normal costs + zero return for units uned in a
campaign such as this. Take this type campaign out of the mix and the
profit goes up per unit and maybe the price of the book goes for $8 instead
of $9.

In article <Q9nle.641$zb.194@trndny02>, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I am curious to know if this is a standard industry practice or something
>that recently happened to reduce prices. Why do you feel I'm wrong in
>wanting to know that? Airlines sell tickets to the same destination on the
>same plane at different rates at different times. I just want to know if
>magazines do that.

I'm *sure* it's standard industry practice. ISTM that *most* magazines do
that: send out the initial renewal invoice six to nine months before your
subscription expires and hope you renew; then, if you don't, as your
subscription expiry date approaches, send out further invoices at
progressively lower prices until you finally take the hook.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

alexy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

<snip>
> But it is still free to those who got it and didn't pay.

There are social costs. Besides disposal, the dealing with the invoices,
and the wrangling over the real motivations behind the marketers, this
whole episode disrupts the calm discourse and friendly conversation which
normally occurs here on the wReck. ;-)

I mean, for example, this whole discussion distracts me from learning the
intricate details of wiring my shop for 220V.

Patriarch

<<I've been involved professionally in this type of "negative solicitation"
practice and have found that it may make sense economically to do it this
way, but it has never made sense from a customer relations standpoint. You
always end up making people angry at you over the littlest things. Good will
is hard to come by in a business and a lot easier to lose over these kind of
practice.>>

I'm not defending the practice of sending unsolicited merchandise and then
invoicing for it. However, this is not the only action that can cause
people to be come "angry over the littlest things." There are some people
are going to get angry no matter what you do. (It is conceivable that
somewhere in this world you could even find somebody who would complain
about the customer service from Lee Valley. <g>) There's just no pleasing
those folks so it's best not to become overly concerned about them.

Lee


--
To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"

Pounds on Wood wrote:
> "Gary" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>This is my gripe too. If any of the numerous invoices I've received
>>had an option that said: "I'm not returning this unsolicited book,
>>not paying for it and want you to stop sending me these invoices";
>>I'd have checked it and sent the invoice back.
>>
>
>
>
> You could do what I do - mail it back. No check, no check mark, certainly
> no book, just an envelope full of their crap and whatever other daily junk
> mail I can fit in it. In fact, one of my favorite hobbies is mailing junk
> mail back to the sender in their prepaid envelopes. It doesn't help reduce
> the junkmail, the senders are too stupid to get the hint, but it does give
> me a satisfied feeling. For a second or two.
>
> --
> Bill Pounds
> http://www.billpounds.com/woodshop
>
>


It didn't come with a prepaid envelope, and I wasn't going to waste my
$0.37.

Glen

"A.J. Hamler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> A couple of weeks back when it was Woodcraft Magazine under attack, I
> not only attempted to explain all of this, but also stood up for Rob
> and WWJ's book promotions because the situations were so similar. (I
> seem to recall that I was criticized for that by a couple of posters.)
> But it's the same thing. There's nothing sleazy here, nothing
> underhanded. Rob's a great guy and edits a fine publication. He has
> better things to do than scam woodworkers.


Hi, AJ

Yes, it's me again! Please see my reply to Rob. Stand up guy that he is,
I'm sure he will answer my question about variable subscription rates.
Maybe it is just me, but I'm getting this distrust of the magazine
publishing industry. Perhaps there is nothing sleazy and underhanded about
asking for more money in April than in May for the same product. Pissed me
off though. You really should stop and find out the facts before defending
someone that has questionable billing policies. Do all you guys in the
business do that? How about an insider tip as to the best time to renew
subscriptions to get the best deal? Most all of us on this newsgroup
subscribe to a couple of magazines and can use your insight to wind around
the path of multi billings to the best value. Does Woodcraft Magazine to
the same?

Your friend always,
Ed

"Patriarch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> alexy <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> <snip>
> > But it is still free to those who got it and didn't pay.
>
> There are social costs. Besides disposal, the dealing with the invoices,
> and the wrangling over the real motivations behind the marketers, this
> whole episode disrupts the calm discourse and friendly conversation which
> normally occurs here on the wReck. ;-)
>
> I mean, for example, this whole discussion distracts me from learning the
> intricate details of wiring my shop for 220V.
>

Fear not, help has arrived. Wire away with reckless abandon but just
remember to wrap the inside and the outside of your dust collector's PVC
pipes with bare wire to avoid static buildup and the inevitable explosion
and fire.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"John Flatley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Consider a suggestion. Maybe the next time you suspect a problem, you are
> thinking of challenging a vendor or a practice and you want more
information
> before taking the problem to the vendor; ask questions of the group. We
are
> never short of answers. (opinions) Asking questions might keep productive
> posts from turning into a "bash a vendor" bitch forum. (might!)
>

Ohhhhh John... I have to differ. Taking this approach will only result in
the standard newsgroup feeding frenzy where folks jump in and take their
turn at bash the vendor, or bash vendors at large. The best course of
action is to always take the problem to the respective party before taking
it to a public forum. Public forums are infinately less capable of
providing accurate answers than the agency involved. What public forums
excel at though is turning the smallest thing into some over grown, bloated
issue. Those opinions you reference are often the most dangerous form of
the written word.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

I stand firmly behind both you and Rob on this issue, and say 'Bravo!' to your willingness to address the naysayers and
critics in this public forum. This newsgroup is becoming less and less about woodworking and more about a few people
with too much time on their hands sitting at their computers throwing stones at whatever topic-de-jour catches their
interest.
Both of you publish fine magazines that provide a valuable resource to the woodworking community. Anyone who believes
that you would stoop to underhanded marketing techniques at the risk of your good names has been brainwashed by the spam
police into mistrusting everyone and everything.
Thank you and keep up the good work.

A.J. Hamler wrote:
> Once again, this topic comes up. I thought we laid this to rest a
> couple of weeks ago when it was my magazine under attack. At the time,
> I explained as carefully as I could that *NO OBLIGATION* is the name of
> the game with these kinds of offers. There is no reason under the sun
> for anyone who gets an offer of this type to get all upset and feel
> guilty. If you like the offer and want more, sign up. If you don't,
> send it back. If you don't like the offer, and don't want to send it
> back, then don't. Just keep it as a gift. Give it to someone else as a
> gift. Toss it out. Whatever.
>
> A couple of weeks back when it was Woodcraft Magazine under attack, I
> not only attempted to explain all of this, but also stood up for Rob
> and WWJ's book promotions because the situations were so similar. (I
> seem to recall that I was criticized for that by a couple of posters.)
> But it's the same thing. There's nothing sleazy here, nothing
> underhanded. Rob's a great guy and edits a fine publication. He has
> better things to do than scam woodworkers. If you get a promotional
> offer from his publication, or mine, or anyone else's (I got a free
> cookbook last week from BH&G, with the exact same kind of offer),
> there's nothing to get upset or guilty about. It's just plain old
> simple marketing of an offer that we publishing folks hope you'll like.
> If you like it, buy it. If you don't, ignore it. You won't hurt our
> feelings, and we won't come yell at you.
>
> As Rob says, "Read the enclosed letter." Everything you need to know
> is in there.
>
> A.J.
>

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
> Your questions are better addressed to those who control those aspect
> of the publications, and that person is NOT the editor.

It was the editor that decided to come to a public forum under the
Woodworker's Journal banner about the books. If he is willing to take
responsibity for that aspect, he should be able to use his influence to get
the answer to other practices by the same publication. If not, he had no
business being here defending WJ in the first place.

> Check under
> such titles as Publisher, Circulation Director and so on. The editor
> works with magazine content and layout. You really should stop and find
> out the facts before you criticize those who do not deal with the
> subject you're objecting to.

I have tha facts. The fact were stated plainly. I have the invoice in front
of me. If Rob is not the person to ask, if AJ is not to back him up, they
should not make statements about their publications in a public form. I did
just that. You decided to answer me. That is your choice, that is the
chance I took. Since Woodcraft is not involved in the practice here, AJ
should either sit back and be quiet or be willing to answer for his comments
also. Just as you should. You have been involved in the publishing industry
and seem to want to be involved in this discussion. What do you think of the
practice of offering the same renewal at differing prices? Sleazy? Good
business? I'm sure it is perfectly legal, but that does not mean it is
received well in the eyes of the consumer.

I saw the mail last night and yes, it did tick me off to see that I could
have saved five bucks by waiting. I was really not sure if it was worth
bothering with, writing a letter, tell others about it, or just forget about
it. Wow, to my surprise there is a full blown bona fide representative from
Woodworker's Journal making public commentary. Why not ask the
professional? The President of the United States takes all sorts of
questions. Why would these guys want to shy away when they have the stage,
front and center, to explain their position. That is what honest journalism
is about, open information, not a bunch of industry insiders patting each
other's backs. What do you, as a journalist, think?
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

Thanks for the book Rob - I will check it out and if I find it worth of the
fee I will gladly send in a check. If I do not find it useful I will send it
back or toss it (depending if I can still find the packaging and return
shipping label). No whining here. Keep up the good work.

