Waterstone's Customers Complain About Ads on Kindles

Status
Not open for further replies.

randomizer

Champion
Moderator
We apologise that we've altered the product from the manufacturer's specifications without telling you. It is our view that promoting our business is not advertising, and we hope that you are not bothered by static images that change because we're not removing them.
 

Gundam288

Distinguished
Sep 23, 2011
281
0
18,790
2
[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]We apologise that we've altered the product from the manufacturer's specifications without telling you. It is our view that promoting our business is not advertising, and we hope that you are not bothered by static images that change because we're not removing them.[/citation]
"until we get sued."
 

assasin32

Distinguished
Apr 23, 2008
1,356
22
19,515
96
I would try to return it under the whole idea that it was open box and I bought NEW. As I doubt amazon gave them the green light to do this. If that doesn't work hopefully I paid by credit card and just tell my credit card company to dispute it for that reason, if the store doesn't like it they can have the product back as it sounds like they bought something new and ad-free and what they got was something that was tampered with that comes with ads.
 

tolham

Distinguished
Jul 10, 2009
347
0
18,780
0
wait, so people are complaining that the screen saver is a logo for company X instead of company Y? and they're calling it an advertisement as if the amazon logo isn't?



"One mentions that she cannot unsubscribe from the Waterstones blog, which suggests all Waterstones-purchased Kindles also carry permanent subscriptions to the retailer's blog."

not that's a legit complaint. consumers should have the option to opt-out.
 
G

Guest

Guest
http://www.howtogeek.com/125944/kindle-paperwhite-jailbroken-ready-for-custom-screensavers/
 

freggo

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2008
2,019
0
19,780
0
[citation][nom]tolham[/nom]wait, so people are complaining that the screen saver is a logo for company X instead of company Y? and they're calling it an advertisement as if the amazon logo isn't?".[/citation]

Imagine you have AT&T service and get yourself an iPhone (yuck).
But instead of an Apple it has an AT&T logo on it (we are not talking the sponsored version but the full price version).



 

freggo

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2008
2,019
0
19,780
0
"Waterstones says the screensaver doesn't constitute advertising"

It is called Brand reinforcement. Yes, that's a form of advertising; why would they bother doing it otherwise!
 

tolham

Distinguished
Jul 10, 2009
347
0
18,780
0

ok, i imagined that and i don't see the problem. both the apple and the at&t logos are logos of huge corporations that are integral to the product. there is no difference except for a slight aesthetic that has 0 effect on functionality or design. this is a frivolous complaint.


here's realistic example for you to mull over. i have a lumia 920 with at&t. when the phone boots up, it consecutively displays the att logo, nokia logo and the windows logo. this has no 0 effect on my ability to use the phone. there is no problem whatsoever. getting back to the kindle in question, a corporate logo as the screensaver has 0 effect on the product. a corporate logo is a corporate logo. it makes 0 difference if it's for waterstone, amazon, apple, microsoft, samsung, ben&jerry's, nike, or honda. this is a frivolous complaint.
 

tolham

Distinguished
Jul 10, 2009
347
0
18,780
0

and it would still be brand reinforcement if the device displayed the amazon logo isntead, so that's a moot point. this is a frivolous complaint.
 


Exactly. The product has also been tampered with someone other than the manufacturer, Amazon. If they didn't get Amazons permissions to do this I fully expect Amazon to lay down some lawyer love.
 

kyuuketsuki

Distinguished
May 17, 2011
264
2
18,785
0
[citation][nom]tolham[/nom]and it would still be brand reinforcement if the device displayed the amazon logo isntead, so that's a moot point. this is a frivolous complaint.[/citation]Wrong. This isn't about displaying a logo. It's about a non-removable *ad* as the screensaver. These were full-priced devices, not the discounted, subsidized-by-advertising-on-the-screensaver devices. There shouldn't be non-removable, non-circumventable advertising on the product, period.
 

tolham

Distinguished
Jul 10, 2009
347
0
18,780
0

the case itself is covered in logos. if a logo is an ad, then the product fails your qualifier of non-removable, non-circumventable advertising on the product before even turning it on.
 

gm0n3y

Distinguished
Mar 13, 2006
3,441
0
20,780
0
While this would piss me off as well, I don't see how this is any different than what many retailers do with PCs, phones, etc. How many times have you heard people complain about the carrier's crap on their phones? I don't think they have a legal leg to stand on. That being said, I would still return the product and just order from another site that doesn't pull this kind of crap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY