Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Making Money Quickly

Fallacy Debunking: Successful New Business Model Examples Are The 'Exception'

from the debunker's-forum dept

I've been meaning to start to put together a series of posts that debunk the common "criticisms" we get that are all too often based on logical fallacies. I end up spending way too much time in the comments responding to people posting those same logical fallacies over and over again, and it would be nice to be able to point to posts that "answer" the complaints quickly. I'm still not sure if I'll ever really get around to it, but sometimes someone else does such a nice job of it, that I might as well highlight it with a post here.

In this case, it's the commonly claimed fallacy that all these new business models don't really matter because of two things: (1) so much money is still going to the "big players," and (2) there are only a "few" examples of these models working, so they're outliers.

One example of this kind of thinking was seen in the comments to our recent post about the developer of the game Minecraft making $100,000 per day, without any distribution or retail deals or really any outside help. Yet, one of our commenters said this was nothing, because Halo made $200 million on its first day. Of course, that's a pure apples to oranges comparison. Halo is from Microsoft, and involves a giant team, a huge budget, massive advertising and distribution deals. I would guess that if you compared the two in terms of profitability per developer, Minecraft would win by a wide, wide margin.

Anyway, it's a meaningless comparison. Setting an artificial level as determining what counts as a "success" makes no sense. What we're interested in when we're looking at new business models and new strategies is how these compare to how a similar person would have done without those models. Without the internet and the ability to distribute Minecraft the way Markus Persson is doing so, he wouldn't be making anywhere near $100,000 per day. More likely is that he'd be working for a much larger gaming company, one piece in a cog, and bringing in something closer to $100,000 for the year, and not working on projects nearly as interesting.

Another example of this occurred earlier this year, when a Billboard reporter, Anthony Bruno, attacked the concept of "CwF+RtB" by arguing that I've only "cherry picked" the success stories, and many who have tried it failed to become successful. But, that makes no sense. No one guaranteed that using a smart business model automatically makes your band a huge success. What we said is that if you do it right, it's likely you'd be more successful than otherwise -- but that still might involve only a minor improvement if under the old system you wouldn't be successful at all. And if the CwF+RtB concept doesn't matter because some artists who have used it haven't become big stars, then wouldn't that mean that the "traditional" model of big record label/sell CDs has always been a dreadful failure since so few artists become successful that way? After all, pointing to the success of Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd or the Beatles under the old model, is certainly pointing to the cherry-picked "exceptions."

Andrew Dubber points us to a fantastic blog post by Rich Huxley, of the band Hope & Social, who ran into this sort of "criticism" after writing a blog post (similar to many we've written) reminding everyone that the big record labels are not the "music industry." In the comments, a guy named Tim London challenged that by claiming that since the big record labels still take in a ton of money (in aggregate), and many of these new business models appear to be artists making much smaller amounts, the record labels still are the industry. One sentence from his comment should give you the general summary:

I know you're wrong because the music industry as represented by the majors is still coining it and the music industry as rep'd by you is getting by, struggling, working part time or making music as a hobby.

There's that apples and oranges comparison again. Thankfully, Huxley decided to write an entire (brilliant) blog post debunking the idea that the total amount of money some record labels make is indicative of the overall value of a particular model. First, he goes through some basics to show how many musicians there are out there, and points out that money made isn't always an indicator of quality ("That Van Gogh was a penniless artists does not diminish the greatness of his work.")

But then comes the real point, explained eloquently. The critics like this highlight the huge earners in the existing industry, but ignore that the overwhelming majority of the folks who try to go the old route end up making $0. They mock the person embracing new business models for "only" making a decent living, ignoring the fact that so many who went the way they prefer were drummed out of the industry making no living at all. Here's the way Huxley explains it:

Less than 10% of signed artists recoup. Take Maximo Park for example. They have by their own admission never made a penny from record sales and make their money from DJ sets in the main. An example I have first hand knowledge of, Embrace, have sold millions of albums, they were a genuinely massive band; they performed from Glastonbury main-stage to Top Of The Pops and everywhere in-between. When they split from Virgin, they owed their label three quarters of a million pounds. I guess my point is that if we promote the Trad Music Biz's model as "The model" then the message we'd be sending is:

less than one percent of musical artists are part of the music business

only a tenth of those will recoup and make money from their record sales, and that's good

an artist should be saddled with debt, the rate at which they pay that back is equivalent to a credit card with a 900% interest rate

Basically, the problem is that those who cherry pick just the biggest artists ignore all the ones who made nothing at all from a record label deal, thanks to the fun of RIAA accounting. In other words, those artists are the true "exceptions." They're the ones who got the winning lottery ticket, but you can't ignore all those who got nothing. If you were to put all of the musicians who went the "traditional" route into a set, and all of the musicians going the "new" route into a set, and took the median, I'd guarantee that it would be higher in the new set. And that's the point. Embracing the new ways makes it much more likely that you'll make some money. It improves your chance of being able to make money making music. And that seems like a good thing, right?

As a part of that, of course, is that all of the costs have gone down with the new ways of doing things. The reason why people needed the old gatekeepers to fund stuff in the past was because there were no cheaper options. The only way to actually get this stuff done was to go through them. But these days, everything is cheaper. As Huxley notes with his band:

Hope and Social believe in and benefit from Pay What You Want. We go on about this here, but also... As musicians, we all have the ability to take advantage of the same channels that H&S have:

dramatically reduced costs of recording

a zero cost of distribution (should we choose to make mp3s available on the internet then there's no cost to us. This is miles away from the Trad model where the cost of recording and manufacture made it nigh on impossible to record and release independently)

reduced cost of promotion (CD's don't need to be sent to reviewers, press etc at the cost of a quid per CD, and half again on postage)

and by building relationships with people, they become our PRs, our evangelists (to coin another religious term, man I've got to stop doing that)

Also, there is a value in making your music available for free. If someone downloads an album of ours and shares it with a friend, copies the CD, plays it at a party, then that's how we share and have our music heard by more people. This results in:

higher gig attendances

better paid shows

more sales of our music

more sales on other merchandise and art that we, and our fans make.

Finally, I'll make one final debunking point that Huxley didn't cover: London seems to have confused absolute revenue with the change in revenue (delta). If you look at those embracing new models, it may be smaller (now), but it's growing quite quickly. If you look at the big record labels, they're declining in size. Which trend is a better bet? It's really a version of the Innovator's Dilemma where the new growth trend is ignored because it's not "as big" as the legacy business. Ignoring the deltas is dangerous.

And there we go. If you're claiming these new model success stories are the "exception," then it's only fair to admit that those who succeed under the traditional models you claim are so good were actually much bigger "exceptions." Can we now consider this argument debunked, and just link back to this post any time people bring up an argument like this?

276 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Chicago-based Groupon is certainly one heck of a startup. Like Zynga it sort of came out of nowhere in 2009. Even last December I was sort of only vaguely aware of how fast it was growing.

But it was clear by early 2010 to the whole world that Groupon was on a tear. First a round valuing it at $250 million. Then just a couple of months later it raised new money at a $1.35 billion valuation.

And then in the last few weeks Yahoo offered something even higher for the company – between $1.7 billion on the low side and probably $4 billion on the high side. And Groupon passed.

Revenues are in the $50 million per month range, and the company has roughly 50% gross margins. By some measures, Groupon is the fastest growing company, ever.

Groupon is often said to be the next eBay at Silicon Valley insider dinners and events. But Groupon isn’t going to have the same success eBay has had.

At first blush it seems like a valid comparison. Groupon’s revenues and profits blow the early Ebay results out of the water. When eBay was three years old and going public in 1998 it had revenues of just $4.7 million. Groupon does that much in revenue every three days or so right now.

Today eBay has revenues of a little over $2 billion every three months and is worth around $30 billion. It’s not at all unreasonable to think that Groupon could eventually grow its revenues way beyond $2 billion/quarter – the local products and services category would easily bear that kind of fruit.

But there’s a couple of problems with Groupon. The first is how it scales – it needs a lot of sales people for each market it handles and already probably has more than 2,000 of them on payroll. But the real problem is the complete lack of a network effect to protect its business.

Ebay is expensive. And it has a horrible user interface. Buying stuff is a pain compared with sites like Amazon that have put real effort into making buying painless. It’s also expensive. Everyone would love a better eBay, but after ten years of people trying to kill it, it just keeps going.

Why? Because everyone’s already on eBay. And every new buyer or seller makes eBay more valuable than it was before. Anyone competing with them has to find a way to counter that, and it’s nearly impossible. Even free listings from big companies like Amazon and Yahoo flailed dramatically.

In other words, eBay would have to really work at it to destroy its core business. And since it dominates the market it can continue to charge exorbitant fees and not worry about the user experience.

Groupon has none of that. When Groupon gets a new user that’s great. But that user will quickly leave to Living Social or One Kings Lane or any of thousands of other competing sites for better deals. And when Groupon gets a new “seller,” there’s no reason why that seller won’t also go try out the competitors, too.

There’s just no network effect in Groupon’s business model. Which means competitors can flourish and margins will get crushed.

At TechCrunch Disrupt, Benchmark Capital’s Matt Cohler said he wasn’t sure if Groupon would succeed over the long term. I asked him if he wished he was an investor in Groupon:

That question keeps me up at night. the question for me is…if you look at it from a purely academic point of view, there are neither barriers to entry nor are there switching costs in that product. Typically when a product has those characteristics margins tend to collapse over time. In theory the only thing stopping that from happening is Groupon’s brand…It may turn out that daily deals are ad units, and lots of different products can apply that ad unit.

What can Groupon do to avoid having their margins crushed by competitors? Establish generous revenue sharing relationships with distribution partners, fast. And that appears to be exactly what they’re doing. In the next several weeks the company will likely announce partnerships with Yahoo and CitySearch, we’ve learned.

Oh, and one more partner, too. And that partner will be…eBay.

Update: Great email comment from Alex Rampell:

I actually think Groupon is a “winner take most” market and not winner take all. Amazon has a plurality yet a distinct minority of ecommerce share ($25B in 2009 revenue out of WW ecommerce rev of $600B) yet has a market cap of $74B, 2.5X that of eBay. No barriers to entry.

There are no barriers to entry for online commerce companies — yet Amazon keeps decimating the competition. There are, however, economies of scale. I think Groupon can be the Amazon of Online2Offline commerce, and there’s no reason they can’t get to $25B in annualized revenue like Amazon, but at a much higher margin.

Whether they’ll command the same kind of earnings multiple as Amazon is another story.

BREAKING NEWS: James Cameron's Next Films Are 'Avatar 2′ & '3′ For ...

BREAKING NEWS: James Cameron's Next Films … TV Pitch Season Coming To An End � Official: 'The Hobbit' Stays In New Zealand � Michael Jackson Song 'Thriller' In Center Of Pic Auction Michael Jackson Song 'Thriller' In Center Of … ...