-Brian

"Rob Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Woodworker's Journal book
>
> It is disturbing for me to read the thread about the Woodworker's
> Journal book. I can assure you that there was no intention of causing
> aggravation and for that I apologize.
>
> Most of the people getting the book offer in the mail are on (or have
> been on) our subscriber list. The book project was created for a
> couple of reasons. First off, we have 29 years of woodworking content,
> the majority of which is now out of print. We get hundreds of queries
> asking for these plans every year. Our only recourse at this time is
> to photocopy the plans, which is not a great solution for our
> customers or for us. After thinking about it for a while, we thought a
> good way to put those projects back in print would be to put them into
> a book series. The problem was that, while we know how to make and
> sell magazines . we don't know much about selling books. (And as
> pedestrian as it sounds, we are a "for profit" organization. That is
> the second reason.) So we hired a marketing company to help us do
> that. Their suggestion was a continuity series sent through the mail.
> We tested the concept (10,000 books on the first mailing), and got a
> favorable response.
> The first book in a series like this always contains a "no strings
> attached" offer. If you like it, and would like to see more, you can
> buy it. If you don't like it, there are two choices. You can return
> it, at our expense (return label is included), or simply consider it a
> free gift and do with it as you will. That's all clearly stated in the
> letter that comes with the book. As a side point, we have recently
> added a good-sized "bubble" on the outside of the book packaging
> that says "No obligation opportunity. Please read enclosed letter"
> just to be very clear. Again, I apologize for the aggravation.
>
> Rob Johnstone,
> Editor, Woodworker's Journal

"Rob Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Woodworker's Journal book
>
> It is disturbing for me to read the thread about the Woodworker's
> Journal book. I can assure you that there was no intention of causing
> aggravation and for that I apologize.
>
An open letter to Rob Johnstone... or, perhaps, beating a dead horse.

Mr. Johnstone,

I am a subscriber to Woodworkers Journal. It was the first WW magazine that
I subscribed to, I like it and I intend to continue receiving it.

I, too, received the "free" book. I didn't ask for the book, I don't want
to participate in the program and I don't want to go through the process of
sending it back.

I am probably not the oldest reader here, but I am far from the youngest,
therefore I know:

1. The technique used by your company to market this book is common
practice by many.
2. I am under no obligation to reurn the book nor to pay for it.
3. Multiple requests for payment should not be taken personally, they are
just the result of over zealous programing.

The hard part for me is receiving multiple requests for payment. The
rational part of me knows that this is just a computer generated technique
to generate additional revenue, however, on another level, it feels as if
you are attacking my name and reputation. I pay all my bills on time and I
get heartily pissed off when someone (man or machine) claims I don't. If
the book offer was as noble as you described, you would have sent me ONE
bill period. If I didn't respond, you would let go and move on.

I acknowledge that, following a phone call to your offices, the billing has
stopped. (At least I think so.) The bad feeling remains and is shared by
others as evidenced by the shear number of posts on this topic.

I wish you success with your magazine, and your book club too. I sincerely
hope you modify your marketing techniques, however, to preserve to respect
my woodworkers have for your products.

Respectfully,

Bill Leonhardt

In article <[email protected]>,
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote:

[snipperized]

> Your questions are better addressed to those who control those aspect
> of the publications, and that person is NOT the editor. Check under
> such titles as Publisher, Circulation Director and so on. The editor
> works with magazine content and layout. You really should stop and find
> out the facts before you criticize those who do not deal with the
> subject you're objecting to.

Then it should be the Publisher, Circulation Director and so on to have
this little fire-side chat with us here, eh?

The out-sourcing of marketing approaches (Publisher's Clearing House
etc. (You MAY already be a wiener")) brings with it tried and true
methods of shaking the bushes for subscribers at the lowest possible
level...i.e. people who really don't want the magazines.

The 'negative billing' style of promotions are becoming more and more
misleading as the digging for subscribers goes deeper. (Driven by the
lure of higher circulation numbers in order to fetch bigger bucks for
advertising.)
Those schemes most certainly count on the basic instinct for humans to
want to be decent.
A book shows up.
They hold in their hands something that isn't theirs. Do they send it
back and feel bad, or keep it and feel bad?
The only option left is to pay.
It's a dirty ploy to bilk nice people.
NOT cool.

In article <[email protected]>, "joey" <[email protected]>
wrote:


[snipperectomy]


> Don't send something of measurable value without permission of the receiver


Joey, I couldn't agree more.
In a roundabout way, it's an invasion of some sort.
It's right up there with that call from a telemarketer.
That neighbour's dog doing his business on MY lawn.

I got pissed off a couple of days ago when I paid money to go see a
movie (Hitchhikers Guide To the Galaxy..thought it was just GREAT).
Starting time was 7:30.
7:45 they were STILL running commercials for this, that, and the other.
WTF?? That is using time *I* paid for.

PS..when a telemarketer calls, I always ask for his/her home-phone
number so I can call them back....or I answer in a language I make up as
I go along.

