Slashdot Mirror
Calling Video Professor a Scam
palmerj3 writes in to give some wider attention to a piece on Techcrunch today in which Michael Arrington reacts to Video Professor's desperate attempts to shut him up after he called Video Professor a scam in a piece syndicated by the Washington Post. As described by Arrington, the ways the company's site operates (differently depending on where a visitor comes from) are strongly reminiscent of the practices a Senate committee recently condemned. (Here is a detailed example of another, similar scam, from a not-naive victim. Video Professor's tactics sound even more deceptive.) Video Professor seems to react with belligerence, not to mention legal threats, towards any hint of criticism. Please share any direct experiences you have with this outfit.
Not that the actual Video Professor teaching tool is a scam.
About two-thirds of the way down in the article:
Another scam: Video Professor. Users are offered in game currency if they sign up to receive a free learning CD from Video Professor. The user is told they pay nothing except a $10 shipping charge. But the fine print, on a different page from checkout, tells them they are really getting a whole set of CDs and will be billed $189.95 unless they return them. Most users never return them because they don't know about the extra charge. Woot. Again, sites like Offerpal and SuperRewards flow these offers through to game developers. See here for more on the Video Professor scam.
So, Video Professor is a scam, but it's a minor point in the article.
It's not a minor point in the article, it's the entire article. This is the article, the other link in the summary was just an aside...
The article really takes video professor apart. It's a total scam and there's no more doubt about it.
No its not a bad summary. The original article also mentions Video Professor as a scam below the FB/game currency scams.
You may not agree with it but TFA does call Video Professor a scam.
Not that the actual Video Professor teaching tool is a scam.
Their practices are a scam. I have no idea how useful the product is but as the problem seems to be with getting refunds
then I'd say its not worth the $190-290 you get billed for it if you cant navigate their deliberately confusing returns process.
Video Professor is a company in the U.S. with ads that are very common on TV. They consist of an older man advertising his videos in which he shows how to use various software. He then assures the viewer that he is so sure you will like his product, he will send you one free. What actually happens is that you get the free video (plus shipping and handling), then a charge on your credit card for another video each month.
Yes it is, but there are other Video CDs sent to the person who tries the product including charges made to the credit card.
His business is like a "Book of the Month" or "CD of the Month" type club where the first one is free (for a limited time and if you don't send it back you get charged for it, hence the "try" part of "try my product") and if you don't like it you can call and cancel it and send the CD back to avoid being charged for it.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
well according to this
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/28/video-professor-washington-post-scamville/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Techcrunch+(TechCrunch)
(link is in the summary)
Essentially it appears your getting a couple of free CD's and paying a few dollars for shipping. In reality you get sent a bunch of stuff and billed $289.95 (they have your credit card details from the 4 dollar shipping charge) In theory there is a get out clause return one of the lessons within 10 days then you don't get billed but apparently thats not so easy to do.
Is it a scam? Well if you didn't intend to purchase $289.95 worth of cd's I'd say yes, because there is some text on the front page which says they will bill you $289.95 and its also hidden away in a bunch of small print they say no.
The order summary only mentions $4.56 shipping charges for 3 cd's
They target the gullible, computer novices who don't realize they are giving away access to their credit card.
Probably the only defense against this kind of abuse are one time credit cards but even then your credit score could take a bashing.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
I tried out the Photoshop package. It actually has a lot of info and tutorials in there. However, from watching and reading ads, it seemed that it would be a reasonable price. I wasn't notified of the nearly $200 charge for it. I called theem and told them it was a rip-off and false advertising. They gave me my money back AND let me keep the course. That really surprised me.
type business. Now Video Professor sells a series of Tutorial Movies on CDs that show how to use a Windows software product or Windows itself or some Web Site like eBay. Like the "X of the Month Club"s the first one is free for X days and if not sent back and order is canceled new Video CDs are sent and the person's credit card is charged.
Calling it a "scam" is very strong words, and they have sued people who say that. It is a business and the terms on the TV commercials are in small print, and the EULA the user clicks on explains it is a membership in a club to purchase Video CDs for various software products.
The Average Slashdot member doesn't need Video Professor because we usually just use search engines like Google to figure out how software or web sites work. These Video Professor CDs are marketed towards the luddites and people with little to no computer skills and open up a video in Microsoft Media Player. The type of people who don't bother to read the EULA or know that it is a membership or trial offer. So you could say that Video Professor preys on the unskilled and the weak, but legally they have a legal contract with them via the EULA they click agree on via their web site or via the Phone Orders. If it is a legal agreement and legitimate business it is not necessarily a scam, it might be unethical or immoral or appear to be wrong in some way but it is still legal. It is as legal as those "Book of the Month" or "CD of the Month" businesses.
You'll actually find the Internet full of such offers and such companies. But Video Professor airs TV commercials targeted at people who don't seem to understand how a computer works much less how a trial membership works.
