wellbeyond...

i appreciate your trying to bring another perspective here...


BUT...

comparisons with credit card companies promssing you mnountains of gold and giving you 30 times less are not the right comparisons to make.
the relationship between an artist like prince, who calls out to his "fams" to "join" him in an 'exclusive music club' so we can get rid off all those GREEDY MIDDLEMEN is the way to look at this.

Releasing it to retail gives no support of any truth in this so-called vision of prince. He didn't clearly let the "fam" know that the Club wasn't that exclusive. He just should get rid of using that word in the first place if he wants to play it his way.
Is it the club of the 'fams' or of Prince?


the point is that the NPGMC comes out with a vague promtion story promising MORE OR LESS that the music will be exclusive. That some people build expectations on these kinds of words is not their fault, it is the fault of the one saying them. he should know that people are going to think this way if he uses words like 'exclusive' that easily. And he should make it clear without a doubt that it is, or that it is NOT an 'exclusive music club'.
he needs to get rid of confusing these terms man!

Releasing to retail just two months after club release simply in no way looks like what they promissed for this year.


-
[This message was edited Wed Jul 10 9:28:07 PDT 2002 by Abrazo]

thank you abrazo for your comments..i agree 100%...

let me also add that I dont think anyone is taking their frustration to extremes here..Its not like people are planning to load up with bombs and blow up Paisly Park..There is just a bit of frustration and they are coming here to *vent*..

venting is healthy, and since prince or his people come here, maybe they feel their voices will be heard...there is a huge possibility that Prince's camp will react and make sure that future announcements are a lot clearer...

and damn right we are putting the responsibilty with the NPGMC camp..we would like to join up for an additional year..We are all intelligent adults here (your not the only one, bub)...it is our hope that things will get better...so that next year when we pluck down our $100..our expectations and the npg commitment are on par...

i'ma laugh at the first copy of ona i see at cheapo.

Abrazo said:

It would be the way to look at all this...if the only thing being said on this thread is "Prince is a hypocrite if he releases ONA in stores!!"...but hardly anyone is really complaining about that...what they ARE complaining about is that exclusivity concerning the CDs was being "promised" to members, so releasing ANY of the club CDs to retail would be fucking us members over...and that, my friend, is just flat out wrong...

That's why I compared it to the credit card junk mailers...just because we have a somewhat emotional attachment to the owner of the company doesn't mean that we get to stop thinking thoroughly on our monetary decisions when dealing with that company...we've heard tons of yelling on this site that "Prince needs to realize this is a business!!"..well, so do his "fams" and fans and flams and whatever other ridiculous phrase Paisley Park comes up with to call us..lol..we need to realize this IS, first and foremost, a business, not a personal request from a long-time friend...Prince will be promoting his business in a way that makes what he has to offer sound extraordinary...I, for one, expected that to happen...being a big-ass Prince fan or not, hearing all the rhetoric about the "evils" of the music business and cutting out the "middle man" NEVER kept me from applying simple and easy consumer logic and practices when deciding to join the NPGMC...and sorry, folks, I just won't jump on the bandwagon that supports the idea that those simple consumer practices shouldn't have to be followed simply because it's "Prince" and we're "fans"...

SkletonKee said:

That's the thing, though...MY expectations ARE being met...because my expectations are the result of trying to get clarity BEFORE joining...so my expectations are realistic, and are based on interaction with the company and their responses, NOT with advertising slogans and the hyping of vague exclusive benefits, a practice all businesses do...and at least from reading this thread(and others like it in the past), I may have been one of the few who actually did get the vagueness erased before joining...and I'm actually thankful that I had an avenue to use to talk to the company directly, instead of having to read thru tons of small print legalese printed on some insert...lol...Bottom line, better decisions by club members is as much at "fault" here as any vagueness on npgmc's part...I just don't see that being expressed too much, though...call it my "venting"...lol

DavidEye said:

I think the issue is some fans are a little disgruntled about purchasing all four albums in advance because they were under the impression it was going to be the only way to recieve his new music this year. Now its begining to look like maybe this stuff will eventually be made available to retail, giving those that waited the option to pick and choose what albums they wanted.