In article <[email protected]>, Jonah <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I stand firmly behind both you and Rob on this issue, and say 'Bravo!' to
> your willingness to address the naysayers and
> critics in this public forum. This newsgroup is becoming less and less about
> woodworking and more about a few people
> with too much time on their hands sitting at their computers throwing stones
> at whatever topic-de-jour catches their
> interest.
> Both of you publish fine magazines that provide a valuable resource to the
> woodworking community. Anyone who believes
> that you would stoop to underhanded marketing techniques at the risk of your
> good names has been brainwashed by the spam
> police into mistrusting everyone and everything.
> Thank you and keep up the good work.

...and what does any of THIS have to do with woodworking, Jonah?
Did the plight of the publishing industry catch your interest?
Did you have too much time on your hands? Were you sitting at your
computer when you had all that time on your hands?
You weren't throwing stones at all of us, were you, Jonah?

Jonah?

*tap, tap, tap*

"Is this thing on???"

In article <[email protected]>,
Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:

> REMEMBER: First you pillage, then you burn.

...............DAMN!!!

"A.J. Hamler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Snip of curt paragraph.


> A couple of weeks back when it was Woodcraft Magazine under attack, I
> not only attempted to explain all of this, but also stood up for Rob
> and WWJ's book promotions because the situations were so similar. (I
> seem to recall that I was criticized for that by a couple of posters.)
> But it's the same thing. There's nothing sleazy here, nothing
> underhanded. Rob's a great guy and edits a fine publication. He has
> better things to do than scam woodworkers. If you get a promotional
> offer from his publication, or mine, or anyone else's (I got a free
> cookbook last week from BH&G, with the exact same kind of offer),
> there's nothing to get upset or guilty about. It's just plain old
> simple marketing of an offer that we publishing folks hope you'll like.
> If you like it, buy it. If you don't, ignore it. You won't hurt our
> feelings, and we won't come yell at you.

You may not think it is sleazy but apparently we do and we are the ones that
you are trying to sell to. Don't tell us that we are wrong! You are the
ones sending out the crap that is pissing some of us off. If you cannot
take the criticism I suggest you find another way to hawk your goods.

Ed,

When you renewed your subscription for $24.95 you got a deal/service/bargain
that you wanted. I assume you thought that was a fair price, that's why you
renewed. At a later point a the magazine changed the offer. Why they
lowered the price, doesn't really doesn't matter, they did. That's a
business decision they made. I don't understand why that should bother you.
You renewed your subscription. At a price you wanted to pay. If you feel
taken, ask for the reduced price or get a refund. Just remember, you got
what you wanted at a price you wanted to pay.

The Woulda, Coulda and Shoulda game is only to be played to learn and grow.
Learn something and move on.

Jack
Jacksonville, FL

--
"We are measured by the size and importance of the things that upset us."



"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Rob Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > The Woodworker's Journal book
>
> > The first book in a series like this always contains a "no strings
> > attached" offer. If you like it, and would like to see more, you can
> > buy it. If you don't like it, there are two choices. You can return
> > it, at our expense (return label is included), or simply consider it a
> > free gift and do with it as you will. That's all clearly stated in the
> > letter that comes with the book. As a side point, we have recently
> > added a good-sized "bubble" on the outside of the book packaging
> > that says "No obligation opportunity. Please read enclosed letter"
> > just to be very clear. Again, I apologize for the aggravation.
> >
> > Rob Johnstone,
> > Editor, Woodworker's Journal
>
> Thank you for replying to all the postings here. What you did not address
> though, was the repeated invoicing for the singe book. Frankly, it ticked
> me off when I got the second invoice. No, I did not send the book back,
no,
> I did not join. I do not however, want to be badgered for my decision. I
> know there is no obligation. You took a risk and in this case lot out.
>
> Another matter is the cost of a subscription. I recently (and probably
> foolishly) sent a check to re-up the magazine for $24.95. The check was
sent
> and cashed in April. Now I get another request for me to re-subscribe,
but
> the price has dropped to $19.95 for the same deal. What am I missing
here,
> aside from 5 bucks? Obviously, waiting to the last minute is beneficial
to
> me. Please address this concern also. I feel hoodwinked. The bill says
> this is for "preferred subscribers" Was I not preferred last month?
>
> So far, WJ has not been a happy decision for me. I don't know if I want
to
> remain a subscriber knowing that I'm not always getting a fair deal up
> front. If you want to check this, you have my name and my address in
> Putnam, CT 06260.
>
> I await patiently for your reply.
> Ed Pawlowski
>
>

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Vic Baron" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:lDmle.21435

>> Keep sending out the free books boys - love freebies!!!!
>
>
>Well, they have apparently sold you that the book is free if you do not want
>to pay for it but NOTHING in life is free.
>SOME ONE pays for those books that are not returned and not paid for. The
>next book you buy will help pay for that book that you did not return and
>did not pay for.
>

Are you suggesting he send this one back to help hold down the cost of
books for the rest of the woodworking community as well as his future
books? Surely you jest. I'm as much of a believer in TANSTAAFL as the
next guy, but that doesn't make it an absolute truth. You've got to
stretch pretty far to consider this not free.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Rob, I appreciate that you've hit the group to explain your business
practices. I was a respondent in the last thread on this topic and for the
most part have no problem with what you're doing. I, however, got a bill and
no book. From the repeated threads on this topic, I knew what was going on
so I just round filed the bill and laughed at it. If I get repeated bills,
it will aggravate me though.