I hereby challenge the free and open source community to make a serials of software tutorials for various Windows operating systems, Windows software, web sites, etc and provide those videos free via downloads or web site streaming to engage and or challenge the Video Professor company, and provide free alternatives that people on Slashdot and other technical web sites can refer to our friends and relatives who might get taken in via Video Professor, and instead we can redirect them to the FOSS web site of software tutorial videos or download them and burn our own FOSS Software Professor CD-R disks and give them to them for free.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Seriously, I know I could just google it but damnit slashdot, this sounds like a typical example of an editor knowing about a subject that a submission happens to be about yet most likely the average slashdot users doesn't have a clue as to what/who the fuck "Video professor" is.
/Mikael
Never heard of them here in Sweden. And no, they don't run their commercials in Sweden (not that I watch TV anymore).
/Mikael
Slashdot is, and has always been, an American site. They're quite upfront about that.
The average American absolutely does know who the Video Professor is. His ads have been essentially ubiquitous on late night television for close to fifteen years.
It's patently unreasonable to complain about the obscurity of cultural references on a foreign site when as you yourself pointed out, the answer is readily available on google. Or in TFA.
I certainly see his commercials in Canada (albeit over American TV channels). I don't know anything about this law, but it's not working very well (or works only for exclusively Canadian TV stations and honestly there aren't a lot of those).
According to many accounts posted on the web, it's difficult/impossible to cancel, and it takes months to receive your $80+ refund for a returned DVD.
First of all, your ignorance is downright supernatural in itself. Very VERY few Christians believe that the Earth is 6000 years old. But since you seem to think that Christians are so ignorant, maybe you should tell the modern scientists that base their knowledge on the science that came from these guys:
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
All believed in God, many were devout Christians. Of course, that is a very partial list. Do you really think that you are smart enough to you say that these guys are unable to "can apply a modicum of critical thinking to remedy their condition." Sorry, but until modern astronomy, physics, philosophy, or even the scientific basis for temperature are based on your work, you are unqualified to criticize these guys.
(if you are to mod this off topic, it's only fair to mod the parent OT first)
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Apparently, this guy's lawyers can't take a joke (then again, no laywer can), Last year, Video Professor's legal department sent an email to Wikia, a wiki hosting company, concerning this article about John Scherer on Uncyclopedia, a satirical parody of WIkipedia. They requested removal of the article. However, the article in question and the pictures on it were used for the purposes of parody and humor and thus are likely protected under fair use. Instead of deleting the article, the community decided to take the opportunity to make fun of the lawsuit as well. The email sent to Wiki (and the associated drama) can be found here.
Slashdot posted this story in 2007 about Video Professor sueing to get critical reviews off the internet.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/24/1619240
Yeah, that worked out well for them, didn't it?
This is just another reason why I use temporary credit card numbers for online purchases. They're only good for a set period of time and you set the maximum chargeable amount.
The end result is that they never actually have your credit card number.
Of course a better solution is to read the fine print, both online and on your packing slip, so you know the deal. I too had one of those 'free offers' that was really a 'free trial'. Luckily I read my packing slip which had all the details on how to cancel it. Followed the instructions, no problem. But they were also pretty up-front about it.
Any company that buries a subscription or a situation where you have to pay for things you never thought you ordered is a scam. Period. End of story. They're counting on the fact that most people won't understand or read the agreement. Trying to squash negative commentary is just more proof that they know what they're doing is wrong.
Thank whatever you hold dear that you HAVEN'T been subjected to their amazingly annoying, low quality, grating ads. This old guy who supposedly runs the company did all this on purpose to make them seem like they're a small, local-type outfit. He begs you to "try his product" in a way that makes you wish you could slap him for acting so falsely pathetic on television. But the fact is, those commercials have been running on almost every channel INCLUDING radio here in the US for the past 20 years, and that takes a pretty serious advertising budget to pull off, even if they do schedule only the cheapest blocks of air time. And they are shown nationally, as far as I know.
I'm not surprised they're a scam, what with how obviously clumsy their attempt to trick people into thinking they're not some big amorphous corporation they are.
I ordered a 'free' Video Professor Access learning set about 10 years ago. The set came with 3 discs in a single package. 2 of the discs were free, but in order to keep the 3rd, the last lessons, I would have had to pay the $29.95 for the set. In other words, if you want the free part, it's only the introductory and intermediate lessons. Additionally, each disc installed several programs I would have to characterize as spyware. Not just the first, but each disc. Before they would run any lessons. So, I sent the 'free' software back. And then I got to struggle with their hands in my pocket through 3 more 'free' (unordered) sets, each of which showed up on my credit card statement before the (unordered) sets arrived. Each subsequent time I called to protest I was told to keep the discs. Of course, they were worth more as infections than as product. I finally canceled the credit card to stem the pilfering. 'Scam' is kind.