Consider those who are overseas and didn't benefit from the concert perks. All they are recieving for the 100 bucks is the CDs. Say david bowie releases 4 cds this year and I only like one of them. Wouldnt it suck if the only way I could get that one CD was to buy all 4 at once? What if I finally did it, only to find out a few months later that people can now purchase the CDs individually?

wellbeyond said:

Did you really expect to get a straight answer from the club when you contacted them? Not that you got anything especially concrete (basically "We don't know"), but I'll bet you still felt like a kid at Channukah.

wellbeyond said:

How hard is it for the folks at NPGMC to type a few extra sentences? I and some others had a little faith in P and his club that when he claims the new music to be exclusive to members that he wasn't gonna weasel between his words and do something else.

Do you think the vagueness in the clubs' outline was intentional or accidental?

I generally see that kind of cloudy advertising and claims on fly-by-night products like diet pills and exercise machines. I hoped for something a little more professional from Prince.

Wellbeyond said:

I'm sorry Wellbeyond, but I don't think your perspective on how a consumer-company relationship legally works fits well within a system of consumer protection law...

In all seriousness, you really need to make a change of perspective here. You keep saying that YOU would never make decisions like some of the people here have made. You keep saying that YOU thouroughly investigated the deal the Club has to offer, thought about it a long time and EVEN emailed them with questions, etc, etc. (do you really think any consumer does that or should do that?)

I'm telling you that is NOT what the AVERAGE consumer does, nor what he needs to do to expect a company to deliver what they "promissed"/"advertised"/"offered"...
You my friend don't think like a consumer, you think like a BUSINESSMAN.
A businessman makes an investment or costs which he thouroughly thinks through for the sake of his own company. An average consumer simply wants what he is offered and doesn't have to, nor want to think it through like you did.

What I thus keep seeing you do is this:

You allocate more of the risk from the execution of a one-sided consumer contract, offered on-linebetween one company and thousands of consumers, onto the consumers, than any system of consumer law would do.
Thus no negotiations are made possible, no front up checks about the quality of the product offered can be made and it is all up to the performance of the company whether the contract is executed right or not.

When you look at it from this perspective, a consumer is granted more protection and less duty in executing the contract the way it is supposed to be. I am not saying that a consumer is not expected to use his brains as well. I am only saying that a consumer has very little duty concerning the expectations and performance of an on-line contract than the company they are dealing with has.

In fact the only true duty the consumer has, is to pay the 100$. And that 100$ is not a little money when it involves a consumer deal, thus reason demands even a bit more protection to the unknowing and trusting consumer.
If the company would be very clear in what it has to offer then it is also reason to put more of the risk onto the consumer, but as you very well know... the the Club is absolutely vague and unclear about what people can expect.

This creates the situation that the company must do all it can in its power to perform the contract the way any average reasonable thinking CONSUMER would expect them to do.

If the promotion ads and the contract itself use terms like 'exclusive' or 'members only' and if the context of the wordings at least hint at that meaning, the risk of wrong expectations from the consumer should be allocated to the company and not the consumer.

After all it is the company who has the financial and legal resources on how to offer online contracts to thousands of consumers. Thus the company also has the duty to make sure the consumer deal is carefully and precisely worded.

Thus, in short... it is the company that is in the strongest position here, financially as well as in terms of "knowledge" on offering and executing a one-sided consumer deal.
Then it is also the company who has to take the risks for vague promisses and deliver exactly what any average reasonable thinking consumer would expect them to deliver in the circumstances at hand. The problem in this case is that a lot of people had the notion that the Club was an 'exclusive' club with music and concerts especially for the true "fams" of the artist Prince. This is the Club's fault, not the consumer's.

That last thing IS also important Wellbeyond.
You may think that Prince is just a businessman when it concerns the NPGMC, but that is NOT the case to a lot of people who are still in their "famdom".
Any hint that an artist/businessman, who has a lot of charisma and influence over a lot of (young) people, is "cashing in" on their faith and trust, will cause a look of crooked eyes in any court of law. I am not saying here that Prince is doing that. i am only saying that he could be doing that and that he should do everything in its power to prevent that and perform the contract the way an average consumer would expect him to do.