I've been involved professionally in this type of "negative solicitation"
practice and have found that it may make sense economically to do it this
way, but it has never made sense from a customer relations standpoint. You
always end up making people angry at you over the littlest things. Good will
is hard to come by in a business and a lot easier to lose over these kind of
practice.

Just my 2 cents

Gary in KC

P.S. My subscription is safe - I've always enjoyed your magazine.


"Rob Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Woodworker's Journal book
>
> It is disturbing for me to read the thread about the Woodworker's
> Journal book. I can assure you that there was no intention of causing
> aggravation and for that I apologize.
>

On Wed, 25 May 2005 20:12:51 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Rob
>Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>The anger, as I read the posts, sprang from the fact that WJ sent
>invoices for the "no obligation" book after it was sent.
>
>If you're sending people a free gift, great. But don't bill them for it
>later. Miss Manners will back me up.

This is my gripe too. If any of the numerous invoices I've received
had an option that said: "I'm not returning this unsolicited book,
not paying for it and want you to stop sending me these invoices";
I'd have checked it and sent the invoice back.

The way I feel now, I'll never resubscribe to your magazine because
your invoices are misleading as they try and give the impression that
our only options are "PAY" or "RETURN IT". I hope your book business
makes up for your lost subscribers.

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Your questions are better addressed to those who control those aspect
> of the publications, and that person is NOT the editor. Check under
> such titles as Publisher, Circulation Director and so on. The editor
> works with magazine content and layout. You really should stop and find
> out the facts before you criticize those who do not deal with the
> subject you're objecting to.
>

Good point BUT why did not the Circulation Director make his comments here
about the shipping of this no obligation book instead of the Publisher? ;~)

Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:

> (Publisher's Clearing House
> etc. (You MAY already be a wiener"))
******

And if you're not, we're going to make you one! :o)

"Rob Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Woodworker's Journal book

> The first book in a series like this always contains a "no strings
> attached" offer. If you like it, and would like to see more, you can
> buy it. If you don't like it, there are two choices. You can return
> it, at our expense (return label is included), or simply consider it a
> free gift and do with it as you will. That's all clearly stated in the
> letter that comes with the book. As a side point, we have recently
> added a good-sized "bubble" on the outside of the book packaging
> that says "No obligation opportunity. Please read enclosed letter"
> just to be very clear. Again, I apologize for the aggravation.
>
> Rob Johnstone,
> Editor, Woodworker's Journal

Thank you for replying to all the postings here. What you did not address
though, was the repeated invoicing for the singe book. Frankly, it ticked
me off when I got the second invoice. No, I did not send the book back, no,
I did not join. I do not however, want to be badgered for my decision. I
know there is no obligation. You took a risk and in this case lot out.

Another matter is the cost of a subscription. I recently (and probably
foolishly) sent a check to re-up the magazine for $24.95. The check was sent
and cashed in April. Now I get another request for me to re-subscribe, but
the price has dropped to $19.95 for the same deal. What am I missing here,
aside from 5 bucks? Obviously, waiting to the last minute is beneficial to
me. Please address this concern also. I feel hoodwinked. The bill says
this is for "preferred subscribers" Was I not preferred last month?

So far, WJ has not been a happy decision for me. I don't know if I want to
remain a subscriber knowing that I'm not always getting a fair deal up
front. If you want to check this, you have my name and my address in
Putnam, CT 06260.

I await patiently for your reply.
Ed Pawlowski

"John Flatley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Consider a suggestion. Maybe the next time you suspect a problem, you are
> thinking of challenging a vendor or a practice and you want more
> information
> before taking the problem to the vendor; ask questions of the group. We
> are
> never short of answers. (opinions) Asking questions might keep productive
> posts from turning into a "bash a vendor" bitch forum. (might!)
>
> I've addressed the post to you but I'm really talking to everyone to
> posted
> to this thread.

Good suggestion. I'm hard on vendors at times, (a lot of times) but I'm also
loyal to good ones and support them. I'm also not afraid to come back and
say they did things right. This type of thing works both ways. I
received a reply from one of the top guys. He took the time to explain
things, showed I'm getting a good deal, and he has my trust. Overall, for
the past few years I've been satisfied with the content of the magazine so
I'd be reluctant to stop it and spite myself. Heck, next time I add to my
web page I may even put a link to them on it.