Juan Williams: Fox News Lets 'Black Guy With A Hispanic Name' Host ...

Juan Williams said Tuesday that he's still upset about his firing from NPR, and added that NPR does not understand the Fox News culture or audience. In an interview with Baltimore Sun columnist David Zurawik, Williams said he remains ...

World Series Game 1 Giants roster/lineup news | Extra Baggs

The Giants haven't set their roster for Game 1 of the World Series tomorrow, but I've been able to glean some information on which way Manager Bruce Bochy and.

atlanta property management

BREAKING NEWS: James Cameron's Next Films Are 'Avatar 2′ & '3′ For ...

Juan Williams: Fox News Lets 'Black Guy With A Hispanic Name' Host ...

World Series Game 1 Giants roster/lineup news | Extra Baggs

The Giants haven't set their roster for Game 1 of the World Series tomorrow, but I've been able to glean some information on which way Manager Bruce Bochy and.

Fallacy Debunking: Successful New Business Model Examples Are The 'Exception'

from the debunker's-forum dept

I know you're wrong because the music industry as represented by the majors is still coining it and the music industry as rep'd by you is getting by, struggling, working part time or making music as a hobby.

Less than 10% of signed artists recoup. Take Maximo Park for example. They have by their own admission never made a penny from record sales and make their money from DJ sets in the main. An example I have first hand knowledge of, Embrace, have sold millions of albums, they were a genuinely massive band; they performed from Glastonbury main-stage to Top Of The Pops and everywhere in-between. When they split from Virgin, they owed their label three quarters of a million pounds. I guess my point is that if we promote the Trad Music Biz's model as "The model" then the message we'd be sending is:

less than one percent of musical artists are part of the music business

only a tenth of those will recoup and make money from their record sales, and that's good

an artist should be saddled with debt, the rate at which they pay that back is equivalent to a credit card with a 900% interest rate

Hope and Social believe in and benefit from Pay What You Want. We go on about this here, but also... As musicians, we all have the ability to take advantage of the same channels that H&S have:

dramatically reduced costs of recording

a zero cost of distribution (should we choose to make mp3s available on the internet then there's no cost to us. This is miles away from the Trad model where the cost of recording and manufacture made it nigh on impossible to record and release independently)

reduced cost of promotion (CD's don't need to be sent to reviewers, press etc at the cost of a quid per CD, and half again on postage)

and by building relationships with people, they become our PRs, our evangelists (to coin another religious term, man I've got to stop doing that)

Also, there is a value in making your music available for free. If someone downloads an album of ours and shares it with a friend, copies the CD, plays it at a party, then that's how we share and have our music heard by more people. This results in:

higher gig attendances

better paid shows

more sales of our music

more sales on other merchandise and art that we, and our fans make.

276 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Chicago-based Groupon is certainly one heck of a startup. Like Zynga it sort of came out of nowhere in 2009. Even last December I was sort of only vaguely aware of how fast it was growing.

And then in the last few weeks Yahoo offered something even higher for the company – between $1.7 billion on the low side and probably $4 billion on the high side. And Groupon passed.

Revenues are in the $50 million per month range, and the company has roughly 50% gross margins. By some measures, Groupon is the fastest growing company, ever.

Groupon is often said to be the next eBay at Silicon Valley insider dinners and events. But Groupon isn’t going to have the same success eBay has had.

In other words, eBay would have to really work at it to destroy its core business. And since it dominates the market it can continue to charge exorbitant fees and not worry about the user experience.

There’s just no network effect in Groupon’s business model. Which means competitors can flourish and margins will get crushed.

At TechCrunch Disrupt, Benchmark Capital’s Matt Cohler said he wasn’t sure if Groupon would succeed over the long term. I asked him if he wished he was an investor in Groupon:

That question keeps me up at night. the question for me is…if you look at it from a purely academic point of view, there are neither barriers to entry nor are there switching costs in that product. Typically when a product has those characteristics margins tend to collapse over time. In theory the only thing stopping that from happening is Groupon’s brand…It may turn out that daily deals are ad units, and lots of different products can apply that ad unit.

Oh, and one more partner, too. And that partner will be…eBay.

Update: Great email comment from Alex Rampell:

I actually think Groupon is a “winner take most” market and not winner take all. Amazon has a plurality yet a distinct minority of ecommerce share ($25B in 2009 revenue out of WW ecommerce rev of $600B) yet has a market cap of $74B, 2.5X that of eBay. No barriers to entry.

There are no barriers to entry for online commerce companies — yet Amazon keeps decimating the competition. There are, however, economies of scale. I think Groupon can be the Amazon of Online2Offline commerce, and there’s no reason they can’t get to $25B in annualized revenue like Amazon, but at a much higher margin.

Whether they’ll command the same kind of earnings multiple as Amazon is another story.

BREAKING NEWS: James Cameron's Next Films Are 'Avatar 2′ & '3′ For ...

Juan Williams: Fox News Lets 'Black Guy With A Hispanic Name' Host ...

World Series Game 1 Giants roster/lineup news | Extra Baggs

The Giants haven't set their roster for Game 1 of the World Series tomorrow, but I've been able to glean some information on which way Manager Bruce Bochy and.

BREAKING NEWS: James Cameron's Next Films Are 'Avatar 2′ & '3′ For ...

Juan Williams: Fox News Lets 'Black Guy With A Hispanic Name' Host ...

World Series Game 1 Giants roster/lineup news | Extra Baggs

The Giants haven't set their roster for Game 1 of the World Series tomorrow, but I've been able to glean some information on which way Manager Bruce Bochy and.

Making Money Scams

An online marketer who lured consumers into a bogus work-at-home scheme that charged them hidden fees by masquerading as a Google company has been shut down by the Federal Trade Commission.

Under a settlement agreement with the FTC, the defendants, which did business under names such as "Google Money Tree," "Google Pro," and "Google Treasure Chest," are barred from making misleading or unsupported claims while marketing or selling any product or service, and have been forced to surrender cash and other assets exceeding $3.5 million.

The defendants also are forbidden from marketing products via "negative option" transactions – a classic marketing scheme in which companies use fine print to trick victims into unwittingly agreeing to pay for a product or service for which they are billed on a regular basis until they cancel.

The FTC first took action against the defendants, Infusion Media, Inc., West Coast Internet Media, Inc., Two Warnings, LLC and Two Part Investments, LLC, in July 2009 as part of "Operation Short Change," an ongoing crackdown against scammers taking advantage of the recession to prey upon vulnerable consumers.

By using Google's household name and logo and falsely promising consumers could earn $100,000 in six months, the defendants lured consumers into providing their financial information to pay a small shipping fee for a work-at-home kit, according to the complaint.

What consumers didn't realize, thanks to the fine print, was that purchasing the useless work-at-home kit automatically triggered monthly charges of $72.21 for another product which continued until they took steps to cancel.

The complaint charged that the defendants violated the FTC Act by failing to adequately disclose that consumers would be subjected to monthly charges; by making false or unsupported claims that consumers were likely to earn substantial income; and by falsely claiming they were affiliated with Google Inc.

The defendants also violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E by debiting consumers' bank accounts on a recurring basis without obtaining written authorization, the FTC charged.

The settlement includes a $29.5 million penalty against defendants Jonathan Eborn; Michael McLain Miller; Tony Norton; Infusion Media, Inc.; West Coast Internet Media, Inc.; Two Warnings, LLC; Two Part Investments, LLC; and Platinum Teleservices, Inc. A fourth defendant, Stephanie Burnside, is subject to a $741,900 fine.

The defendants have relinquished cash and other assets including two cars, a boat and a gun collection totaling approximately $3.5 million. The remaining $26 million has been suspended due to the defendants' inability to pay, but the full $29.5 million will be due if it's found the defendants lied about their finances.
An online marketer who lured consumers into a bogus work-at-home scheme that charged them hidden fees by masquerading as a Google company has been shut down by the Federal Trade Commission.

Under a settlement agreement with the FTC, the defendants, which did business under names such as "Google Money Tree," "Google Pro," and "Google Treasure Chest," are barred from making misleading or unsupported claims while marketing or selling any product or service, and have been forced to surrender cash and other assets exceeding $3.5 million.

The defendants also are forbidden from marketing products via "negative option" transactions – a classic marketing scheme in which companies use fine print to trick victims into unwittingly agreeing to pay for a product or service for which they are billed on a regular basis until they cancel.

The FTC first took action against the defendants, Infusion Media, Inc., West Coast Internet Media, Inc., Two Warnings, LLC and Two Part Investments, LLC, in July 2009 as part of "Operation Short Change," an ongoing crackdown against scammers taking advantage of the recession to prey upon vulnerable consumers.

By using Google's household name and logo and falsely promising consumers could earn $100,000 in six months, the defendants lured consumers into providing their financial information to pay a small shipping fee for a work-at-home kit, according to the complaint.

What consumers didn't realize, thanks to the fine print, was that purchasing the useless work-at-home kit automatically triggered monthly charges of $72.21 for another product which continued until they took steps to cancel.

The complaint charged that the defendants violated the FTC Act by failing to adequately disclose that consumers would be subjected to monthly charges; by making false or unsupported claims that consumers were likely to earn substantial income; and by falsely claiming they were affiliated with Google Inc.

The defendants also violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E by debiting consumers' bank accounts on a recurring basis without obtaining written authorization, the FTC charged.

The settlement includes a $29.5 million penalty against defendants Jonathan Eborn; Michael McLain Miller; Tony Norton; Infusion Media, Inc.; West Coast Internet Media, Inc.; Two Warnings, LLC; Two Part Investments, LLC; and Platinum Teleservices, Inc. A fourth defendant, Stephanie Burnside, is subject to a $741,900 fine.

The defendants have relinquished cash and other assets including two cars, a boat and a gun collection totaling approximately $3.5 million. The remaining $26 million has been suspended due to the defendants' inability to pay, but the full $29.5 million will be due if it's found the defendants lied about their finances.

Nevada Voters Complain Of Problems At Polls - Las Vegas News Story ...

LAS VEGAS -- Some voters in Boulder City complained on Monday that their ballot had been cast before they went to the polls, raising questions about Clark County's electronic voting machines. Tuesday, October 26, 2010.

ABC News airs big exposé on BMW N54 engine problems, lawsuits [w ...

ABC News investigates BMW fuel pump problems – Click above to watch video after the jump ABC News has cottoned on to the story that BMW.

Fantasy Football News Roundup, Week 8: Does Jon Kitna Have Value ...

Checking in on the fantasy news of the day for Week 8.

bench craft company complaints
bench craft company complaints

Nevada Voters Complain Of Problems At Polls - Las Vegas News Story ...

ABC News airs big exposé on BMW N54 engine problems, lawsuits [w ...

ABC News investigates BMW fuel pump problems – Click above to watch video after the jump ABC News has cottoned on to the story that BMW.

Fantasy Football News Roundup, Week 8: Does Jon Kitna Have Value ...

Checking in on the fantasy news of the day for Week 8.

bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

An online marketer who lured consumers into a bogus work-at-home scheme that charged them hidden fees by masquerading as a Google company has been shut down by the Federal Trade Commission.

Under a settlement agreement with the FTC, the defendants, which did business under names such as "Google Money Tree," "Google Pro," and "Google Treasure Chest," are barred from making misleading or unsupported claims while marketing or selling any product or service, and have been forced to surrender cash and other assets exceeding $3.5 million.

The defendants also are forbidden from marketing products via "negative option" transactions – a classic marketing scheme in which companies use fine print to trick victims into unwittingly agreeing to pay for a product or service for which they are billed on a regular basis until they cancel.

The FTC first took action against the defendants, Infusion Media, Inc., West Coast Internet Media, Inc., Two Warnings, LLC and Two Part Investments, LLC, in July 2009 as part of "Operation Short Change," an ongoing crackdown against scammers taking advantage of the recession to prey upon vulnerable consumers.

By using Google's household name and logo and falsely promising consumers could earn $100,000 in six months, the defendants lured consumers into providing their financial information to pay a small shipping fee for a work-at-home kit, according to the complaint.

What consumers didn't realize, thanks to the fine print, was that purchasing the useless work-at-home kit automatically triggered monthly charges of $72.21 for another product which continued until they took steps to cancel.

The complaint charged that the defendants violated the FTC Act by failing to adequately disclose that consumers would be subjected to monthly charges; by making false or unsupported claims that consumers were likely to earn substantial income; and by falsely claiming they were affiliated with Google Inc.

The defendants also violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E by debiting consumers' bank accounts on a recurring basis without obtaining written authorization, the FTC charged.

The settlement includes a $29.5 million penalty against defendants Jonathan Eborn; Michael McLain Miller; Tony Norton; Infusion Media, Inc.; West Coast Internet Media, Inc.; Two Warnings, LLC; Two Part Investments, LLC; and Platinum Teleservices, Inc. A fourth defendant, Stephanie Burnside, is subject to a $741,900 fine.

The defendants have relinquished cash and other assets including two cars, a boat and a gun collection totaling approximately $3.5 million. The remaining $26 million has been suspended due to the defendants' inability to pay, but the full $29.5 million will be due if it's found the defendants lied about their finances.
An online marketer who lured consumers into a bogus work-at-home scheme that charged them hidden fees by masquerading as a Google company has been shut down by the Federal Trade Commission.

Under a settlement agreement with the FTC, the defendants, which did business under names such as "Google Money Tree," "Google Pro," and "Google Treasure Chest," are barred from making misleading or unsupported claims while marketing or selling any product or service, and have been forced to surrender cash and other assets exceeding $3.5 million.

The defendants also are forbidden from marketing products via "negative option" transactions – a classic marketing scheme in which companies use fine print to trick victims into unwittingly agreeing to pay for a product or service for which they are billed on a regular basis until they cancel.

The FTC first took action against the defendants, Infusion Media, Inc., West Coast Internet Media, Inc., Two Warnings, LLC and Two Part Investments, LLC, in July 2009 as part of "Operation Short Change," an ongoing crackdown against scammers taking advantage of the recession to prey upon vulnerable consumers.

By using Google's household name and logo and falsely promising consumers could earn $100,000 in six months, the defendants lured consumers into providing their financial information to pay a small shipping fee for a work-at-home kit, according to the complaint.

What consumers didn't realize, thanks to the fine print, was that purchasing the useless work-at-home kit automatically triggered monthly charges of $72.21 for another product which continued until they took steps to cancel.

The complaint charged that the defendants violated the FTC Act by failing to adequately disclose that consumers would be subjected to monthly charges; by making false or unsupported claims that consumers were likely to earn substantial income; and by falsely claiming they were affiliated with Google Inc.

The defendants also violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E by debiting consumers' bank accounts on a recurring basis without obtaining written authorization, the FTC charged.

The settlement includes a $29.5 million penalty against defendants Jonathan Eborn; Michael McLain Miller; Tony Norton; Infusion Media, Inc.; West Coast Internet Media, Inc.; Two Warnings, LLC; Two Part Investments, LLC; and Platinum Teleservices, Inc. A fourth defendant, Stephanie Burnside, is subject to a $741,900 fine.

The defendants have relinquished cash and other assets including two cars, a boat and a gun collection totaling approximately $3.5 million. The remaining $26 million has been suspended due to the defendants' inability to pay, but the full $29.5 million will be due if it's found the defendants lied about their finances.
bench craft company complaints

Nevada Voters Complain Of Problems At Polls - Las Vegas News Story ...

ABC News airs big exposé on BMW N54 engine problems, lawsuits [w ...

ABC News investigates BMW fuel pump problems – Click above to watch video after the jump ABC News has cottoned on to the story that BMW.

Fantasy Football News Roundup, Week 8: Does Jon Kitna Have Value ...

Checking in on the fantasy news of the day for Week 8.

bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

Nevada Voters Complain Of Problems At Polls - Las Vegas News Story ...

ABC News airs big exposé on BMW N54 engine problems, lawsuits [w ...

ABC News investigates BMW fuel pump problems – Click above to watch video after the jump ABC News has cottoned on to the story that BMW.

Fantasy Football News Roundup, Week 8: Does Jon Kitna Have Value ...

Checking in on the fantasy news of the day for Week 8.

bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

Nevada Voters Complain Of Problems At Polls - Las Vegas News Story ...

ABC News airs big exposé on BMW N54 engine problems, lawsuits [w ...

ABC News investigates BMW fuel pump problems – Click above to watch video after the jump ABC News has cottoned on to the story that BMW.

Fantasy Football News Roundup, Week 8: Does Jon Kitna Have Value ...

Checking in on the fantasy news of the day for Week 8.

bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Who's Making Money

TenBrink

srexley, You're obviously delusional. There aren't "whole Muslim nations" that call for the destruction of other nations. There are leaders of Muslim nations that do: Ahmadinejad, namely. And I'm a bigot? Because I think ignorant conservatives (not all conservatives are ignorants) are creating a problem for America and Americans? Now that's ignorant.

And when I said, "Instead of working with colleagues to fix the biggest problems in here, conservatives have dug their heels in the ground, crossed their arms and screamed "NO!"" I was talking big picture. No matter what problem Americans need fix, when the Dems try to fix it, the GOP is there to block the way. Not to give alternatives, but to just simply and ignorantly block the way. You don't find anything wrong with those tactics?

It's bigots like you that perpetuate the hostility, not help it. THERE IS NO WORLDWIDE MUSLIM PROBLEM. Like I said, there are problemed Muslims. The vast majority of violence perpetuated by Muslims is against other Muslims. It's the fundamental understanding that a few crazy extreme people do not represent a BILLION-PERSON RELIGION that is the first step to combatting Islamoterrorists. Islam has a billion followers. That's more than all protestants in the world. The sooner you stop applying stereotypes to an entire religion, the sooner the dialogue will be more constructive. If that logic worked, Christianity with its bloody, violent path is just as bad as Islam. You're a quack for thinking that just because a small minority of people within a HUGE group represents the entire group of people. (I wonder what you were saying when the NAACP said that there were racists amidst the ranks of the Tea Party. Because there are....but that doesn't mean all Teabaggers are racists.)

And you can't keep leaning on your argument that "entire Muslim nations are calling for the destruction of other countries." That's just false. There's one (two if you count Gaza) that wants Israel to cease to exist--Iran (and those are just the stated wishes of the guys in charge there). The rest of Islam is not doing that. Only a small percentage of extremists. But I refer you to my previous argument. There is a worldwide terrorist problem, not a Muslim problem. THAT is the obvious. You are a bigot for applying the sentiments and tactics of a few to the entirety. Once you acknowledge THE FACT that not all Muslims are terrorists, then we can fix the terrorism problem. Better yet, once the belligerence ends in Afghanistan, I think we'll be seeing a lot less terrorism happening. When we're out of Iraq, we'll see a lot less happening.

This week, we find guests on the Sunday public affairs shows making false statements about disclosure of political funds, whether a Senate candidate pushed to have terrorists tried in his home state or favored letting states ban private health insurance, and whether middle-income families would pay more if the Bush tax cuts were extended for everybody.

Rove’s Lame Claim

Republican strategist Karl Rove misled viewers of CBS’ "Face the Nation" with a false claim that labor unions aren’t disclosing where they get the millions they are spending in the 2010 elections.

Rove: Four unions alone will — will have — according to their own announcements spent $222 million in — in money on elections this year.

Host Bob Shieffer: But we know who they are.

Rove: No, no, no you don’t, Bob. Here’s the disclosure report for the — for — for one who’s going to spend 87 and a half million dollars — the American Federation of State commun– local and Community Employees. There’s their disclosure where the money has come from. That line — that one line right there. They’re going to take in $190,477,829, and that’s the extent of where you know where it’s coming from. So there’s a lot of money floating around in politics that’s not disclosed.

Rove got it wrong on several counts, including the name of the union and the time period covered. The document he held up was an annual report filed with the U.S. Department of Labor on March 26 by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. It does not say how much AFSCME is "going to take in," but rather reports the big labor union’s actual receipts for calendar year 2009. The union’s total receipts were more than Rove said — $202,503,691. The figure he pointed to is a subtotal, reported on line 37.

Most important, though, Rove was wrong to say that the source of the money is "not disclosed." In fact, it is. The very line to which he pointed — line 37 — states that the money is from the "per capita tax" that the national union places on its locals, which in turn comes from the monthly dues — amounting to 2 percent of pay — collected from more than 1.5 million AFSCME members.

The full report to which Rove referred can be found at the public disclosure site of the Labor Department. (Type in 000-289 under "file number," or search by union name.) Since the full report runs to several hundred pages, and the Labor website won’t permit us to provide a direct link, we have posted the first few summary pages and highlighted some of the pertinent entries for the convenience of readers.

Republicans and conservatives have complained for years about the use of union dues money for political purposes, saying it gives Democrats an unfair advantage. That’s a matter of opinion. But Rove is wrong to claim that there’s any mystery about the source.

Full Disclosure

Not to be outdone by Rove, two Democrats on two Sunday shows made false and misleading statements about the Disclose Act, a Democrat-backed piece of legislation calling for greater disclosure in political giving and independent expenditures. On ABC’s "This Week," Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine said:

Kaine: Every Democrat in Congress has supported the Disclose Act that would require anyone supporting any candidate to disclose.

That’s not true. Thirty-six Democrats in the House voted against the bill. It passed the House by a close 219-206 vote in June. Republicans have successfully blocked a vote in the Senate, where all Democrats did back the legislation.

The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Christopher Van Hollen of Maryland, also falsely said on "Face the Nation" that only one Republican supported the legislation. Two members of the GOP voted for it — Anh Cao of Louisiana and Michael Castle of Delaware.

Van Hollen: We had a bill in the House and the Senate, it was called the Disclose Act. It would require all these different interests whether they are left, center or right, to disclose, to tell the voters who they are, so the voters could exercise their own judgment. Every Republican, but one voted against it.

The legislation is more controversial than Kaine and Van Hollen let on. Both conservative and liberal groups opposed some of the provisions. The Disclose Act would require independent expenditures of more than $10,000 to be reported within 24 hours and the identities of those giving at least $600 to be disclosed. It also would ban political spending by government contractors (with at least a $10 million contract), recipients of funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and those negotiating for oil and gas exploration in the outer continental shelf. Corporations and unions would have to disclose their top funders in political ads. The bill would exempt organizations that receive 15 percent or less of their money from corporations and unions, and that have at least 500,000 members. The House version, but not the Senate’s, exempted labor unions from reporting requirements of money transfers to affiliates.

Sestak ‘Advocated’ to Move Terror Trial to Pa.?

On "Fox News Sunday," Republican Pat Toomey cited several examples of why he considers Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak, his opponent in the Pennsylvania Senate race, an "extreme" liberal. But Toomey went too far when he discussed the controversy over whether the U.S. should try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian or military court. Speaking of Sestak, Toomey said:

Toomey: He’s even advocated that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the admitted mastermind of 9/11, be given a civilian trial in Pennsylvania, which is a terrible idea.

As we have reported, Sestak is a supporter of trying Mohammed in civilian court, saying it would "show the strength of the American judicial system." But it is a stretch to say that he "advocated" holding Mohammed’s trial in Pennsylvania. Sestak has said he would accept a civilian trial for the alleged 9/11 terrorists anywhere in America, including Pennsylvania.

Fun with Committee Votes

In another instance, Toomey portrays Sestak as "extreme" because of a committee vote he cast during the health care debate.

Toomey, Oct. 24: The health care bill he voted for — and in committee he voted for a version of the bill that would have allowed states to ban all private health insurance altogether.

That’s true, but misleading. In fact, Sestak voted against an amendment that would have allowed, in Toomey’s words, "states to ban all private health insurance altogether."

Here’s what happened: Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio offered an amendment to America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 on July 17, 2009, that would have given states the option of creating a single-payer health care system run by that state’s government. Sestak voted against the amendment, but surprisingly it passed 27-19 with 13 Republican votes. Sestak later voted to report the full bill out of the Committee on Education and Labor. The single-payer provision was soon stripped out of the version that passed the House, however.

So, Toomey is correct in saying that Sestak "voted for a version" of the health care bill that included a single-payer system, because the bill Sestak voted out of committee included the Kucinich amendment. But it’s simply false to imply that he favored that provision, which he’s on record as opposing.

Is Toomey the DSCC’s No. 1 Target?

In discussing why the Pennsylvania race has begun to tighten, Toomey suggested it was because of the ads being run against him by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Toomey, Oct. 24: You know, the other side has spent a great deal of money. The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee has spent more money attacking me than any other candidate in the country. That may very well explain part of this tightening.

It’s not quite true, however, that the DSCC is spending the most money attacking Toomey. The Pennsylvania race ranks second behind the Colorado Senate race, according to the Federal Election Commission. As of Oct. 22, the FEC database of independent expenditures shows that the DSCC has spent $6.3 million in Colorado and $5.9 million in Pennsylvania. That’s still a lot, but not the most.

Also, as we have written before, the Pennsylvania race has attracted a lot of money from outside groups on both sides. The Center for Responsive Politics shows that the two campaigns have received roughly the same amount of support from outside groups, including party committees and independent groups.

Florida Senate Debate

CNN’s "State of the Union" hosted a debate between Florida’s three Senate candidates: Gov. Charlie Crist, Rep. Kendrick Meek and Marco Rubio. We found all three making questionable or incorrect claims.

Meek, a Democrat, claimed that extending the Bush tax cuts for the most affluent Americans would mean "middle-class families throughout America have to pay $6,000 per year." But that’s not correct, and even the Meek campaign admits it.

According to President Obama’s budget proposal for the 2011 fiscal year, allowing the tax cuts to expire for the wealthiest Americans could raise $678.3 billion in revenues over 10 years. The Meek campaign divided that by 116 million, a 2007 U.S. Census Bureau estimate for U.S. households, to get almost $6,000 per family. But Meek expressed this as a "per year" cost instead of a 10-year cost. Meek’s camp said that he meant to say "over 10 years."

More important, of course, middle-income families would not pay more at all — at least not immediately. The taxes of families making less than $250,000 a year would remain the same under Obama’s proposal as they would if the cuts are extended for those making more. Meek would have been correct to say that the annual federal deficit would increase by some average amount per family, but they wouldn’t actually "pay" that amount per year.

Crist, a Republican who is now running as an Independent, claimed to have "signed into law the largest tax cut" in Florida’s history. But the fact-checkers at PolitiFact Florida have rated this claim "false" on two previous occasions.

