Study: Ordering Pizza Online Adds Up When It Comes To Calories And Cash

(Furgus)

The appeal of ordering food online is obvious — it’s easy, you don’t have to talk to anyone and it’s perhaps less likely that your order will get screwed up with the list of toppings, extras or instructions entered in with your own two hands. But summoning grub with the touch of a button, especially ordering pizza, really stacks up the calories and drains the wallet, a new study says.

According to a paper in the upcoming edition of the journal Management Science, folks eat more calories and spend more money when they order food online. Because isn’t it easier to order 14 pizza toppings when you don’t have to admit when you’re doing out loud to a human being on the phone?

Researchers at the business schools of the University of Toronto, Duke University and the National University of Singapore tell us what we already know: we act more freely on our food desires when there’s no social norms to get in the way like they do when we call someone on the phone to discuss the matter of food.

Pizza is especially attractive online or with apps like Seamless and GrubHub — it’s like it’s saying, “Go on, honey. Get the extra cheese. And add bacon, pepperoni, sausage, ham and pineapple while you’re at it. I won’t judge you. I’m here for you. You want me. I want you.” You get it. That all adds up to calories and money.

“When we think we’re free from social judgments, we’ll order what we really want,” Ryan McDevitt, an economics professor at Duke’s Fuqua Graduate School of Business told the Huffington Post. He came up with the idea for the study after talking to a childhood friend who owns a pizza chain in North Carolina.

His pal said customers were coming up with crazy pies online, with at least a few over-the-top orders a day coming in over the internet. He let the researchers study his chain’s ordering data between 2007 and 2011, consisting of about 160,000 orders from 56,000 households.

The researchers then compared orders made online and over the phone from the same households, and found that the internet orders came with 14% more special instructions — combining or dividing toppings — and had 3.5% more calories than phone orders.

Though you might think apps and websites make it easier to tack on the toppings or get creative, researchers said in this case, the restaurant’s website was pretty simple and didn’t look much different from its printed menu. And as for using online ordering to ensure a correct order, that didn’t hold up here, either: McDevitt said customers were more likely to ask for double pepperoni online than on the phone, though there’s nothing particularly confusing about “double pepperoni” said on the phone.

The difference is, no one can hear the shame in your voice when you’re ordering online. But let’s be clear, friends: There is no shame in loving pizza.

Why You Should Probably Never Order A Pizza Online [Huffington Post]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

American Express Automatically Switched Me To Paperless Statements; Is That Legal?

(Images Money)

From paying bills online to reading an e-book, advancements in technology have changed just about every aspect of consumers’ lives that used to be printed on paper. But what if you prefer getting your credit card statement in the mail and then find out that you’ve been changed over paperless statements without being asked?

That was the issue for Consumerist reader B. who tells us he received a nondescript email from American Express notifying him that he would be switched to paperless statements.

“Essentially, they’re sending a generic looking email where they’re quietly switching everyone over to paperless without an opt-in,” he says.

The email states:

American Express is committed to providing our Card Members with the best tools to run their businesses. We see that you have an online account for your Business Card from American Express OPEN and we are going to enroll you in online-only billing statements and account communications.

As of your September 2015 statement, you will begin receiving your billing statements and most account communications electronically rather than in the mail.

A spokesperson for AmEx says the notification B. received is the lastest in the company’s migration to paperless statements.

“The OPEN (small business division of American Express) Card Members who are part of this migration began receiving communications explaining the process on June 24,” AmEx tells Consumerist.

While B. raised concerns that company doesn’t provide an opt-in option, never actually asking the customer if they want to switch to paperless statements, AmEx assures us the switch is completely optional – but user must opt-out not opt-in.

“As explained in the communications, these OPEN Card Members may control their delivery preferences by either accelerating their move to paperless statements, or by electing to continue receiving paper statements,” the spokesperson says of the change affecting only customers with active online accounts.

If you happen to be an OPEN card member and missed the email notification, you can expect to begin receiving paperless statements in September. Customers will receive a monthly email notification telling them their new statement is available.

Those who take action to continue receiving paper statements can do so with no additional fee, the spokesperson says.

Notifications such as the one AmEx sent are becoming more common in the financial services arena now that many consumers do their banking online. However, unlike AmEx’s currently stance on not charging a fee for customers who wish to continue with physically mailed statements, many companies require their customers to pay a small fee each month, Pamela Banks, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union, tells Consumerist.

While B. wasn’t exactly opposed to getting electronic statements, he felt AmEx’s email was a bit “sneaky.” But the company’s methods aren’t running afoul of any law, according to Banks.