Even the typical X of the month offer is much more clear about the terms and what it will cost. They typically tell you what you'll be charged up front and tell you what you'll need to do to avoid further charges. Those further charges are a little high, but not outrageously out of line with typical retail pricing. It's not the sort of offer I care to accept, but they at least tell you what you're getting in to.
With the Video Professor, I didn't know what the deal was at all until I read the various scam warnings. I had written it off as likely having some sort of catch, but I had no idea what.
I have seen a number of reports (some in this discussion) indicating that actually getting the CD returned and getting your refund is quite difficult as well.
I hope you are joking about this being a "scam". This is a tactic used by many many legitimate companies that offer "free" trials. Even Blizzard does it with World of Warcraft free trials..*
Sorry, any company that offers a "free trial" and then automatically bills you is running a scam. Yes, there are many otherwise legitimate companies that run this scam. Yes, the Blizzard "free trials" are a scam. This tactic is a scam, any company that uses it should be considered suspect.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The last time I did a WoW free trial I didn't have to give them any payment information at all. The account just went dormant after two weeks and they told me I could buy the game online to re-activate it if I wanted. I didn't and they never billed me in any way.
Graham
I was stationed at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, and have seen her, and met her. In fact I was part of the 172nd stryker brigade. The same unit her son was/is in. (Note the units been renamed, 1st of the 25th) If need be I can supply evidence of such. What about you, did you get all of your info from her book? Or was it faux news
She quit her position in Alaska, to either write her book, so shes greedy, and cares nothing for her constituents, or she quit to get ready to run for president. Which means shes power hungry and doesn't care about her constituents. EITHER way, I think shes an idiot.
Did you hear me defending Obama? I think most politicians are idiots, and tend to choose the lesser of two evils.
.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Some things that always get forgotten and therefore create myths:
Caveat Emptor is a legal principle for real property, not for every contract that is made. In all other cases (and actually even property law has changed in some ways), in both common and statutory law caveat emptor has for a long time not been the overriding principle.
Misrepresentation and deception is always a reason that can potentially void a contract and even create a situation in which further damages might be enforceable.
If every single person being scammed would go to court in might create such a wave of "spam trials" that those scammers could not hire enough lawyers to defend themselves. That would actually be hilarious. Unfortunately far too many corporations bully consumers with unenforceable terms and conditions and intimidations. It is not illegal to create the appearance that terms and conditions are binding even if the party issuing them know about the impossibility of enforceability.
IAAL.. but I don't actively practice. As always the disclaimer: Nothing in this message constitute legal advice. If someone needs legal advice for their personal situation, they should consult a registered and licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
I knew about the 10 day deadline to stop the extra charges and made it in time. I also called the customer service line to inform them that I had sent in the refusal notice. But they charged me anyway. So I called them to ask what was up and they said it would be taken care of in five days. So in seven days I called them again to ask where was my refund. Once again, they said it was a mix up or a clerical error and it would be processed in five days. This process repeated over and over. Each time they apologized and said it was a clerical error and would be taken care of within five days. But it never was. It was just one lie after another. It went on for months before I finally wrote to the Denver Better Business Bureau. Only then did they actually refund the money that they had no right to take from me in the first place. John Scherer (the video professor) is as dishonest as they come. They might not be breaking the law but if you have an ounce of sense in your head, you will never do business with this crook. (I called him much worse when I was fighting to get my money back.)
That isn't a BBB statement. It is the BBB accredited icon, and their disclaimer. It does look fishy putting the two so close together, and the BBB may require them to have it.
What I find disturbing is that they have an A rating with the BBB, but there are three other businesses incorporated with the Video Professor name that do not. Only the one based in Denver, and the one that the website claims to be, have been rated at all. Any business folks want to chime in with how hard it would be for a business to just reincorporate in a different state / country every time the older corporation got into trouble? I assume that, if the founder kept the trademark then there would be no chance of the old company suing the new one, but what other hurdles might there be?
This very act is what prompted the "negative option billing" law in the first place. The dates (yours or the "10 year" estimate) are either wrong, or your friends were caught by something less generic - i.e. they had signed up for it somewhere without realizing it. But, again, Rogers also could have just pushed their luck...
you don't even have to reincorporate somewhere else to pull that scam off. The BBB makes money from businesses paying them for "accreditation" and they don't make money from consumers. Their bias is obvious.
Here in SoCal there is a construction fraud gang that seems to mostly be run by a Moroccan/Israeli family named Ben Shulsh. I tried to report their most recent front company (Erco Construction) to the BBB and they would even bother to even look at it. They publicly list the same front people, and they are at the same business address as their last front company (Highrise construction) and 2 miles from the front companies before that (BC Specialty Construction, Bashan and Allied). The BBB only changed the the rating on BC from A+ to F *after* they had robbed everybody, folded up shop and when into hiding for a few weeks. This despite complaints going back months.
I wouldn't put any stock in the BBB or its rating of anything. They are just there to collect the accreditation fees.
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan