PayPal: Where $1 Cash Back For Every $20 Spent Is Less Than 5%

Since last July, the value of PayPal stock has fallen by about 75%. While many analysts are discussing the company's "fundamentals" and suggesting at what price to purchase the stock, I'm staying away for a different reason -- because they often produce Mail That Fails. 

My first post about PayPal's several Fails was in 2011 when they mailed me a shoddy credit offer. There are a few more, including a recent one about a confusing and poorly targeted Venmo offer. Now, add to my list of PayPal Fails this offer of "$1 cash back for every $20 spent at restaurants." 

PayPal Cash Card Restaurant Rebate Offer
Received May 9, 2022

Scanning the headline might make you think that going out to lunch four times -- spending $25 each time with your GooglePay app to use your PayPal balance for those lunches -- would earn you $5 cash back ($100 divided by $20 equals $5). But you'd be wrong…twice. The offer requires me to first request a PayPal Cash Card, then receive it in the mail and use it at a restaurant. All within 5 weeks of first receiving the offer – some of which is spent waiting for PayPal to process my request for the card. That's a lot of effort and a short window of opportunity for a small benefit, e.g. a Fail for Offer. 

PayPal could have easily avoided this by using a rolling offer expiration date. For example, PayPal could require the customer to request the card by a specific date, but then give the customer a reasonable amount of time to use the card after activation, say, 60 days. That would be clear to explain and fair to the customer -- unless, of course, the intent is to make imply the offer is more generous then it actually is.

Which leads me to the actual offer value. I read through the disclosure text a few times, and I'm pretty sure that cash back offer is on a per-transaction basis. So, while each purchase of $25 would be worth $1 cash back and a $100 dinner might net $5 cash back, four lunches adding up to $100 would be worth only $4 cash back. If I'm right, this is a Fail for Offer and Content for being misleading. If I'm wrong, it is a Fail for Content for lack of clarity.

Another Fail for Content lies in the disclosures. It appears this disclosure was rushed and not proofread. Take this paragraph, for example:

"Eligible Purchase(s)": Eligible Purchase is defined as every $20.00 USD spent in-store or onlineusing the Card and finalized by the merchant during the Offer Period (defined below) in thefollowing category: restaurants (according to the Merchant Category Code (“MCC”) assigned byeach merchant, their processor, and the credit card networks. Only acceptable MCCs for this offerare 5812 and 5814). PayPal is not responsible for assignment of MCC codes. As a result, Reward willnot be awarded if the MCC code assigned to a particular merchant does not fall within a restaurantcategory, even if you believe that the merchant is a restaurant. Eligible Purchases do not include:(1) purchases that are marked as “pending” in your Card account as of the end of the Offer Period,(2) purchases made at eligible merchants using a third-party delivery service (3) ATM transactions,(4) gift card purchases, (5) any purchase or portion of a purchase that involves a payment methodother than the Card, or (6) in-store cash withdrawals/cash back. 

Spaces are missing between words. The punctuation is inconsistent. Some numbers in parentheses have spaces before them; some do not. There’s also a missing comma after "service" in the last sentence. 

There are references to "e-mail" in some paragraphs and "email" in other paragraphs. According to grammarly.com, both are correct as long as you use it consistently. PayPal is not being consistent.

These types of possibly misleading offers and unclear communications suggest to me that PayPal's leadership is spending their marketing dollars without full consideration of what they are doing and how they are doing it. As a stockholder, that would frighten me. As a customer, that also scares me a bit. If I can't expect to get a clean offer and clear communication, should I really be trusting PayPal to keep my personal information secure?

Lessons:

1. Clearly communicate your offer.
2. Allow your customers adequate time to respond to your offer and benefit from it's value.
3. Proofread your entire communication, including your disclosures.
4. Your customers' trust is potentially built or destroyed by every communication.
5. The debate between "e-mail" and "email" isn't over, but at least pick a side.

Pacific Magazine Billing: Even a Scam Can Be Mail That Fails

Remember the good ol' days when penny candy was only $5 a pound? Back then Entertainment Weekly actually published an issue every week. 

Those good ol' days lasted until about three years ago. In August 2019, Entertainment Weekly went monthly -- lasting only until the April 2022 issue before ceasing print publication for good. Ah, well, I used to enjoy reading their "Must List" on the subway.

About six weeks after EW's last issue, I received this envelope package from Pacific Magazine Billing. (Normally, when I first mention a company, I include a hyperlink to the company's website; however, there is no website to be found.) 

Not-A-Bill for cancelled publication

The "NOTICE OF RENEWAL / NEW ORDER OFFER" was for two years of Entertainment Weekly for the low, low price of only $99.95. The Terms and Conditions call out that this is "just an offer and not a bill ..." but it sure looks like a bill. 

Outer Envelope

Pretty Simple Reply Envelope

A lot of sites declare Pacific Magazine Billing to be a scam such as here, here, here, here, here and -- well, you get the idea. Sometimes a scam is a scam but might still be legal. I don't know; I'm not a lawyer. I do know that a scam mail package is naturally a Fail for Creative. But this package isn't only an apparent scam; it is Fail for Timing. I mean, it is pushing for a subscription renewal for a defunct publication. 

Alas, I "Must Not."

Lesson:
If you are going to scam, scam smartly. 

Fidelity Rewards Visa: Bonus Offer Improvement

I recently wrote about a confusing email offer from Fidelity Rewards Visa with a complex bonus statement credit for a specific category of purchases and a failure to reinforce it's basic product benefits. It merited a Fail for Creative and potential Fail for Offer. 

About six weeks later, Fidelity sent a new and better executed offer to the same person.

The offer is straightforward and simple enough to explain to my mother: Earn 3 points, rather than 2, for every dollar spent online through May 31, 2022. Unlike with the previous email, there's no minimum spend level, and the email clearly explains the $25 incremental rebate cap using icons and simple language to support communication clarity. Below the three icons, the email reinforces the basic product benefit, specifically that the bonus is in addition to the 2% cash back already available for all credit card purchases.

On the other hand, the email still has one issue. To enroll in the offer, the recipient has to click on the "Enroll now" link in the email then enter a promo code (which may be unique to the recipience, so it's blacked out here as potential PII). The code is 13 digits, which is a lot to enter. In user experience jargon, the need for a customer to enter a long code adds traction to the enrollment process.

So, how could Fidelity Rewards improve this email even more? If the promo code is unique to the customer, perhaps Fidelity could offer1-click enrollment, as other companies do. If it is not unique, why make the promo code so complex? Fidelity could go with something easy to transpose, such as "OnlineBonus22."

Lessons:

1. Your offer should be simple to explain.
2. Don't forget to reinforce your basic product benefits.
3. Take as much traction as you can out of customer enrollment -- the easier for customers, the better.