The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act [PDF], which, among other things, requires that financial institutions establish fair and transparent practices, does not include any rules governing electronic statements.

“There is nothing in the CARD Act about electronic statements because such statements were not an issue in 2008-9 when the CARD Act was being put together,” Banks says.

But just because the statements weren’t widely used six years ago, doesn’t mean everyone has brushed the issue under the table as a “too-late now” issue.

Banks tells Consumerist that some consumer groups have continued to lobby for requirements related to paper statements, arguing that physical documents are necessary for people who don’t have the access to the internet.

One group called Consumers For Paper Options has pushed to address the transition to Internet-only resources at the exclusion of millions of citizens who still need paper-based options.

The group, which mainly focuses on government information such as Social Security annual earning statements and tax forms, points out that the “transition to Internet-only information and services threatens to disenfranchise millions of Americans—from low-income individuals and senior citizens to the 25% of citizens who don’t have internet access, or those who prefer personal transactions to divulging information online.”

While there should always be options for people to receive account statements and other important information in physical form, Banks says that financial institutions and other businesses will likely continue their move toward paperless communications.

Banks suggests that consumers who find themselves automatically enrolled in electronic statements contact their bank or credit card company to see what other options are available.

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Hotel Industry Comes Out Against Merger Of Expedia & Orbitz

You might think of Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire, Travelocity, and Trivago as competitors in the online travel-booking business, but most people probably don’t know that all of these brands fall under the Expedia Inc. ownership umbrella. And so will Orbitz if the pending $1.6 billion merger of the two companies is approved. The leading hotel industry trade group says that this consolidation has gone too far.

The U.S. Justice Dept. is currently reviewing the Expedia-Orbitz deal to see if there are any antitrust concerns, and today the American Hotel & Lodging Association let it be known that it believes there are; that the merger would concentrate too much of the market in one company’s hands.

“We believe this transaction and the resulting consolidation of the online travel marketplace will result in significant negative consequences,” says Katherine Lugar, president and CEO of AH&LA, in a statement, “particularly for consumers, but also for the large number of our members who are small business owners and franchised properties.”

Lugar acknowledges that sites like Expedia and Orbitz have generally been a boon for the hospitality industry and that hotels were among the earliest adopters of online booking. But she claims that a combined Expedia and Orbitz would control around 75% of America’s online travel agency (OTA) market.

That would leave only Priceline — which not only runs its namesake site, but also Kayak.com, Booking.com, and others — as a major competitor in the OTA field. Together, argues the AH&LA, a merged Expedia-Orbitz and Priceline would effectively create a duopoly that controls 95% of the market.

“The loss of Orbitz could be detrimental for many reasons,” says Lugar, noting that one less competitor means less incentive to innovate for the benefit of consumers. She also explains that Expedia’s commissions to hotels are 11% higher, on average, than those charged by Orbitz.

“The acquisition could result in Orbitz raising its rates to that level, further driving up distribution costs for hotel operators,” contends Lugar.

The AH&LA argues that the hotels most directly affected by an Expedia-Orbitz merger would be smaller, boutique operators who often depend on booking sites for reaching consumers.

“We also believe the combination of Expedia and Orbitz will cause small and independent hotels to pay significantly more to advertise online in the increasingly pay-to-play ecosystem of online search,” concludes Lugar. “Taken together, these effects could substantially drive up the cost of doing business for small and independent hotels to the ultimate detriment of consumers.”

In response, a rep for Expedia tells the Wall Street Journal that the company has no intention to charge higher commissions post-merger. Expedia also claims that it’s just a “small player” in the huge travel-booking industry, saying that OTAs only account for about 17% of all hotel bookings in the U.S.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Apple Eliminates Its Online Store, Moves “Buy” Buttons To Product Pages

No more option for “Store,” but you can still buy online.

Before you start to panic at the headline, no, you will not have to physically go to an Apple store to get whatever gadgets your heart desires. Although Apple did remove its online store directory from its previous home of “store.apple.com,” you can still purchase products from the company on the web. It just looks a bit different now.

The way things used to work, Apple had a separate Store tab at the top of its homepage, next to sections for its products like Mac, iPad, Watch etc. Each of those pages contained information and specs on products, but when it came time to buy them, you’d be sent to the Store.

The old way.

But as you can see in the photo at the top of this post, there’s (gasp!) no more Store, and store.apple.com just redirects to Apple.com. Though that might at first be confusing, the new way of organizing the site is actually a bit more intuitive: Now when you want to buy an iPhone, say, you click on the iPad section and get not only specs and information about the device, but also a “buy” button that takes you to a page to check out plans, different phones, FAQ and, Apple hopes, actually buy it.

If you should decide you want to buy an iPad while you’re in the iPhone section, you navigate over to that product’s page, instead of remaining within an online store, while a shopping bag icon in the top right corner keeps track of what you’ve got in there.

In essence, the whole site is Apple’s online store.

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

BaubleBar Latest E-Commerce Retailer To Open A Real-Life Store

(Facebook)

If you’re worried that online shopping is killing off real-life commerce, don’t fret just yet. A popular online jewelry seller, BaubleBar, is bringing its brand to Roosevelt Mall on Long Island. Yes, they’re moving from online to real life, opening a physical store where loyal customers and new ones can touch and try on their jewelry before buying.

You can find the brand’s costume jewelry in other stores at your average high-end mall, including Nordstrom and Anthropologie, and they’ve also experimented with pop-up stores. While the brand has grown and is successful, costume jewelry is more of an impulse purchase, which is why the brand hopes to move into the malls where impulse shopping happens.

“Our product is small and impulsive,” cofounder Amy Jain told Forbes. “We want to be wherever our girl is, whenever she wants to buy the product.” Of course, selling online means that the company has four years’ worth of data about exactly where their customers live, and that’s how they chose the Roosevelt Mall location.

Some other big online retailers have started in this very old-fashioned business, with stores mostly in the New York City area. Birchbox has real-life beauty products stores now, and eyeglass and sunglass seller Warby Parker has showrooms in a few large cities where people can try on glasses and make purchases.

Online Jewelry Startup BaubleBar To Open Retail Stores [Forbes]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Costco Pushes Back Relaunch Of Online Photo Services Another Month Following July Hack

Fans of Costco’s photo services will likely be waiting another month before they are able to order pictures though its website, as the company that manages the site continues to recover from a July breach.

For the third time since online photo service management company PNI Digital Media was hacked – resulting in the temporary closure of photo sites operated by several retailers – Costco has pushed back its timeline for getting its program up and running again — this time to early September. Photo services continue to be available in-store.

The retailer said last month that it would have its photo site back online in early August, then pushed it to mid-August, GeekWire reports.

“We’ve made significant progress towards re-enabling the Photo Center site; however, there’s additional work to be done before it’s ready to go live. We know the previous anticipated dates have come and gone, but we’re doing everything we can to bring a safe & secure site back online as soon as possible,” the company said in a statement to customers.

Back in July, PNI Digital Media – which is owned by Staples – announced it was the latest victim of a hack, with several retailers in the U.S., Canada and the U.K. temporarily shutting down their photo sites.

Staples acknowledged that PNI was investigating a potential credit card data issue, but didn’t specify which retailers were affected.

Still, retailers – including Sam’s Club, CVS, Rite Aid and Tesco – quickly took action to shut down their online photo sites after being notified by Canadian-based PNI of the possible breach or after hearing reports from other retailers.

At the time, Costco and Rite Aid said they made the decision to halt online photo operations out of an abundance of caution, as PNI has limited access to customer information since credit cards are not processed.

CVS and Walmart Canada – which took similar action two weeks before the official announcement – advised customers to monitor their credit card transactions for any unauthorized charges.

A check of the retailers’ photo sites shows that none have returned to service.

[via GeekWire]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

10 Ways to put your Online Business at High Level

Great article to help get a grip on your new business....


10 Ways to put your Online Business at High Level by

Jitendra vaswani

Beginning an online business is not a simple undertaking; there are numerous contemplation’s to consider before you even get your new business off the ground. Regularly new organizations come up short since they don’t arrange satisfactorily or disregard to think about the size of the undertaking in front of them. Online business like electronics classifieds...


from - Bloggers Ideas http://ift.tt/1fiITO8

via IFTTT

Lawsuit Accuses Jewelry Company Lia Sophia Of Refusing To Honor Lifetime Guarantee On Purchases

Six months after direct-sales jewelry company Lia Sophia said it was shutting down, one of its former sales representatives has been joined by a customer in a lawsuit against the company, claiming it refuses to honor its lifetime guarantee on purchases, even while it’s continued to stay alive through online sales.

Until the company’s announcement in December 2014 that it was closing up shop, the business worked much like Avon or Tupperware: Sales representatives known as “advisers” would peddle jewelry directly to customers at parties and gatherings.

Those customers were given a lifetime replacement guarantee on purchases that allowed them to exchange their jewelry if it ever broke, or provide a certificate redeemable for comparable value. That perk had allowed Lia Sophia to sell its wares for more than the market would usually demand, the lawsuit says.

But in a lawsuit seeking class-action status filed this month in Chicago’s federal district court, one of its former advisers and a customer claim that Lia Sophia refuses to honor that lifetime guarantee on purchases, even while it has continued to sell jewelry online, reports the Chicago Tribune.

Initially, Lia Sophia had said it would keep the online store open through February to clear out remaining merchandise, but it’s June and the “outlet” site still features jewelry for sale.

The company said in December after announcing it was closing up shop that all replacement certificates would expire Dec. 28, 2014. But when customers complained on Facebook, Lia Sophia said those guarantees were no longer valid, according to the suit.

It also told customers that the online store still remained because demand was so strong, that it was trying to figure out other ways to sell its jewelry, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, fraud and unjust enrichment. The fact that it’s still peddling products online contradicts “repeated statements and promises” Lia Sophia made to its sales advisers that it wouldn’t ever cut them out of the deal and sell straight to customers, the lawsuit says, alleging that Lia Sophia’s owners knew for months before the announcement in December that they were going to cease operations.

“Yet, Lia Sophia induced its sales advisors to continue to sell and recruit, and to purchase additional products and supplies from Lia Sophia, despite knowing that Lia Sophia would not be around for its sales advisors to ever recover on those purchases and recruitments,” the complaint says. “Similarly, Lia Sophia continued to sell jewelry to customers with its lifetime guarantee, all the while knowing it was going to close its business and attempt to extinguish the guarantee.”

Lia Sophia responded to the lawsuit in a statement, saying: “We feel confident that this complaint is without merit. Beyond that, we are not commenting further.”

Lawsuit against Lia Sophia alleges broken promises [Chicago Tribune]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Target To Test Program That Gives More Specific Delivery Window For Online Orders

(Mike Mozart)

Back in February, Target upped its shipping game by reducing the amount of money consumers had to spend to qualify for free shipping from $50 to $25. Now the big box retailer is taking its quest to attract more online shoppers a step farther, by testing a system that better pinpoints just when customers can expect deliveries to appear at their doorstep.

Starting this fall, Target will test what’s being called “available to promise,” a program aimed at narrowing down the timeframe in which customers should expect packages from the company, Fortune reports.

Currently, when a customer makes an order via Target.com, they receive notification that the purchase will arrive within a set date range, for example, seven to 11 business days.

Apparently Target thinks the four-day date range is a bit too much. So under its new program, customers will receive an email notification providing a more specific delivery window – generally a range of one or two days.

The purpose of the program is to not only make consumers aware of when their packages should be arriving, but to also drive up sales by taking the guess-work out of online ordering.

“We believe this capability will drive further increases in digital conversion rates, which are already improving rapidly, as guests respond to a faster and firmer delivery commitment,” Target CEO Brian Cornell said.

Cornell notes that Target has attempted to trim delivery times by using the merchandise from its physical stores to complete online orders. The company currently fulfills online purchases at 140 stores, but plans to increase that to 450 stores to meet fulfillment needs this upcoming holiday season.

“We want to give them the confidence when they order, they know it’s available to promise and we’re going to have it there for them when they need it,” he said.

Target’s latest e-commerce weapon? More precise delivery windows [Fortune]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Comcast’s “Stream” Online TV Service Is Basically Aereo With HBO

Stream will give users online access to all locally available broadcast TV networks and HBO.

Comcast is, by far, the biggest cable TV provider in the country, but its pay-TV numbers is sinking while its Internet user base grows. In an effort to sell some sort of TV service to this increasingly large segment of the market, the folks at Kabletown are testing an online-only live-TV service dubbed Stream.

The company quietly announced the test on its corporate blog over the weekend, and doesn’t provide too many details, other than that Stream provides live online access to “about a dozen networks,” but doesn’t name them.

Comcast only indicates that users will get all the locally available broadcast networks and that HBO is included — and not as an add-on, but as part of the $15/month price. Given that HBO already charges that much money just for access to the HBO Now streaming service, you have to know that this severely limits the other channels you’ll get.

The NY Times reports, and sources tell Consumerist, that HBO will actually be the only pay-TV channel in the Stream lineup at launch. The rest will be stations — ABC, CBS, CW, FOX, NBC, PBS, Telemundo, Univision — that are freely available over the air for anyone with a decent antenna.

Users of the new service will have access to on-demand content as well as a cloud-based DVR of some kind.

Take away HBO from the channel listings and this effectively means that Stream is offering the same service as Aereo, the streaming TV service that was gutted and left for dead by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014.

Presumably, unlike Aereo, Comcast has permission from the networks involved to carry their signals, especially since Comcast owns NBC and Telemundo.

Stream is set to launch in Boston later this summer. Subsequent cities will include Chicago and Seattle (again, no mention of Comcast’s home market of Philadelphia being part of the test group).

The plan, says Comcast, is to take it nationwide (or rather everywhere Comcast has service) by early 2016.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Groupon Launches Online Food Ordering Service To Compete With Seamless, GrubHub

(Mark Turnauckas)

There’s a new player in the arena of online food ordering: Groupon launched its own online food service for customers who want to either pick up their chow or have it delivered — but it’s only in Chicago for now. Eventually, as the service expands, Seamless and GrubHub (which are owned by the same company) could have a rival in the competition to fill customers’ empty bellies with the touch of a button.

Groupon To Go launched today in Chicago, with about 500 restaurants available for orders. The Verge reports that Groupon plans to expand the service pretty quickly, expanding to Austin and Boston this fall and nationwide eventually.

Currently, Groupon is working with restaurants that already have their own delivery services in places, but could eventually introduce the option to have Groupon To Go handle the deliveries. Some of the restaurants currently involved in the program include: Quiznos, Popeyes, Subway, and Papa John’s as well as Chicago restaurants like Ditka’s Restaurant, Al’s Beef, Adobo Grill, BIG & little’s, Freshii, Rosati’s Pizza, Star of Siam, and Wishbone.

So what makes Groupon To Go different from the other food-fetching businesses out there? The company says it will save customers up to 10% on every order, bringing the lure of a “savings” aspect to the service.

Sean Smyth, VP and GM at Groupon To Go, told TechCrunch that the idea for the service grew out of what customers already want from Groupon — food and drink is a popular category, and the company already works with a lot of restaurants trying to promote their own takeout and delivery options. That led Groupon to offer more of an “end-to-end” user experience, Smyth says.

Groupon is already be in the online ordering game in about 40 cities through its recent acquisition of a platform called OrderUp earlier this month. Though company will continue to use that moniker in “midsize” markets, it will use the Groupon To Go brand for major cities like Boston.

“It’s one thing to promote menus and get order, but how do you get that last mile? It’s that last mile that really inspired us to look at a company like OrderUp,” Smyth told TechCrunch.

Though the system is pretty basic and requires restaurants to do their own delivering, eventually Groupon might offer to handle delivery services for businesses, and add features like the ability to schedule delivery and takeout orders for a specific time.

Groupon takes on Seamless and GrubHub with online food ordering service [The Verge]
Groupon Launches Its Own Food Delivery Business, Groupon To Go [TechCrunch]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Walmart Crashes Amazon’s Deal-Filled Birthday Party, Announces Its Own Mega Online Sale

Walmart takes aim at Amazon’s Prime Day sale, by announcing its own summer sale.

If you’re not an Amazon Prime member, then you might feel a bit left out when it comes to the online retailer’s upcoming deal-filed Prime Day, which is being touted as having more bargains than Black Friday. But, not one to pass up an opportunity to compete with the e-commerce giant, Walmart announced today that it, too, is hosting a massive online sale on Wednesday. You know, for all those consumers who don’t shell out $99/year to be a part of Amazon’s Prime service.

USA Today reports (warning: link has video that autoplays) that Walmart will launch a rival Prime Day sale Wednesday, rolling back the prices on more than 2,000 online exclusive products. The sale is set to last about 90 days, the typical time frame for Walmart’s Rollbacks (its word for discounts).

In addition to the Rollbacks in categories such as electronics, home, baby and toys, the company plans to – for at least 30 days – reduce the minimum for free shipping to $35 from the current benchmark of $50.

The retailer also plans to add “special atomic deals” throughout the sale.

Walmart announced its new sale with a rather snarky and pointed blog post on Monday morning. The front page of the company’s blog is plastered with a sign that reads: “Low Prices, No Admission Fee: You shouldn’t have to pay $100 to get great deals.”

If the post’s title wasn’t a stab at Amazon’s Prime-member only sale, then the crux of the announcement certainly is:

“If you’ve shopped Walmart.com, you’ll know that every day is a special day where everyone has access to the same low prices we offer. We mean everyone: you, your neighbor, your boss, your best friend … all of whom are looking for the best price on the things they want and need. We’ve heard some retailers are charging $100 to get access to a sale. But the idea of asking customers to pay extra in order to save money just doesn’t add up for us.”

We’re standing up for our customers and everyone else who sees no rhyme or reason for paying a premium to save.

Prior to announcing the sale on its blog, a Walmart spokesperson told USA Today that the company just couldn’t stand by and watch while so many consumers were excluded from Amazon’s sale.

“We just don’t believe you should pay a fee to get a better price,” the spokesperson said.

Walmart’s rival Rollback sale isn’t the first time the company has gone head-to-head with its online-retail adversary.

Earlier this year, the big box store announced it would begin testing an Amazon Prime competitor called ShippingPass. The service would come at a cost of $50/year and offers users no minimum orders for free three-day shipping.

Walmart launches rival sale to Amazon’s Prime Day [USA Today]
Why Every Day is Low Price Day at Walmart [Walmart]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Political Campaign Stores Raking In Not Only Cash, But A Treasure Trove Of Data For Candidates

Ted Cruz’s online campaign store on left, Hillary Clinton on right.

In an age when data is just as powerful as money, it may come as no surprise to learn that sales of political stickers, T-shirts, buttons, mugs and other merchandise emblazoned with a candidate’s brand not only go toward filling campaign coffers with money, but also provide presidential hopefuls with valuable personal data that sheds light on what kind of people/voters are out there shopping.

The New York Times has a great article on the ins and outs of political shops and online stores many candidates have been opening to garner support: From Ted Cruz to Rick Perry, Bernie Sanders to Hillary Rodham Clinton, many in the presidential race so far are shilling official merchandise.

These stores provide not only an opportunity to spread a candidate’s brand by those literally wearing their support on their sleeves, but also as donations to campaign war chests. Because candidates can’t profit personally from such sales, when you buy a pen reading I HEART SO-AND-SO, it’s not a product purchase, technically, it’s a donation, and the item you receive as a result is considered a premium.

That technicality results in a very attractive amount of data that can be further utilized by a campaign. When customers go through checkout and provide their name, email, shipping address and phone number, they’re also met with the statement, “federal law requires us to collect the following information”: employer, occupation and whether you are retired, as with any other online donation.

In the retail world, that also boils down to valuable data, as the products we choose to buy provide information about our personal preferences outside of who we’re supporting in a political race.

For example, as the NYT says:

The choice of a product can reveal whether you are a beer drinker, a sports fan or what cellphone you use. It can suggest that there are a lot of joggers headquartered in a specific region of the country, indicating that a campaign may want to direct its health communications to that state; or that you really, really, hate the other guy. It can reveal that you have a baby, or at least are close to someone who has a baby.

This means that the more products a candidate offers in their online store, the more information they can potentially get about who’s shopping and in turn, voting, and how to target communications to them. Or if you buy a lot of stuff, perhaps you’d make for a good local volunteer for the campaign.

For more about how candidates pull these operations off, check out the full NYT article. It’s worth the read, especially as we head into the 2016 race. Now we know we can expect an onslaught of political merch (delicious branded cheese, please. Just gonna put that out there for whoever wants to pick it up).

Presidential Hopefuls Sell Swag, Collect Data [New York Times]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Ad Blockers Will Prevent You From Seeing $22B Worth Of Unwanted Ads This Year

In the U.S. alone, the report figures that nearly $11 billion in online ad revenue will be lost this year because of ad-blocking technology.

Are you using an ad blocker on your web browser? If so, you probably don’t care what’s behind those grayed-out boxes where the ads are supposed to be. The folks who do care are the websites you visit, because they aren’t getting ad revenue from those grayed-out boxes. A new report says that ad-blocking will result in nearly $22 billion in lost ad revenue worldwide this year.

That’s according to a report [PDF] from Adobe and PageFair, who put this year’s total at nearly double the 2014 losses of $11.7 billion. The companies project that the figure will almost double again and reach more than $41 billion next year.

The U.S. is responsible for about half of the lost revenue, at $10.7 billion for 2015, up from $5.8 billion last year. By next year, stateside ad-blocking will be taking more than $20 billion out of websites’ pockets, according to the report.

(This is where we remind you that Consumerist does not, and will not, accept advertising so we have no financial interest in the success of failure of ad-blocking technology.)

In terms of the content with the most frequently blocked ads, the report finds that sites related to gaming have by far the most visitors likely to block advertising content, followed by social media sites, tech/Internet-themed sites, education, and then sports. At the other end of the spectrum are government/legal sites, where ad-blocking consumers don’t often go.

Though ad-blocking on Safari saw the highest rate of increase (71%), that increase still only brought up to 9 million users the number of Safari folks deploying ad-blocking tech. Compare that to Chrome, which now has some 126 million users blocking ads, an increase of 51% from the same time last year.

Interestingly, while the use of mobile devices for web-browsing has increased significantly in recent years, ad blocking is virtually unheard of, with only 2% of mobile users employing an ad blocker. The report notes that this could change with the upcoming release of iOS 9, as iPhone users will be more easily able to obtain and use ad-blocking apps.

The Internet’s ability to track ad views (and clicks, and sell-throughs, and more) is undoubtedly a huge innovation over traditional advertising and its vague accounting.

On TV or radio, an advertiser might know how many viewers a show has, but they don’t know if these people are turning down the volume or leaving the room during commercial breaks. And print advertising is a crap shoot, hoping that enough people pick up a magazine or newspaper and come across your ad.

Online advertisers know more precisely how many times their message was seen, where it was seen, and whether people cared enough to do anything about the ad.

But the fact is that, outside a handful of Super Bowl and Oscar spots, most people don’t like advertising and if you give them an easy way to avoid it, they will. Look at the near-universality of the DVR. TV viewers don’t just like being able to record shows, they like not having to sit through seven minutes of auto insurance ads to find out who Gordon Ramsay is going to yell at.

At the same time, nearly every “free” website you read relies primarily, if not solely, on advertising revenue to remain in existence. If too many visitors start blocking ads, some websites may need to charge for content or find other revenue streams.

Last fall, Google launched its “Contributors” program, which would let people pay money to their favorite sites in exchange for seeing fewer ads, but the model hasn’t exactly caught fire among consumers.

Perhaps the only way to make online advertising more acceptable to concerned consumers is to make it less invasive. The ad in my copy of Vogue doesn’t know anything about me, so why should an ad on Vogue.com know everything about me?

“No matter your views on whose rights trump whose, the economic impact of ad blocking is real and measurable,” says Campbell Foster, Adobe’s Director Product Marketing, in the report.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Microsoft Now Accepting Requests To Remove Revenge Porn From Bing, Xbox Live & OneDrive

(Mike Mozart)

Microsoft joined the growing list of tech companies taking steps to crack down on so-called revenge porn – the posting of nude photos or videos online without the consent of the subject – by honoring requests to remove links to the images or the content from appearing in results on its search engine Bing and other platforms.

The tech company announced the move late Wednesday in a blog post, saying it was a first step to help “put victims back in control of their images and their privacy.”

Starting immediately, Microsoft says that once notified by a victim it will remove links to photos and videos from search results on Bing, and remove access to content itself when shared on OneDrive or Xbox Live.

Although the company allowed people to report such illicit content in the past, the new effort to address the problem of revenge porn included the creation of a dedicated reporting web page to make it easier for victims to let Microsoft know about particular photos and videos.

For now, the system is in English only, but the company say it will be expand to other languages in coming weeks.

“Clearly, this reporting mechanism is but one small step in a growing and much-needed effort across the public and private sectors to address the problem,” Jacqueline Beauchere, Microsoft’s Chief Online Security Officer, said in the post. “It’s important to remember, for example, that removing links in search results to content hosted elsewhere online doesn’t actually remove the content from the Internet – victims still need stronger protections across the Web and around the world.”

Revenge porn is an issue many social-based and search sites have been dealing with in recent years.

Back in June, Google announced it had created a “narrow and limited policy” that will treat the photos and videos in the same manner it treats other sensitive personal information, such as bank account numbers and signatures, that may appear in search results. As a result, the company said it would start accepting requests for removal via a web form.

Prior to accepting requests for removal, some victims of revenge porn have been able to have images delisted from Google Search by making copyright claims on the images. But if the victim isn’t the copyright holder of a revealing photo — say it was taken by an ex or a friend — this method falls short. Google’s new policy may close such loopholes that allowed these search results to remain.

In March, Twitter outlawed revenge porn through new terms of service. Just days before that, Reddit banned revenge porn with an update to its privacy policy that prohibits the posting of nude and sexual images without the consent of the subject.

Additionally, sites that existed solely to publish such content have come under fire from lawmakers and federal regulators.

In January, the operator of one now-defunct site dedicated to revenge porn called “isanybodydown.com” was the focus of a complaint from the Federal Trade Commission, which alleges he used deception to acquire nude content to post online, among other things.

He settled with the FTC and was ordered to destroy all images and personal contact information he collected from victims and people who knew them.

Shortly after that case, in February, the operator of a similar venture called yougotposted.com was found guilty of identity theft and extortion for running the site, which included thousands of sexually explicit images, mostly of women, that were published by anonymous users without the subjects’ consent or knowledge. He’s facing up to 20 years in jail as a result.

