FYI - I've participated in the Staples crazy, get-money-back-after-rebate laptop deal (made $320 after rebates), the Circuit City CA Internet Security Flash Drive and the Iolo System Mechanic 7 make-money-after-rebate deals. Got all my rebates or they are in APPROVED status.
However, given that there were so many sweet deals like this in the past 6 months, it looks like the party may be over. You see it now with "can't get this rebate if you file for that rebate" terms (for example, Iolo Search & Recover 4 $40 CompUSA rebate when bought with digital camera at CompUSA cannot be combined with the $20 Upgrade rebate) OR that CA is only offering 1 rebate promotion code when you combine the purchase of a PC or laptop with their security products (previously, the promotion# was unique for each CA product).
Now, the kicker.....I purchased McAfee Internet Security at Fry's for $60 and it had a $60 rebate and a $30 Upgrade rebate sticker on the box. I thought "Great! Another better than FAR deal!", but I was wrong! I sent in all the paperwork for both rebates....$60 is APPROVED with a Tracking#, but the $30 Upgrade rebate was REJECTED due to "Exceeds household reward amount limit". So, I called the 800#, but the CSR would not validate it, so I escalated it to a Supervisor. No budging! They would not approve it since they said that I paid only $60 and I cannot any more than that for my purchase!
So, watch out! It looks like they are putting in more controls in the rebate fulfillment process and want to make sure we don't double-dip, triple-dip or whatever! Don't add up your deal profit until all the checks come in!
To enter a coupon code in your post please enter the following info:
Coupon Code:
Coupon Offer:
Merchant:
Expires (optional):
Restrictions (optional):
saving...
Quick Summary is created and edited by users like you... Add FAQ's, Links and other Relevant Information by clicking the edit button in the lower right hand corner of this message.
Yeah, I'd call them on that, and see what they say. From there, maybe BBB or AG? If they want people to play by their rules, that's fine, just make it clear so we know which games we want to play
You guys know the deal - there's always standard boilerplate that says 'cannot be combined with other offers' or 'rebates will not exceed purchase price'. If they are finally enforcing them, it will be because we abused them badly this year.
Having said that, I think it will be hard for McAfee to avoid paying these because of the ads on the boxes, so we'll be escalating to the manufacturer and complaining to BBB etc. about them if they refuse to pay - Parago is probably just doing what they're told at this point. Given that the caca hit the fan at CA, McAfee, and Symantec after the last few months, it's not unexpected.
GTFan said:You guys know the deal - there's always standard boilerplate that says 'cannot be combined with other offers' or 'rebates will not exceed purchase price'. If they are finally enforcing them, it will be because we abused them badly this year.
Having said that, I think it will be hard for McAfee to avoid paying these because of the ads on the boxes, so we'll be escalating to the manufacturer and complaining to BBB etc. about them if they refuse to pay - Parago is probably just doing what they're told at this point. Given that the caca hit the fan at CA, McAfee, and Symantec after the last few months, it's not unexpected.The recent McAfee full price rebates have stated that they cannot be combined with other rebates (three recent forms say "Not to be combined with any other offer from McAfee including the onbox UMIR offer."). And getting the manufacturer involved and trying to convince them that they owe you an extra $30 over and above your purchase price is going to be useless. The only case you can make is if the retailer advertised both rebates and one was rejected. I am not aware of any situation like this. Even the iolo threads where people are whining about not being able to get 3 extra rebates cannot claim that the product was advertised with those rebates.
As you say, the rampant over-submission of multiple rebates for the same product has obviously led to this.
You think a valid complaint to a third party that "They didn't pay me $30 (or whatever) to take it!, they owe me, misleading, sue em!" will be considered reasonable?
Do yourself a favor....
Not that I haven't submitted rebates for more than I paid, thank you FW, but if they choose to send it despite the small print that's OK with me. If they don't send more than I paid, that's still OK by me.
wale said:You think a valid complaint to a third party that "They didn't pay me $30 (or whatever) to take it!, they owe me, misleading, sue em!" will be considered reasonable? Right, any third party who is not as into rebates as we are here will consider free after rebate to be a great deal. Insisting that you be paid extra to take the product (even if there was an error and it was advertised like that) will seem absolutely absurd and you'll get no sympathy.
And yes, I have also gotten extra for buying a product but would not think of escalating a rejection in a case like this.
Now, the kicker.....I purchased McAfee Internet Security at Fry's for $60 and it had a $60 rebate and a $30 Upgrade rebate sticker on the box. I thought "Great! Another better than FAR deal!", but I was wrong! I sent in all the paperwork for both rebates....$60 is APPROVED with a Tracking#, but the $30 Upgrade rebate was REJECTED due to "Exceeds household reward amount limit". So, I called the 800#, but the CSR would not validate it, so I escalated it to a Supervisor. No budging! They would not approve it since they said that I paid only $60 and I cannot any more than that for my purchase!
So, watch out! It looks like they are putting in more controls in the rebate fulfillment process and want to make sure we don't double-dip, triple-dip or whatever! Don't add up your deal profit until all the checks come in!
Well, as an interesting counterpoint, I bought the Mcafee I/S 3-user @ Office Depot a few weeks back and got a PM to bestbuy for like $30 as well. I have received BOTH the $60 & the $30 stickered rebate and expect to get another $10 rebate from OD ("mailed" 11/15). So maybe it's not all doom and gloom just yet?
I have no sympathy for companies that get upset when customers actually call them out on what's advertised on the box. I mean, why do you think they created the rebate system in the first place, it's so they can more money of consumers.
maggiedk said:I have no sympathy for companies that get upset when customers actually call them out on what's advertised on the box. I mean, why do you think they created the rebate system in the first place, it's so they can more money of consumers.Except that in the McAfee case the advertised rebate clearly says that it cannot be used with the on-box rebate. If you don't like that, file the on-box and skip the better one.
maggiedk said:I have no sympathy for companies that get upset when customers actually call them out on what's advertised on the box. I mean, why do you think they created the rebate system in the first place, it's so they can more money of consumers.
AMEN. I hate the coupon fraud that many love.. to me that's theft like any other... but dang it, if the company made the terms they sure as heck better live by them. (billrubin's comment directly above this not withstanding)
Although I understand what many of you are saying, you have to keep in mind that MANY of these items are being ADVERTISED AS -10.00 AR and -20.00 AR.
Fry's does this regularly and these rebates should be paid either by Parago (or whoever is clearing the offer) or by Fry's. I've tried to get Fry's to make good on one in the recent past and got no where.
OD, Staples, CC, etc. all sale these software titles with a big sticker on the front with the $XX.xx in bold letters and NONE of these stickers say ANYTHING about "household limit" or "not valid when xxx offer is submitted" or whatever the denial jargon is at the time of submission.
All of the terms needs to be spelled out either on the box or in the rebate form and no where on ANY rebate to date have I seen stipulates that submitting a particular rebate would make you ineligible for a DIFFERENT offer. Yes, many of them limit THAT PARTICULAR REBATE to no more than what was paid for that particular product but NO WHERE does any of these offers invalidate OTHER LEGITIMATE offers on the same product.
So, let's not place all the responsibility in the lap of the consumer.
tb40nd said:Although I understand what many of you are saying, you have to keep in mind that MANY of these items are being ADVERTISED AS -10.00 AR and -20.00 AR.