I've made a couple of projects they had, I've bought some products they've
featured including Rockler parts. Some time back they featured a circle
cutting jig. I built one and have used it for cutting wheels out on the
bandsaw. This is one of the benefits of WJ as well as other magazines.

Stuff happens. What separates the good guys is how they handle the problem
and come to a resolution.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

"alexy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Are you suggesting he send this one back to help hold down the cost of
> books for the rest of the woodworking community as well as his future
> books? Surely you jest. I'm as much of a believer in TANSTAAFL as the
> next guy, but that doesn't make it an absolute truth. You've got to
> stretch pretty far to consider this not free.

Absolutely not. Gong with the theme of many not liking this approach to
marketing, of the thousands of books that get tossed and not paid for, those
that do buy from that company end up paying for that book. It would be far
cheaper on those buying the books if the publisher sent out a letter with a
request to review and buy the book.

"Lee Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Since Woodcraft is not involved in the practice here, AJ
> should either sit back and be quiet or be willing to answer for his
> comments
> also. >>
>

> However, what I cannot sympathize with is for someone to come in here and
> speak his mind about the topic du jour and at the same time tell another
> participant that he should "sit back and be quiet." You have the right to
> grouse to your heart's content about what you perceive as shoddy marketing
> practices. It is, after all, a public forum. So by the same token, I
> think
> telling AJ to pipe down is out of line. (Note: I have no business
> telling
> you not to express your opinion; I'm just letting you know that I
> disagree.)
>

Re=read what I wrote. He is able to make any comment he want, but must be
willing to take the heat for them also. Just like I did, just like you are.
If he wants to be an apologist for the publishing industry, he is a full
blown participant and subject to other's comments about his.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

<<Perhaps there is nothing sleazy and underhanded about
asking for more money in April than in May for the same product. Pissed me
off though. You really should stop and find out the facts before defending
someone that has questionable billing policies. Do all you guys in the
business do that? How about an insider tip as to the best time to renew
subscriptions to get the best deal? Most all of us on this newsgroup
subscribe to a couple of magazines and can use your insight to wind around
the path of multi billings to the best value. >>

I don't know about you, but where I come from we don't get upset when the
price of something we use and enjoy goes down. We take advantage of it. If
I were to buy something at Circuit City or Best Buy or Home Depot or Lowes
and the following week I see that the store has the some product on sale for
less money, I would go back to them and ask them to refund the difference.
In almost every case the store will gladly refund the price difference. In
fact, they often have special forms printed just to accomodate such
transactions. (The alternative is for them to go through the hassle
involved if you chose to return the object for a refund of the original
price and then re-buy it at the sale price, ro worse, from some other
vendor.)
Here's the good news: the same situation applies to magazines. When
Woodcraft Magazine was first announced, a lot of people around here balked
at the 6 issues for $39.95 subscription price. Nevertheless, some people
bit the bullet and subscribed anyway. But the publishers obviously got wind
of the dissatisfaction with what was perceived as a high price and did what
any smart business people would do: they made an adjustment in response to
the marketplace. Now you can subscribe to Woodcraft and get 7 issues for
$19.97, a price most people find more agreeable.
But what about those folks who already paid the higher price? All they have
to do is call the toll-free subscription number (in Woodcraft's case,
800-542-9125) and ask for an adjustment. I don't think they'll refund the
difference in cash but I am quite sure they would be happy to extend the
length of the subscription on a pro-rated basis so that your actual cost
will work out to the lower annual rate.
And I know this will probably upset a few people who never seem to be
satisfied, but in the same way that department stores don't automatically
mail you a check if they lower the price on something you already bought,
magazines aren't going to automatically extend your subscriptions. You
still have to pick up the phone and ask.

Lee
--
To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"

<<The fact were stated plainly. I have the invoice in front
of me. If Rob is not the person to ask, if AJ is not to back him up, they
should not make statements about their publications in a public form. I did
just that. You decided to answer me. That is your choice, that is the
chance I took. Since Woodcraft is not involved in the practice here, AJ
should either sit back and be quiet or be willing to answer for his comments
also. >>

We (educated consumers) know that unsolicited merchandise can legally be
considered a "gift" and may be kept without obligation to either return it
or pay for it. And in that repect, I can completely sympathize with your
annoyance at being billed for the book you recieved.

However, what I cannot sympathize with is for someone to come in here and
speak his mind about the topic du jour and at the same time tell another
participant that he should "sit back and be quiet." You have the right to
grouse to your heart's content about what you perceive as shoddy marketing
practices. It is, after all, a public forum. So by the same token, I think
telling AJ to pipe down is out of line. (Note: I have no business telling
you not to express your opinion; I'm just letting you know that I disagree.)