-

wellbeyond said:

Its our fault because we didnt pick up the slack for the npgmcs lack of clarity? How about honest rather than misleading advertising?
[This message was edited Wed Jul 10 11:19:20 PDT 2002 by Tom]

Abrazo said:

Well said.

rio said
an hour and a half, eh?
good one...all it takes is a quick search of your posts to see the number of posts in any given day and the various times posted...who failed math class now?

If nothing else, your pointless, meandering replies always make me laugh. You seem to think (wrongly) that I spend my entire day here. I may make multiple visits, which would total an hour at most as far as my time spent here each day. Little different from any other regular to this site, Einstein. Yourself included.

and speaking of kindergarten, it appears from your use of words like 'stink nugget' you've been hanging out at the playground to pick up new put downs...i fear for the children if you really are hanging around the playground...

Actually, picked it up from a pretty funny movie, chucklehead. Anyone want to help this Potser out with a citation?

and once again when you have no legitimate, logical response you are forced to resort to name-calling and attempted insults on people's character...trouble is your insults are completely unfounded as i've given you nothing to go on...

As if you were any better. What's immediately apparent about someone like you is that you're comparable to a Toadie. Like the little shrimp that hung out with Scut Farkus in A Christmas Story, you're incapable of acting on your own. I've never instigated anything with you, yet you're constantly here to address what you think are problems I have, thinking you're waving the flag of CalhounSq or other lost causes. You've given me plenty to go on. You are a moron.

as for me being 'hardly fascinating' i'm not the one using the same inflammatory schtick day in and day out for no apparent reason...if you check the recent number of posts by me, compared to the recent number of posts by you, you'll see who is spending the most time here...

Why use the qualifier as recent? You on vacation or something? Let's look at sum totals. And if you really want to debate about who spends the most time here, I doubt either one of us would be in the running. Grow up. And save the predictable "look who's telling me to grow up" response. It's as tired as the rest of your own schtick.

you did great restraint in waiting 24 hours to reply to this thread..i didn't think you had it in you...

And yet amazingly enough, you're right here behind me, aren't you, nitwit?

fan-an ardent devotee.
community-a class or group with common interests.[/b]
nope..no mention of racists who claim to hate a certain artist and yet continue to support him...hmm...

If I'm continuing to support him, what's you're issue, fool? I do things my way. Prince could use a smack in the head & I'm neither the first nor the last to admit that. As for the continued (& incorrect) assertion that I'm a racist, zzz

oh, and if the 'potsie' comment is in reference to my appearance, let me just say i haven't hidden behind a picture of a woman in a bikini (kellyannemcclure) or an attempted 'funny' picture of a guy in tighty whities...

Actually, the Potsie comment was in reference to your monumental level of uselessness. I've never hid behind a picture of a woman in a bikini, although I certainly enjoyed looking at kellyanne while she was still here, and the picture of the old man (from http://www.bowienet.com - a real artist's site) is quite amusing.

so if you think i somehow resemble potsie, well...i'm not hiding...so that says more about you than it does about me...

I haven't even looked at your profile picture. Maybe you're into staring at other men, but I certainly am not. And while we're addressing the topic of wasting time, I've come to find basically anything you have to say as a complete waste. One that I no longer wish to tend to. Although I'm sure you'll be back for more, as it's in your character to be pointless. Your stock & trade, in fact.

Abrazo said:

Show me ONE law they've broken, consumer or otherwise...in fact, show my one place where the NPGMC says "All 4 CDs will be sent to members ONLY"??...


I'll ask again...WHY are you so adamant about relieving the consumer of any and all responsibility here??...What you don't seem to get is that almost everyone who sides with you keeps saying that what the NPGMC advertised was too vague...yet none of you have felt any desire at all to either 1) gets some clarity on that vagueness before joining(which is AMAZINGLY easy to do)...or 2) Not joining BECAUSE of the vagueness...

