4 ms·

It doesn't appear TechCrunch linked to this article at any point: http://consumerist.com/5349663/the-article-cash4gold-doesnt-want-you-to-read http://consumeri

by idm 17y ago

It doesn't appear TechCrunch linked to this article at any point: http://consumerist.com/5349663/the-article-cash4gold-doesnt-want-you-to-read http://consumerist.com/5349663/the-article-cash4gold-doesnt-... Essentially, The Consumerist makes a strong case that the ads are misleading, that Cash4Gold systematically offers much less than their ads suggest, and that their staff are trained to support this scheme. Specifically, the staff knows the strategy, their script walks through offering the minimum amount to avoid sending the gold back to the customer, and the staff are rewarded based on the number of customers they can reject. When former employees spoke out about this, Cash4Gold sued them under flimsy pretenses (defamation). Then, when Consumerist ran an article about it, Cash4Gold sued them too. Read the article and see if you can find any unfounded or untruthful claims that might be suggestive of defamation. This is unethical at best, and evil at worst.

cookiecaper 17y ago
The lawsuits are unethical, but I don't see the problem with the process. They make a legitimate offer to the person, and that person is completely within their rights to accept or reject it. Those rights are not abridged by an under-market offer, there's no obligation to accept the crappy offer. There's nothing unethical with making a low offer. If the person is willing to sell it to you at that price, then great, what's the issue?
- simonw 17y ago
  You're lying to them about the value of their property?
- earl 17y ago
  Exploiting asymmetric information to intentionally screw low-information consumers on the value of their property makes you an asshole in my book. Cue the glibertarians to spew their idiocy about blah blah blah, consenting adults, blah blah blah. That's fine, and believe me, I'll be pointing and laughing when it happens to their grandparents. And yes, I can't give you a technical definition of screw. Much like Justice Potter, I know it when I see it. And paying out 20% of value or less is screwing people.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    Exploiting asymmetric information to intentionally screw low-information consumers But all negotiations are based on asymmetric information, right? This is like the cigarettes discussion. Cigarettes kill people. So just tell them so and let's move on. These guys screw people over. So just tell people and lets move on. There are lots of ways for people to lose money. I think there is a line where a company would be evil, but I draw that line where high-pressure sales tactics are used for large sums of money, such as time-share sales. These guys are no different than the neighborhood pawn shop.
  - cookiecaper 17y ago
    Most consumers understand that the company is going to try to barter with them. I don't think it's necessarily _screwing_ people. Are you screwing Grocer 1 because you bought apples from Grocer 2, who was selling them for less? That's what this is. You send them your gold for their inspection, to see if they want to buy it from you. They look at everyone else's gold and make an offer for your gold. This is an opening offer and is of course going to be very low, but most people take it because they wanted to get rid of the gold anyway. Most used places are like that. My parents operate a used bookstore; they'll often have people come in and plunk down a box full of books, and my parents will usually make a low offer, something like $5, and the people usually accept it. Not because anyone's getting screwed, but because those people just want to get rid of those books and they're happy with pretty much any exchange. If someone has books that're actually worthwhile, they look up the going rate for that book and price accordingly (which is always significantly below the lowest copy listed so that they can make money off of it). Is this a problem because the person who dropped off the books might not know the item's going rate? Are used bookstores screwing these people by offering a low price for their items? What about junk car places that will buy your old car for $100 and sell the parts for 6 times that or more? Why is it so different with a used gold place?

by idm 17y ago

cookiecaper 17y ago

The lawsuits are unethical, but I don't see the problem with the process. They make a legitimate offer to the person, and that person is completely within their rights to accept or reject it. Those rights are not abridged by an under-market offer, there's no obligation to accept the crappy offer. There's nothing unethical with making a low offer. If the person is willing to sell it to you at that price, then great, what's the issue?

simonw 17y ago
You're lying to them about the value of their property?
earl 17y ago
Exploiting asymmetric information to intentionally screw low-information consumers on the value of their property makes you an asshole in my book. Cue the glibertarians to spew their idiocy about blah blah blah, consenting adults, blah blah blah. That's fine, and believe me, I'll be pointing and laughing when it happens to their grandparents. And yes, I can't give you a technical definition of screw. Much like Justice Potter, I know it when I see it. And paying out 20% of value or less is screwing people.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  Exploiting asymmetric information to intentionally screw low-information consumers But all negotiations are based on asymmetric information, right? This is like the cigarettes discussion. Cigarettes kill people. So just tell them so and let's move on. These guys screw people over. So just tell people and lets move on. There are lots of ways for people to lose money. I think there is a line where a company would be evil, but I draw that line where high-pressure sales tactics are used for large sums of money, such as time-share sales. These guys are no different than the neighborhood pawn shop.
- cookiecaper 17y ago
  Most consumers understand that the company is going to try to barter with them. I don't think it's necessarily _screwing_ people. Are you screwing Grocer 1 because you bought apples from Grocer 2, who was selling them for less? That's what this is. You send them your gold for their inspection, to see if they want to buy it from you. They look at everyone else's gold and make an offer for your gold. This is an opening offer and is of course going to be very low, but most people take it because they wanted to get rid of the gold anyway. Most used places are like that. My parents operate a used bookstore; they'll often have people come in and plunk down a box full of books, and my parents will usually make a low offer, something like $5, and the people usually accept it. Not because anyone's getting screwed, but because those people just want to get rid of those books and they're happy with pretty much any exchange. If someone has books that're actually worthwhile, they look up the going rate for that book and price accordingly (which is always significantly below the lowest copy listed so that they can make money off of it). Is this a problem because the person who dropped off the books might not know the item's going rate? Are used bookstores screwing these people by offering a low price for their items? What about junk car places that will buy your old car for $100 and sell the parts for 6 times that or more? Why is it so different with a used gold place?