Lee

--
To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"alexy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Are you suggesting he send this one back to help hold down the cost of
>> books for the rest of the woodworking community as well as his future
>> books? Surely you jest. I'm as much of a believer in TANSTAAFL as the
>> next guy, but that doesn't make it an absolute truth. You've got to
>> stretch pretty far to consider this not free.
>
>Absolutely not. Gong with the theme of many not liking this approach to
>marketing, of the thousands of books that get tossed and not paid for, those
>that do buy from that company end up paying for that book. It would be far
>cheaper on those buying the books if the publisher sent out a letter with a
>request to review and buy the book.
>

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think you or I have the data to know this --
at least I don't. Most printing of which I am aware has a fairly large
fixed cost and fairly small variable cost. It's a trivial exercise to
create two different scenarios with fixed versus variable costs,
response rates to a promotion like they did versus response to one
like you propose, with one scenario showing the approach you use to
create lower cost books for those who subscribe, and another scenario
to show the approach they used to end up with lower cost books for
subscribers.

But it is still free to those who got it and didn't pay.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

"Rob Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Woodworker's Journal book
>
> It is disturbing for me to read the thread about the Woodworker's
> Journal book. I can assure you that there was no intention of causing
> aggravation and for that I apologize.

<snip>

Well. my two cents also -

For all those who are bitching - lighten up. I defend your right to bitch
but really! Have none of you ever heard of marketing? They deal in
statistics and percentages. Mail out 10,000 books like this - you'll get
some back, some will be kept and SOME will get paid for. That's the way it
works. That's the way it has ALWAYS worked. AND in spite of the bitching,
that's the way it will continue to work. Why? BECAUSE THE MARKETING METHOD
WORKS AND THEY MAKE MONEY!

It was stated that they are a "for profit" business.

I kept the book - IMHO it was so-so - not worth buying but it was free. I've
received two invoices since - guess what - I threw them out.

To those who worry that their credit rating will be destroyed..... I'd worry
about the sky falling first - that could be dangerous.

As far as different price levels for renewals - respectfully, what world
have you been living in? I have heard this same complaint, AND have made it
myself for the last 60 years. There were times when I found it easier to
cancel my current subscription to a magazine and get a refund and then re-up
at a lower rate than.

I have often had the impression that different areas of publishing don't
talk to each other.

Anyhow, as stated, that's *MY* two cents worth.

Keep sending out the free books boys - love freebies!!!!

Vic

On Thu, 26 May 2005 16:53:04 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:
SNIP
>I did learn something. Don't trust the first offer from a publisher. As I
>stated, I did not intend to bother with anything, but the opportunity to
>learn about it came up. So, why not learn? Is knowing the standard
>practice a bad thing? Is knowing how to save money for the same
>product/service a bad thing? Is sharing that information in a newsgroup a
>bad thing?
>
>I am curious to know if this is a standard industry practice or something
>that recently happened to reduce prices. Why do you feel I'm wrong in
>wanting to know that? Airlines sell tickets to the same destination on the
>same plane at different rates at different times. I just want to know if
>magazines do that.
>

I have had more than one magazine where I noticed that the renewal
price offered to me was more than the New Subscriber price being
offered in various mailings. In those cases, assuming I wanted the
magazine renewal in the first place, I have subscribed my wife or son.
The next year I am somehow magically a new subscriber so the next
subscription goes into my name again. Is all that BS worth the $4
saved - well yeah, 'cause it is a game. I have also noted that the
renewal price does appear to go down the closer to the renewal point
you get or if you let the subscription lapse for a couple of days.
What I don't understand is where those marketing directors were when
they taught in Marketing 101 that it is much less expensive to keep a
customer than to generate a new customer. This is important because
usually when I see these kinds of silliness I just don't renew under
any name at all.

Dave Hall

Ed,

I'm glad your subscription cost concern has been heard and will work out for
you. Most, but certainly not all, of the folks in the woodworking industry
are great to do business with. There are the usual assortment of bad
apples, as in any field.

Consider a suggestion. Maybe the next time you suspect a problem, you are
thinking of challenging a vendor or a practice and you want more information
before taking the problem to the vendor; ask questions of the group. We are
never short of answers. (opinions) Asking questions might keep productive
posts from turning into a "bash a vendor" bitch forum. (might!)

I've addressed the post to you but I'm really talking to everyone to posted
to this thread.

Jack Flatley
Jacksonville, FL

--
"One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is
the belief that one's work is terribly important."
--Bertrand
Russell




"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Frnle.2831$Fb.1325@trndny07...
>
> "John Flatley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Ed,
> >
> > When you renewed your subscription for $24.95 you got a
> > deal/service/bargain
> > that you wanted. I assume you thought that was a fair price, that's why
> > you
> > renewed.
>
>
> Since I replied to this, I received an email from WJ. With their
> explanation, I seems I'm getting a good deal. I'm at work and my papers
are
> at home, but I have no reason to doubt what they told me.
>
> I asked, they answered. That is what my message was about. Rob was
willing
> to come forward yesterday, one of his associates contacted me today. I
> appreciate that and it helps keep a good relationship between us.
> Ed
>
>

"Pounds on Wood" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You could do what I do - mail it back. No check, no check mark, certainly
> no book, just an envelope full of their crap and whatever other daily junk
> mail I can fit in it. In fact, one of my favorite hobbies is mailing junk
> mail back to the sender in their prepaid envelopes. It doesn't help
> reduce
> the junkmail, the senders are too stupid to get the hint, but it does give
> me a satisfied feeling. For a second or two.