My only question is, why do you feel you shouldn't HAVE do do EITHER of these things, and think that "blind faith" holds any merit in a court of law??...


And even IF Prince releases ONA in stores, he's STILL delivering what was "promised/advertised/offered"...but once again, it was NEVER promised that ALL 4 CDs would be exclusive..it wasn't even promised that ANY CDs would be exclusive...only "new, unreleased music"...that could come in the form of future downloads for all we know...or the imfamous "5th" CD that we may or may not get...or the exclusivity might be the experience of having it 3-6 months before the general public...the ability to buy concert tickets early is an "exclusive" benefit of being a member, yet the general public is still able to buy concert tickets...



No, I think like both...lol...most directly, I think like someone who recongizes that companies do this shit everyday of every week of every month of every year...my local grocery store advertises that by joining their "value club", we can save "thousands of dollars" from our grocery bills...of course they don't say how long it will take to save all that money...lol..will it take a week...a month..a year...10 years??...They don't say...and do we demand that they be more "clear" when promising us thousands of $$$ in savings??...Hell no...Why??...Because, Abrazo, the consumer DOES have legal responsibilities when interacting with a business...they don't leave their responsibilities at the door simply cuz they're the ones paying...

Costco says you join their club and you can buy toilet paper for .10 cents a roll...what they do NOT tell you in their advertising is that you have to buy a pack of 200 rolls to get that .10 cents a roll deal...lol...American Airlines avertises that, by joining their frequent flyers club, you can earn free trips to "anywhere American flies!!"...what they do NOT tell you in their hyped-up advertisements is that you must fly between Monday and Thursdays, holidays and weekends are black-out areas, seats are limited, no flying during the summer months of June-August, conditions may vary, void where prohibited...lol...WHY on earth are we acting like this NEVER happens and that any company doing so is decieving the public and it's customers???...



...all that typing, and I forget the word "early"..sheesh..
[This message was edited Wed Jul 10 11:42:03 PDT 2002 by wellbeyond]

Tom said:

No...it's our fault for noticing the lack of clarity, and not doing anything about it BEFORE paying over our $100...but I know, I know...we shouldn't have to do anything other than fill out the form and pay our money...joining the npgmc shouldn't require any thinking on our part whatsoever...

I bought a fan last night...well, it's more a cross of a fan and an air conditioner..lol...my A/C isn't working like it should be, and the temps around here have been in the low 100's...so I went to Walmart..lol...I didn't want just another fan to blow all the hot air around, I wanted something to cool off the hot air already inside my apartment...yet I didn't want to buy one of those window units, either...(for starters, my windows don't open up, they open to the side)...anyway, I go there, and they have fans GALORE on sale...and I found only one "fan" that fit the description of what I wanted...I stayed in that stinkin' store for like 45 minutes..lol...but I didn't want to buy something I thought was gonna cool the air temp down when all it's really doing is blowing the air around...and I can say that EVERY fan package made it seem like the fan inside WOULD INDEED cool the air temperature of the room down...the wording, the artwork, all of it shouted "buy this fan, and you'll be sitting in a winter wonderland"...

Of course all it took was the smallest amount of logic and thought to know that fans don't work that way...lol..as well as to see that this was all a sales pitch to get me to buy one company's fan over another company's fan...it's nothing new...and all it would take was about 45 seconds of reading the wording on the back of the package to see that this fan is no stinkin' different than the other three fans I already have at home...lol...To me, that's being a consumer with common sense...buyin' the fan based on the pretty pictures showing cool people sitting in comfort and trusting their hyped-up slogans to tell me everything I need to know about their product, however, would be being a stupid consumer...

but wellbeyond,

your talking about a *product*...not a service..when someone is promising service for pay...its only the words of *that* person that allows you to base a decision to hire...


please dont get too grand with your comparisions...

SkletonKee said:

But Skleton...we ARE talking about a product...CDs are products, not services...

Costco reeled me in with that $.10 toilet paper! Bastards! I shoulda been a smart consumer. Are you offering lessons, Wellbeyond?

wellbeyond said:

Why is there a lack of clarity in the first place? To mislead customers into thinking the merchandise was exclusive. Which is shady. Some of us dont appreciate Prince being shady with us.

We can but heads on this to eternity but I dont think its ethically cool for Prince to mislead fans who are trying to support him.

You're calling people stupid (your favorite word) for investing a little trust in the very person you rigidly (often unreasonably) defend.
[This message was edited Wed Jul 10 12:16:36 PDT 2002 by Tom]

AzureStar said:

LoL..I'll be giving seminars on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday evenings... 8)

wellbeyond said:

Perfect! Hopefully the seminars will cover saying "No" to telemarketers, too!

wellbeyond said:

no way jose...the npgmc offers services to which four cd's are a part of it...the concert perks, celebration are all part of the service being honored...and the fact that these services are rendered *after* payment is recieved makes the agreement a *service*...

when you hire someone to build a fence...you are hiring him for the service...sure, the end result is a fence (the product).but the work in progress is a service...

if prince had already produced the four albums and offered them immediatly as a condition of paying the $100 i might agree with you..

damn, now im arguing semantics like you...errr..:LOL:

Tom said:

Nope...it said that, as members, we'd get "new, unreleased" Prince music "exclusively"...that's not vague...what IS vague, though, is how much music will be exclusive, and in what form will we recieve that music...to me, that's amazingly obvious...which is why I wrote and asked for clarity...either others didn't see the vagueness(which, while not exactly fun, it's not illegal either), or saw it and didn't follow up on it(which, in my opinion anyways, is stupid)...


If people are this easily mislead, then they need to wake up and start realizing how companies and advertising works...and I would ask you as well...show us exactly where Prince mislead people...perceptions don't mean shit without enough facts to back up why they should be taken as reality...


First off, it IS momumentally stupid to send money into any business without first knowing WHAT your $$$ is going to get you...sorry, but it is...and secondly, you might wanna drop the "You're just defending Prince" rhetoric, cuz I'd EASILY be taking this very same stance if it WAS Costco...lol...my views on life is "take responsibility for your actions and especially for you INactions"...just tired of reading one post after another with the "woe is me, that bastard Prince fooled me!!" nonsense...the tools and ability to understand what the club would get you have been there all along...not anyone's fault but your own if you choose not to use them(and by "you" I don't mean you..lol..just "you" in general)..

SkletonKee said:

Naaah..lol... We are indeed talking about product...since we're not talking about the music club overall, but only one part of it, it--to use your example--would be like complaining about the fence, but not process of building it...we're complaining(and complaining amazingly early, I might add) about a product the npgmc offers, and whether or not they hold the value we each individually thought they would(exclusiveness adds a value to the CDs)...

wellbeyond said:

I haven't said that they already have broken a consumer law. I have only implied that they probably will if they don't perform like any AVERAGE reasonable thinking consumer in this situation would expect them to do. And in all fairness, I see very little people (like you) here saying that the Club hasn't got the obligations that many THINK (or thought) they have.


I have not tried to relieve the consumer of "any and all responsibility", nor said that he should be.
I have in fact said that they have a responsibility to use their brains, but that that brain doesn't have to work the same way as yours does. In fact in most cases it would work a lot less than yours has... (and you can take that as a compliment lol...)



Like I said an average consumer does not have a full duty to inform himself about any and all possibilities. In fact the company has the duty to clearly inform their customers and if they fail to do that, when they were in fact financially capable of doing that, than the risk should be allocated to them and not vice versa.
When you take in all the other circumstances that give more reason for legal protection of the consumer the case from the Club gets weaker and weaker.

And the "vagueness" is exactly the problem NOW. ... it is NOW that the consumer sees that the deal was maybe a bit too vaguely worded and leaves room for multiple interpretations and that THAT is the EXACT reason that they NOW feel cheated.
IF it really ends up being this way (ONA and possibly more cd's in stores soon), then it is simply a matter of non- performance of the Club, NOT because of a mistake of judgement made by the cnsumer, but because of utterly vague promisses that leave room for different interpretations made by the CLUB in a one-sided consumer deal over the internet, worth 100$ in advance.
(i forgot to add that also very important factor for more consumer protection).

Once again, a consumer is not a businessman and does not have to think like a lawyer to see the possible pitfalls in a deal.


Man, I didn't use the term "blind faith" either. I only pointed to the fact that a lot of Prince fans are still under heavy influence of his charisma and persona, mainly reflected in his music, which could turn it a bit into a case of 'blind faith'. But the MUSIC is PRECISELY the object of the contract we are discussing here and thus the relationship between an artist and his fans should be seen from this perspective, keeping in mind that not all people think like you do.

Thus I have every reason to apply basic consumer law standards to this deal and even apply them a bit more stronger than in any average consumer deal, because it involves a popular rock artist dealing directly with his fans through an internet venue, charging 100$ in advance and making as little promisses, as vaguely as possible.





All vague terms that leave room for multiple interpretations. As we have basically seen, many people thought more of it than it probaly is. Well, when MANY people think this way they will most probably represent the AVERAGE reasonable thinking consumer. Bad luck NPGMC>



Not true. the NPGMC in its current form is not one of the many companies that do this "shit" (releasing music through an online fanclub) everyday. In fact it is a pretty new way of doing business. And once again, over the internet. On-line consumer contracts give consumers more protection than off-line.



there you go again, conmparing the situation to something ENTIRELY different.


i basically already admitted that a consumer has responisbilities as well. But they stop at a certain point. And in the case of the NPGMC the responsiblity of excellent performce of the contract is now all in the hands of the company.



Again all examples that have not a single similarity with an online music club venture dealing between an artist and his fans directly. The way the Club is set up is as a direct line to the music of the artist so many people still love, offering them way more stuff with emotional value than any of the examples you gave.
It's something way different than what you are talking about.

wellbeyond said:

Sorry. disagree. the wording was, in my opinion, aimed at making people think the music would be exclusive to and only available through the club.

There are some retailers and products that I don't second guess with intense scrutiny simply because I trust them, they have a better reputation than perhaps a car dealer or a salesman at an appliance store.

I had previously tried to hold the npgmc in higher regards than a supermarket chain selling me toilet paper, but I guess I cannot.

Geez, Abrazo..lol..I disagree with you in SO many areas here that I don't know where to begin..lol..

Abrazo said:

I never said the club doesn't have obligations...their obligations are spelled out, actually...to provide music, live performances, perks and merchandize that you can only have access to by being a member...where the problem arises is that some(thankfully not all) people who joined thought that to mean all music you recieve will be exclusive...where clearly it never says that...that doesn't take brains, it just takes common sense...you point that out to people, and instead of saying "yeah, ok..well, it doesn't say all music we recieve will be exclusive", they instead say "Well, Prince MADE me think it would be all music"...sheeesh...lol...


There were only two possibilities...join or don't join...lol...the only thing the consumer had to do was determine if what was being purchased was worth the money they were spending to purchase it...if they didn't have enough info to make that decision, then they don't make it until they do...

Not hard, people...stop making it seem like it is...


I agree...and the npgmc, when asked directly, gave as clear an answer as possible..."the CDs might end up in stores, yes...but that's up to Prince"...how much clearer than that do they need to be??...True, I wrote them to find this out, but it's no different than reading the "disclaimers" on the packages and contracts we sign...it's our responsibility to do so...not the company's responsibility to read it TO us..


But that's just it, Abrazo..."feeling" cheated does NOT equate to BEING cheated...THAT'S why I said way up above that the real question we should be asking is "Why the hell did I join the club before I knew any of this??"...

Any takers for an answer to that one??..lol


The only thing that should be discussed is if the npgmc renegged on any part of their obligations...nothing more...the charisma of Prince and his music and how his fans connect to it is so irrelevant to this discussion, it's not worth bringing up...yes, it explains why some feel "cheated", but that's not what we're talking about...The government sets down standards that ALL businesses must adhere to before making claims of any kind...and it's those standards which are used to determine if any "misleading claims" are made, NOT the perceptions and feelings of the consumer...that's why I don't give two rat turds about the "connection" between Prince and his fans in this case...it's 100% irrelevant...


