Talk:Upromise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] mission

I think leading with the statement that Upromise "provides marketing services", while accurate, is deceptive. Upromise's business is clearly centered around giving money back to members when they make purchases. Putting the focus on Upromise "provid[ing] marketing services" is like saying that NBC is a company that "provides marketing services to advertisers by allowing them to air short segments in the middle of entertainment programs". Yes, it's true, but it's not NBC's focus.

I think the intro sentences should be edited to say that Upromise's focus is to give money back for purchases from participating merchants, with perhaps a note that Upromise makes its money by acting as a marketing service for those merchants.


Upromise is not "clearly centered around giving money back," it is a business. I believe the current intro is simply factual, not deceptive. To change it would be spin. R.Tempest 03:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup

I cleaned it up a bit, but I could not find the criticisms online, and that would definitely help.

This page seems fishy to me:

Upromise offered by some really big and controversial corporations, and requires brand loyalty and stock market health to pay off, yet there is NOTHING here of the underlying motives and risks associated with it. Very not NPOV. There appear to be lots of so called 'reviews' of upromise in google, which makes me concerned we are seeing a marketing effort rather than community effort here. There has got to be some information about the program somewhere beyond whats on their website.
Some ideas of places to look:
Upromise is essentially a brand-loyalty-rebate system like flyer miles, but, since it goes toward college, do they count these rebates as philanthropy? Is this program a big tax avoidance scheme?
Privacy conserns are abound regarding 'club cards', for example see nocards.org and consumeraffairs.com. The program could be used to track purchasing habits etc.
Hidden fees, see this post
May be stretching it, but many of these companies are the same people flexing muscle in Washington to reduce spending on education. Aren't they killing universities with one hand, and then claiming to be pro-education by offering this program?
I think we should look in to this a bit more and fix this article. 19:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)