LOL, Of all the mail out solicitations, American Express simply does not get
it. I bet I have mailed back at least 75 blank applications to them this
year alone with the words Remove from Mailing List. I get 3 to 4 per week
from them alone.

"A.J. Hamler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> recipient to engage the service. Those who choose not to engage the
> service (that is, receive more books) do not owe anything. That is why
> the follow-up letters from WWJ are not invoices, not bills, and not
> dunning letters. They fact that you interpret them to be so, does not
> make them so. They are what they are: marketing offers.

But they sure as hell look like an invoice. I don't have mine any more or
I'd scan it and post it to get other's (and your)opinions. Just like junk
mail that comes in plain brown official looking government envelopes, people
can get confused. If I get a third one, I'll post it and then we'll pick it
apart together. While perfectly legal, I see this sort of thing frequently
in the commercial sector too.

>
> These types of campaigns
> make far more money than they lose. In other words, the fact that they
> do MAKE money means that they -- the marketers of such items -- LOSE
> nothing, and therefore do not have to pass on the costs of those loses
> to others.
>
> A.J.

I'm sure if they lost, they stop the practice. We are just expressing our
opinions of it.

BTW, in case you missed my other post., I did hear from Woodworker's Journal
about the subscription rates. It was clearly explained (that is all I
asked) and I got a very fair deal. I'll probably renew again next time it
comes up. They did take the time to reply and that is appreciated. I've
had crow for dinner before and may have some more. Important thing is they
did clarify.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

<<Dog gone it A.J. - that's too damn lucid. More fun to pull chains.>>

"Pull the chain." That was the phrase my dad used to use to mean "flush the
toilet."

Lee


--
To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A book shows up.
> They hold in their hands something that isn't theirs. Do they send it
> back and feel bad, or keep it and feel bad?
> The only option left is to pay.
> It's a dirty ploy to bilk nice people.
> NOT cool.

EXactly

On 26 May 2005 01:17:52 -0700, the inscrutable "Charlie Self"
<[email protected]> spake:

>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
--megasnip--
>Oh, if I were you, I'd toss the invoices.

Let me add a caveat to that advice, Charlie. If they have some sort of
auto invoicing system, it might trigger a collection agency tactic
next. Getting it handled in person might be a smarter idea. Nobody
needs their credit ruined over a stupid marketing stunt.


--
REMEMBER: First you pillage, then you burn.
---
http://diversify.com Full Service Website Development

Mike,

I agree with your point. I was a bit off course. The first person to
'talk' to is the one that can solve the 'problem.'

That said, there is also a value to understanding the scope of a problem.
And that scope can best be determined by inter-action with a common group.
The action one takes may be different if they were the only one affected
than if they are one of a large number affected.

When a thread grows too bloated and off topic, we have step away. If we are
to find any value in these forums, we must be able to separate the wheat
from the chaff. And I have learned a lot in this forum. (and a bit about
woodworking too)

thanks for your point,

John Flatley
Jacksonville, FL.

--
"No one has ever erected a monument to a committee."



"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "John Flatley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Consider a suggestion. Maybe the next time you suspect a problem, you
are
> > thinking of challenging a vendor or a practice and you want more
> information
> > before taking the problem to the vendor; ask questions of the group. We
> are
> > never short of answers. (opinions) Asking questions might keep
productive
> > posts from turning into a "bash a vendor" bitch forum. (might!)
> >
>
> Ohhhhh John... I have to differ. Taking this approach will only result in
> the standard newsgroup feeding frenzy where folks jump in and take their
> turn at bash the vendor, or bash vendors at large. The best course of
> action is to always take the problem to the respective party before
taking
> it to a public forum. Public forums are infinately less capable of
> providing accurate answers than the agency involved. What public forums
> excel at though is turning the smallest thing into some over grown,
bloated
> issue. Those opinions you reference are often the most dangerous form of
> the written word.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
>

"A.J. Hamler" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>If any of the numerous invoices I've received had an option that
>>>said: "I'm not returning this unsolicited book, not paying for it
>>>and want you to stop sending me these invoices"; I'd have checked it
>>>and sent the invoice back.<<
>
> They did not include that option because they were not invoices.
>
> A.J.
>
>

I'd be interested in seeing a scan of the alleged 'Invoice' or the
alleged 'Not An Invoice'. Any takers?