If that's the case--once again--WHY THE HELL DID ANYONE SIGN THE FUCK UP??..lol.. Seriously...why??...Are there really THAT many fans who are so blind and brainwashed that they'll shovel over $100 just cuz Prince said "pay me"??...If so, they have FAR more problems to be worried about than whether or not ONA ends up at Walmart...




The "average thinking consumer" thinking there would be more to the deal than there really is isn't a reason--legal or otherwise--to reach the conclusion that the npgmc "mislead" people out of their money...slapping "new and improved" has been shown to increase sales of a product, even if the differences aren't noticeable to the consumer...indicating that "MANY" people think there will be a noticeable improvement over the older version...so, by your logic, slapping "new and improved" on any product that doesn't obviously and significantly show newness or improvement over the old product should be seen as evidence of misleading the public...same with "Better tasting!!" and "Goes on smoother!!"...all vague terms to get the consumers to feel what they're buying has a greater value than before...



Mind telling me how it's different instead of simply saying it is??..lol...cuz to me, they're one and the same...


How does releasing ONA into the stores disqualify the npgmc from "excellent performance" of their contract??...

[

Tom said:

Actually, the wording was aimed at making people think there would be new Prince music available to members that the general public would not have access to...it never mentioned quantity...we inferred that ourselves because we knew ahead of time that "at least" 4 CDs were being mailed out to members...now, if they worded it and said "An array of exclusive experiences, such as new, unreleased Prince CDs mailed to your door", you'd have a more valid point, because by wording it that way, they are making a specific and direct link to the CDs year one members had been told about...to me, I find it interesting that they purposefully did NOT make that direct link...and to be honest, if Prince releases live CDs of his ONA tour and aftershows, and releases them ONLY to club members, I highly doubt anyone complaining now about the possibility of ONA being sent to retail sometime in the future would give a rat's ass about it...lol...



DEFINITELY a mistake..lol...it's a business, and it is applying and using the art of salemanship, advertising and marketing, just like the stores that sell toilet paper and the car dealerships that sell Toyotas...

Having not read any of the above posts, except the first and last one...

I find NOTHING wrong with Prince selling his own stuff...

IrishEcho said:

okay, so i'll ask you this question again...since the last time i asked you, you closed and re-opened your account (the reason your total number of posts is considerably less than mine..)

do you believe that african americans are equal to you in every way?


..it's a simple question..just a yes or no will do...

as for responding to the rest of whatever you said up there, i guess i didn't get most of it...but i should've known your put-downs were stolen from movies since you've proven your lack of originality time and again...

Oh Lord wellbeyond. I don't think you disagree with me that much, instead I think you mainly take my words as something else than what they mean and you are stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that consumers have increased protection under law against professionally operating companies, especially on the internet.
So here we go again ...lol:


neither have I said that you did.


no, what the consumer does is pay in advance for an entire year worth of music and concert perks, which are as you say offered to be exclusive. When a company does not want to make all that music truly exclusive they should not use the word and definitly not in the context of a one year membership worth 100$ in advance over an internet transaction with a consumer.

It is as simple as that. You are thinking like a lawyer again, saying "well they never said that it was entirely/completely/totally exclusive". It doesn't have to say that! The meaning of the Club, tho' vaguely described, is basically what any average reasonable thinking consumer would think. and in this case it appears that the average thought it was going to be exclusive.

And they do not think like you do. How many times do i have to repeat that? You have to give the consumer the benefit of the doubt in these situations, IF there are good reasons for him/her to think that the Club was going to be exclusive. And there are! You are just hanging on the fact that it wasn't precisely described as being exclusive for the entire year. And that is EXACTLY what I am shooting off here. That vagueness is the Club's fault and they need to carry the risk if many people feel they made a different deal than what it turns out to be.

We are dealing with thousands of consumers here, all making their own minds up. This is NOT a two party, negotiated deal that you are talking about. You can not expect all people to think like a lawyer and dissect the entire meaning of a scentence that the company posts on a webpage and apply all possible interpretations and only THEN make your mind up.
You are basically asking way too much from the consumer and expecting way too little from the company with the financial and organisational means to offer a clear and reasonable deal to consumers.
Point.



They THOUGHT they DID have enough info when they joined, but NOW it appears that the info was not correct and in conflict with MANY people's expectations BASED on the Club's offer. That is the Club's fault. yhey should have made it much more clear.

No.. wellbeyond you are making it too easy for the company.
As if they have no duty to inform their consumers as much as they can when they are dealing with them on-line and only putting up a piece of text on a webpage, lurring any kind of fan into the idea of having to join that exclusive music club, or else there will be no music for them! Indeed... the company has a lot of duty to correctly inform the consumer, if the music will be available in stores later.




This information is not in any disclaimer and consumers do not have the duty to completely understand what is written in -usually- incomprehensible legal language when it concerns the liability of the Club for failure of performing the contract. What the Club needs to do is make it clear without a doubt that the cd's might, or better yet, WILL end up in stores.

And they gave this -also utterly vague - answer, that the cd's could end up in stores IF Prince decides it only to YOU wellbeyond ... NOT to all the other thousands of fans who did not further inform, but thought they were joining an exclusive music club.


Because it was NOT made clear at the time that this could happen!!

But I agree that members should not feel cheated as long as the cd's aren't to be found in the stores for 15 bucks soon this year.
So far we don't know 100% sure what and how it will happen, that's why I said that the Club COULD be breaking some rules if the they fail to perform in an excellent fashion for the rest of the year, which isn't over yet, but which should not involve releases to store, at least not yet this year when the Club is supposed to be exclusive.





The fact that it is an artist/fan relationship is in so far indeed irrelevant to the question if the Club actually broke any rules...,
BUT it is DEFINTLY relevant to the question if the AVERAGE consumer could reasonably expect the way many people so far seem to have expected.

If it is indeed a fact determined by a judge in the court of law, that the average consumer could reasonably expect the Club to be exclusive, and no cd's would end up on retail just a few months after Club release, then it would break with consumer laws and principles of good faith in consumer contracts.




Well why the hell did YOU sign up? Because you wanted the music no? because you are a hardcore fan, no? That is basically it. The music was offered under what seems NOW to be vague terms. that is not the consumers/fans fault..., they didn't draft those terms.
But they did draw the conclusion from those terms stated one-sidely by the Club, that for their 100$ they would get something exclusive and not something that can be found two months later in the record store bin for a lower price.




You really need to stop putting words in my mouth... "misleading" is something different than drafting a badly worded one-side consumer deal and then NOT interpretating and executing these same terms like any average consumer would do.
It has a much more negative meaning too, making it almost appear like we are talking about fraudulous actions here. THAT is something i have not said nor implied here.

[/quote]slapping "new and improved" has been shown to increase sales of a product, even if the differences aren't noticeable to the consumer...[/quote]

Which is exactly the reason why consumers are more protected by law than businessmen, when it turns out they made a bad deal, without clear cause that it was the consumers own fault. In this case it is clearly the fault of the club that they offered their deal in vague terms. IF it turns out to be a bad deal in the sense that the cd's will not be exclusive then the Club simply failed to perform.



That "better tasting" comparison is again nonsense. It does not apply whatsoever to the artist/fan relationship we are talking about here, which involves music that lost of people have an emotional connection to and that they are even willing to pay 100$ for in advance over an internet transaction. Definitly a case of consumer protection law.





If a judge rules that the average consumer in this particular case at hand could indeed reasonably expect the cd's to be 'exclusive', meaning for 'members only', then releasing the cd's this soon via normal retail, in fact even if they release them this year, 2002, (since the membership is still annual) definitly breaches their obligation to keep the cd's exclusive to members and thus would constitute a failure of performing the contract.