Sprinkle.com

monsieur_epargnant

I think you'll find when Rich was talking about passing details on to a company he was referring specifically to when people won a prize. Again amazing how contextomy can alter what is said. How on earth people would receive their prize without doing so is truly melting my brain.

snakepilsen

lilias wrote: »

So the owner of the company is funding Sprinkle.com while it grows and gathers lots of members and an increasing social profile. What happens when it reaches the size you are aiming for? For that matter, what happens if it doesn't?

Not criticising. It's interesting.

Shame you didn't get an answer.

monsieur_epargnant

Hypothesising over a business' future activity requires a prompt answer?! Future crime. Doublespeak. Where's that tinfoil when you need it?

caffinated_geek

I won an amazon fire TV with sprinkle this Tuesday, WEM Tuesday morning I replied on my lunch break and by 5pm I had an email telling me that it was in the post. Received the prize Wednesday. Fastest I've ever received a prize.

lilias

monsieur_epargnant wrote: »

Hypothesising over a business' future activity requires a prompt answer?! Future crime. Doublespeak. Where's that tinfoil when you need it?

Well it's interesting because it means that even if it was legal they probably wouldn't want to sell customer details at this stage because they are investing in a customer base. This is probably a really good time to be a member of Sprinkle.com because they want people to have good experiences with them so they'll tell their friends. Having shed loads of spam arrive would result in people leaving.

Sooner or later, though, Sprinkle.com is going to have to make money somehow. When that happens that might be the time to look carefully at their privacy policy.

Marg2k8

I could not resist popping back in my lunch break to see how this thread had moved on. I see that we are still going over the same old ground, but as most people do not want to see a poll about it, I will not attempt this.

monsieur_epargnant

From my understanding of internet marketing is that Sprinkle will be making money from the the fact that these suppliers of the prizes want their products exposed to a database of people. From my understanding of what Rich has exposed is that this database is never exposed to these suppliers. This bit there is bound under data protection legislation which again Rich points out they stick to.

Only when goods are required to be sent out do they provide the contact details of the prize winner.

Same with all those mummy blogs with the rafflecopter prizes where you send you info by entering to the USA (check rafflecopter's terms). You think they actually have the prize to send out? You think ITV have a garage full of cash and BMWs ready to courier out? Bauer's warehouse must be humungous unless they pass the winner's details on. I randomly have checked at least 24 websites conditions and they all pretty much say the same thing and I truly am flummoxed why this company is being singled out. It's entirely disproportionate and unfair imho.

weeowens

monsieur_epargnant wrote: »

Can someone point me in the direction of this ignore button?

Just add the member to:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist

You will no longer be able to read the text of their posts but you will see that they have posted.

HTH

snakepilsen

weeowens wrote: »

Just add the member to:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist

You will no longer be able to read the text of their posts but you will see that they have posted.

HTH

Unfortunately it doesn't work with quotes.

weeowens

snakepilsen wrote: »

Unfortunately it doesn't work with quotes.

So I understand,hence why the snipping tool is so useful.