7-13 Nov 2004 Computer city rebate on Netgear routers

This posting is for the benefit of those who purchased a Netgear router
at Computer City from 7-13 November 2004.

During that time, certain purchases were eligible for a rebate from
both Netgear and from Computer City.

The Computer City rebate was program number V9640.

I describe what I had to go through to get my rebate and you can see
whether it will apply to you.

Note that I have already reported all of this to the Federal Trade
Commission in the USA. If you wish to file a complaint, you can call 1
877 382 4357. If the FTC gets enough complaints, then the FTC will take
action towards Computer City.

OK, here's the particulars for my rebate.

I purchased the qualifying product on 11 November 2004 and submitted
the V9640 rebate form to Computer City at the address in the rebate
form.

On 10 December 2004, I telephoned the number in the form to ask whether
the form had been received, as I had not yet received any conformation
and I had received a confirmation of the Netgear rebate submittal.

I was told that they had no record of receiving the form and I should
call back in two weeks.

I called back on 3 Jan 2005. Again, I was told that they had not
received the form, but I was given an address for a resubmittal.

I resubmitted the rebate form on 4 January 2005.

On 7 Feb 2005, I received the check for the Netgear rebate, so that
prompted me to call to find out whether my resubmittal to Computer City
had been received.

Surprise! I was again told that they had not yet received my form, but
it gets worse!

I was told that V9640 was not a valid rebate program number. I
responded by informing them that was the number on the form I
downloaded from the Computer City web site and that "V9640" is actually
given as part of the address to which to send the form.

The number I had been calling was the 1 800 978 9035 number given in
the rebate form.

I was then given the number to Computer City rebates (1 888 213 9761),
but that number just goes to a different office at the Young America,
Minnesota rebate center. They gave me the same song and dance about
V9640 not being a valid program number and suggested that I go to the
local Computer City store to resolve the issue.

I went to the local Computer City store the evening of 9 Feb 2005. The
person behind the service desk did no more than call the same numbers I
called and got the same story. She said that I'd have to come back when
the store manager would be in. I was told that the manager would be in
on 11 Feb 2005.

So I went to the store on 11 Feb 2005. Guess what, no store manager!
Overcoming my natural shyness, I insisted on speaking to someone of
authority.

They found someone, I explained the situation and showed her the
paperwork. I stated that the evidence implies that my submittals were
being tossed because the program number was not known.

In any case, she gave me $20 in cash.

All of the above has been reported to the Federal Trade Commission.
As it has been only 13 weeks since the week of purchase, I expect that
more and more folkes will shortly be realizing that they have not
received the rebate.

I'd be interested in knowing whether anyone received a notification
that V9640 was not a valid code and how the case was resolved.

Perhaps my raising the situation at the local Computer City store will
fix the problem for others, however, I suspect that rebate forms for
V9640, at least for some of us, have been tossed and the only
alternative will be to go to the local store or resubmit or .

In any case, Computer City needs to be penalized. Best way is for
others to report such problems to the FTC to prod the FTC to action.
--
http://www.standards.com/; See Howard Kaikow's web site.




Howard Kaikow

Dag nab it!

That should have been "Circuit City", not "Computer City"!

The title of the thread should also refer to Circuit City.

--
http://www.standards.com/; See Howard Kaikow's web site.
"Howard Kaikow" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:cuj3tc$a4f$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Dag nab it!
>
> That should have been "Circuit City", not "Computer City"!
>
>

good for you! it's only when enough people are persistent and make it too
expensive to deal with rebates that this scam is going to stop.
Unfortunately, i'll doubt we'll ever reach that point.

hound them relentlessly, get every freaking dime you are owed.

"anon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:8%pPd.924$(E-Mail Removed)...
> good for you! it's only when enough people are persistent and make it too
> expensive to deal with rebates that this scam is going to stop.
> Unfortunately, i'll doubt we'll ever reach that point.
>
> hound them relentlessly, get every freaking dime you are owed.

I got the rebate, but no compensation for the time involved, or cost of
driving to the store twice.

I followed up with a posting at the Circuit City web site yesterday.
Got a prompt (canned) email response this morning.
Tried to reply by email, but there appears to be a problem with the Circuit
City mailserver that is supposed to be worked on as we speak.

I also sent a letter to the editor at the Consumer Reports web site.

I have been keeping the FTC aware of what has been the response.

It would be useful if others filed similar complaints with the FTC.
A reprimand/fine from the FTC might wake up the powers that be at Circuit
City.

As there were several routrs involved and the prices were great, after
rebate, I would expect that hundreds of folkes purchased the routers that
week, but few of them will likely see my postings.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:10:03 -0500, "Howard Kaikow"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>As there were several routrs involved and the prices were great, after
>rebate, I would expect that hundreds of folkes purchased the routers that
>week, but few of them will likely see my postings.
>
Ahh-ooo-ga!

Do the words "One rebate per customer" ring a bell?

Now we have the REST..... of the story.

there was only 1 rebate.

--
http://www.standards.com/; See Howard Kaikow's web site.
"Bob Ward" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:10:03 -0500, "Howard Kaikow"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >
> >As there were several routrs involved and the prices were great, after
> >rebate, I would expect that hundreds of folkes purchased the routers that
> >week, but few of them will likely see my postings.
> >
> Ahh-ooo-ga!
>
> Do the words "One rebate per customer" ring a bell?
>
> Now we have the REST..... of the story.
>
>

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:47:27 -0500, "Howard Kaikow"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>there was only 1 rebate.
>
>--
>http://www.standards.com/; See Howard Kaikow's web site.
>"Bob Ward" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:10:03 -0500, "Howard Kaikow"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >As there were several routrs involved and the prices were great, after
>> >rebate, I would expect that hundreds of folkes purchased the routers that
>> >week, but few of them will likely see my postings.
>> >
>> Ahh-ooo-ga!
>>
>> Do the words "One rebate per customer" ring a bell?
>>
>> Now we have the REST..... of the story.
>>
>>
>

That's not what you inferred above - "Several routers involved -
prices great after rebate" I've never seen any product involving
"several" items with "oly one rebate",

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 03:25:02 GMT, Bob Ward <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:47:27 -0500, "Howard Kaikow"
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>there was only 1 rebate.
>>
>>--
>>http://www.standards.com/; See Howard Kaikow's web site.
>>"Bob Ward" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:10:03 -0500, "Howard Kaikow"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >As there were several routrs involved and the prices were great, after
>>> >rebate, I would expect that hundreds of folkes purchased the routers that
>>> >week, but few of them will likely see my postings.
>>> >
>>> Ahh-ooo-ga!
>>>
>>> Do the words "One rebate per customer" ring a bell?
>>>
>>> Now we have the REST..... of the story.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>That's not what you inferred above - "Several routers involved -
>prices great after rebate" I've never seen any product involving
>"several" items with "oly one rebate",

No, that is what you INFERRED. What the OP IMPLIED is "there were several
routers with rebates, at great prices, so I expected there would be many
people that applied for rebates and would have had the same problem I
did.".

He never IMPLIED he submitted more than one. You incorrectly INFERRED that
he did.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 03:46:00 GMT, doubter <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 03:25:02 GMT, Bob Ward <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:47:27 -0500, "Howard Kaikow"
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>there was only 1 rebate.
>>>
>>>--
>>>http://www.standards.com/; See Howard Kaikow's web site.
>>>"Bob Ward" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:10:03 -0500, "Howard Kaikow"
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >As there were several routrs involved and the prices were great, after
>>>> >rebate, I would expect that hundreds of folkes purchased the routers that
>>>> >week, but few of them will likely see my postings.
>>>> >
>>>> Ahh-ooo-ga!
>>>>
>>>> Do the words "One rebate per customer" ring a bell?
>>>>
>>>> Now we have the REST..... of the story.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>That's not what you inferred above - "Several routers involved -
>>prices great after rebate" I've never seen any product involving
>>"several" items with "oly one rebate",
>
>No, that is what you INFERRED. What the OP IMPLIED is "there were several
>routers with rebates, at great prices, so I expected there would be many
>people that applied for rebates and would have had the same problem I
>did.".
>
>He never IMPLIED he submitted more than one. You incorrectly INFERRED that
>he did.


No, her did NOT say that there were several routers available - he
said there were several routers INVOLVED. There is always more than
one product available for rebates, to be purchased by different
individuals, but it is extremely rare for a single purchaser to be
eligible for more than one rebate underthe terms printed on the rebate
form.