Crist is referring to legislation (House Bill 1B and House Bill 5B) that cut property taxes in the state and that he signed into law in 2007. The savings for those bills combined is estimated to be $25 billion over five years. But PolitiFact said that figure is questionable, and that at least one other tax cut is higher:

PolitiFact Florida, March 2: Specifically, the governor’s $25 billion estimate could be accurate only if:

Property tax values increased as analysts predicted back when the tax package was passed (3 to 5 percent a year), and;

Local governments failed to reduce their tax rates.

We will never know what governments would have done to their tax rates, but we do know about property tax values: They haven’t gone up. They’ve gone down. Taxable property values dropped 15 percent in 2008, according to figures from county property appraisers. Property values dropped again in 2009 and are expected to drop in 2010.

That means the governor’s projections are high.

Furthermore, PolitiFact reported that another tax cutting initiative — Save Our Homes, an amendment to the state Constitution in 1992 — resulted in more savings for state residents. "From 1996 to 2008, almost $1.9 trillion in property value went untaxed because of Save Our Homes," PolitiFact wrote. "Using a conservative tax rate of 17 mills, that equates to $32 billion less in property taxes paid — or about $2.66 billion per year without adjusting for inflation. In 2007, the savings was about $7.27 billion and from 2004 to 2008 the estimated savings was more than $26 billion."

Rubio, the Republican, repeated a GOP talking point that we’ve found to be wrong in the past. He claimed that "even with the president’s massive tax increases, the debt will double by the middle of this decade and triple by the end of this decade."

According to estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the debt held by the public was $7.55 trillion at the end of the 2009 fiscal year, and is projected to climb to $11.95 trillion in 2014, $12.54 trillion in 2015, $13.21 in 2016, $15.28 trillion in 2019 and $16.07 trillion in 2020. None of those estimates amounts to a doubling by the middle of the decade, or a tripling by the end of it. Of course, we can’t say for certain what will happen in the future, but that’s not the current projection.

In the past, Republicans have used the end of fiscal year 2008 — when the debt held by the public was $5.8 trillion — as their starting point. But that was during George W. Bush’s presidency. Before Obama was sworn in as president, the CBO was already projecting that the debt held by the public would be $7.19 trillion for FY 2009, which began on Oct. 1, 2008.

Nielsen: 362000 Monthly Users For News Corp.'s Times Paywall ...

News International's silence on subscriber numbers for Times and Sunday Times online content continues, three and a half months after the paywall went up. But today audience research company Nielsen has taken a stab at estimating the ...

Nevada Voters Complain Of Problems At Polls - Las Vegas News Story ...

ABC News airs big exposé on BMW N54 engine problems, lawsuits [w ...

ABC News investigates BMW fuel pump problems – Click above to watch video after the jump ABC News has cottoned on to the story that BMW.

bench craft company complaints
bench craft company complaints

Nielsen: 362000 Monthly Users For News Corp.'s Times Paywall ...

Nevada Voters Complain Of Problems At Polls - Las Vegas News Story ...

ABC News airs big exposé on BMW N54 engine problems, lawsuits [w ...

ABC News investigates BMW fuel pump problems – Click above to watch video after the jump ABC News has cottoned on to the story that BMW.

bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

TenBrink

Rove’s Lame Claim

Rove: Four unions alone will — will have — according to their own announcements spent $222 million in — in money on elections this year.

Host Bob Shieffer: But we know who they are.

Rove: No, no, no you don’t, Bob. Here’s the disclosure report for the — for — for one who’s going to spend 87 and a half million dollars — the American Federation of State commun– local and Community Employees. There’s their disclosure where the money has come from. That line — that one line right there. They’re going to take in $190,477,829, and that’s the extent of where you know where it’s coming from. So there’s a lot of money floating around in politics that’s not disclosed.

Full Disclosure

Kaine: Every Democrat in Congress has supported the Disclose Act that would require anyone supporting any candidate to disclose.

Van Hollen: We had a bill in the House and the Senate, it was called the Disclose Act. It would require all these different interests whether they are left, center or right, to disclose, to tell the voters who they are, so the voters could exercise their own judgment. Every Republican, but one voted against it.

Sestak ‘Advocated’ to Move Terror Trial to Pa.?

Toomey: He’s even advocated that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the admitted mastermind of 9/11, be given a civilian trial in Pennsylvania, which is a terrible idea.

Fun with Committee Votes

In another instance, Toomey portrays Sestak as "extreme" because of a committee vote he cast during the health care debate.

Toomey, Oct. 24: The health care bill he voted for — and in committee he voted for a version of the bill that would have allowed states to ban all private health insurance altogether.

That’s true, but misleading. In fact, Sestak voted against an amendment that would have allowed, in Toomey’s words, "states to ban all private health insurance altogether."

Is Toomey the DSCC’s No. 1 Target?

In discussing why the Pennsylvania race has begun to tighten, Toomey suggested it was because of the ads being run against him by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Toomey, Oct. 24: You know, the other side has spent a great deal of money. The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee has spent more money attacking me than any other candidate in the country. That may very well explain part of this tightening.

Florida Senate Debate

PolitiFact Florida, March 2: Specifically, the governor’s $25 billion estimate could be accurate only if:

Property tax values increased as analysts predicted back when the tax package was passed (3 to 5 percent a year), and;

Local governments failed to reduce their tax rates.

We will never know what governments would have done to their tax rates, but we do know about property tax values: They haven’t gone up. They’ve gone down. Taxable property values dropped 15 percent in 2008, according to figures from county property appraisers. Property values dropped again in 2009 and are expected to drop in 2010.

That means the governor’s projections are high.