Fry's does this regularly and these rebates should be paid either by Parago (or whoever is clearing the offer) or by Fry's. I've tried to get Fry's to make good on one in the recent past and got no where. What's the example? In Fry's case when they show something as -10 AR (and it's not very often) it's because they have priced the item below what it should have been because of the total of valid rebates. It has NOT been because they listed an extra rebate that was not valid. The popular complaint of the Iolo stuff that everyone has been trying to get extra rebates on has never been advertised with rebates that do not apply. Similarly for the CA stuff. OD, Staples, CC, etc. all sale these software titles with a big sticker on the front with the $XX.xx in bold letters and NONE of these stickers say ANYTHING about "household limit" or "not valid when xxx offer is submitted" or whatever the denial jargon is at the time of submission.But the shelf stickers typically will only include the single rebate in the sale price. And don't start telling me that you need to be told that the household limit for a particular rebate is one. And while we rarely think that it applies, almost all rebates say that it cannot be combined with any other offer.
billrubin said:What's the example? In Fry's case when they show something as -10 AR (and it's not very often) it's because they have priced the item below what it should have been because of the total of valid rebates. It has NOT been because they listed an extra rebate that was not valid. The popular complaint of the Iolo stuff that everyone has been trying to get extra rebates on has never been advertised with rebates that do not apply. Similarly for the CA stuff
No, this isn't true. Most rebates Fry's offers have TWO REBATES; the original AND the upgrade. The last three symantec rebates i've done with fry's all have both the rebate AND the upgrade rebate to come up with the -$XX.xx AR price
billrubin said:But the shelf stickers typically will only include the single rebate in the sale price. And don't start telling me that you need to be told that the household limit for a particular rebate is one. And while we rarely think that it applies, almost all rebates say that it cannot be combined with any other offer.
The shelf tag MAY only include one rebate BUT the upgrade rebate is advertised on the box so any and every potential customer would consider these different offers and feel intitled to both as they were both advertised in separate places with separate offer numbers.
...and I don't need to be told anything - I know the difference between right and wrong and in most of the cases with these software rebates the rebate companies have been dead wrong. Yes, they have every right to change their policies on the fly BUT they have an obligation to honor those offers they put infront of the customer to help make that sale.
Otherwise they are no different than any other sleazy company that practices false advertising. The way it looks (and don't start telling me you fail to see this) is the store is offering a rebate and the software company is offering a second rebate for those who qualify for upgrades and this hasn't been a problem UNTIL RECENTLY when the majority of submissions came in and included all the information needed for the rebate.
Now that the bottom line is affected they are denying valid submissions which is just wrong no matter what excuse they come up with.
billrubin said:The recent McAfee full price rebates have stated that they cannot be combined with other rebates (three recent forms say "Not to be combined with any other offer from McAfee including the onbox UMIR offer."). And getting the manufacturer involved and trying to convince them that they owe you an extra $30 over and above your purchase price is going to be useless. The only case you can make is if the retailer advertised both rebates and one was rejected. I am not aware of any situation like this. Even the iolo threads where people are whining about not being able to get 3 extra rebates cannot claim that the product was advertised with those rebates.
As you say, the rampant over-submission of multiple rebates for the same product has obviously led to this.
My last McAfee rebates were precisely like that. Part McAfee, part Staples Easy Rebate. McAfee part was processed without issue, but the Staples part was rejected because they claimed it was duplicate. And it was then that I discovered this Staples rebate was handled and paid for by McAfee and not Staples. Spoke to three different CSRs and none would budge, so I took the receipt and rebate form back to the store, and the manager paid me from the register instead.
I wouldn't buy anymore McAfee product if I have a choice because of this.
If you haven't learned by now about the issue with Staples EasyRebates and Manufacturers rebates...your loss. Staples EasyRebate program often supercedes manufacturers rebate so it should be no surprise what the rebate is a duplicate. Staples just prefers to handle the rebate for the customer through their EasyRebate process.
Canucklehead said:If you haven't learned by now about the issue with Staples EasyRebates and Manufacturers rebates...your loss. Staples EasyRebate program often supercedes manufacturers rebate so it should be no surprise what the rebate is a duplicate. Staples just prefers to handle the rebate for the customer through their EasyRebate process.If you're replying to me then I don't know what you're talking about. It was advertised that way, SER and manufacturer rebate. I did not double-dip, so there should not be anything superceded.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