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Amazon, Penguin Random House Avoid Dispute, Reach Deal For Physical & Online Book Sales

(Micah Baldwin)

Public feud avoided. Less than a month after reports began swirling that Amazon and the world’s largest book publisher Penguin Random House could potentially come to blows over a new contract for online book sales, the two entities have reached a long-term agreement.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Amazon and Penguin Random House squashed any possibility of another Hachette-like feud by entering into a new contract over both physical and e-books in the U.S. and U.K.

Spokespeople for the companies declined to provide additional information on the contract other than to say it was “long-term.”

“We are still in business with Amazon, and with all our retail partners, and will continue to be,” Penguin Random House said in a statement.

Penguin Random House was the last of the “big five” publishers to renew its contract with Amazon to sell titles online.

Booksellers magazine reported last month that the negotiation dispute between the two companies centers on the pricing model in which publishers get to set the consumer price of e-books, while retailers take a commission.

Industry insiders said at the time that a feud between Amazon, the top seller for books online, and Penguin Random House, which publishes about 15,000 books a year, would be costly for both sides.

Amazon could have possibly frozen pre-orders and slowed delivery of the publisher’s titles, a move that occurred during the months-long battle with Hachette in 2014, and the publisher could have flexed its own muscle by removing its titles from Amazon.

Amazon, Penguin Random House Agree to New Deal on Book Sales [The Wall Street Journal]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

PayPal Buys Online Money Transfer Company Xoom For $890M

(Liz Wise)

PayPal appears to be preparing for its upcoming separation from parent company eBay later this month by buying an online money-transfer company to increase its international and online presence.

The Wall Street Journal reports that PayPal will buy Xoom Corp. for $890 million, giving it an entryway into the remittance market.

Xoom Corp. specializes in allowing people to send money internationally, generally through mobile phone transactions.

The company typically collects a fee of $5 to $10 depending on the transaction size, while also keeping the difference in exchange rates.

PayPal’s move to purchase the San Francisco-based Xoom is just the company’s latest push to capture more mobile business. In the past, PayPal has heavily publicized its peer-to-peer money transfer division Venmo, the WSJ reports.

The company says it plans to keep all 300 current Xoom employees and executives.

The proposed acquisition comes as PayPal prepares to spin off from parent company eBay after 13 years on July 17. eBay acquired PayPal in 2002. The payment processing service represented about 41% of eBay’s net revenue in 2013.

PayPal to Buy Online Money-Transfer Company for $890 Million [The Wall Street Journal]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Sears Is Hiring For Its Call Centers, Holds Job Fair In Alabama

It may surprise you to learn that Sears Holdings, a company that has been shedding jobs as it slims down its retail presence, is giving hope to people who are unemployed, but it’s true. The company is hiring for 100 new positions at its call center in Alabama, explaining that the closure of physical stores means that some of those sales shift online.

In theory, anyway: all of my local Kmarts have closed, and even though I’ve been a loyal shopper there since I was an infant, there’s nothing I feel compelled to buy online at Kmart. Other people apparently disagree, and with Kmart moving some customers layaway contracts online when a store closes, that at least encourages those customers to think about shopping online.

The Sears store near the call center has also closed, which is probably why it surprised people to learn that Sears was hiring instead of laying people off. Yet the company held a job fair for about 100 call center positions, at least creating hope for people in one area with a higher than average unemployment rate out of the massive shift in their business.

Job Seekers head to Sears for Employment [WKRG]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Backpage.com Sues Sheriff For Persuading Visa, MasterCard To Stop Serving Site

Just a sampling of the adult-entertainment listings on Backpage for the Chicago area.

Earlier this month, the sheriff of Cook County, IL, persuaded both Visa and MasterCard to end their relationships with online classifieds site Backpage.com, alleging the site is known to “promote prostitution and facilitate online sex trafficking.” Today, the website fired back with a lawsuit against the sheriff.

Backpage has continued to offer adult-oriented classified ads for escorts and massages, even as competitors like Craigslist no longer include dedicated sections for these types of services. The site has been repeatedly accused of abetting sex trafficking, but has survived legal efforts to censor the user-generated ads.

However, the Wall Street Journal reports that Backpage believes Sheriff Thomas Dart’s efforts to eliminate Visa and MasterCard as payment options for advertisers on the site are tantamount to government censorship of protected free speech.

“Sheriff Dart’s actions to cripple Backpage.com and all speech through the site are an especially pernicious form of prior restraint,” reads the complaint, filed in a federal court in Chicago. “He has achieved his purpose through false accusations, innuendo, and coercion.”

Backpage seeks damages to make up for the revenue it’s losing by not being able to accept these cards.

“Our goal is to ensure that one elected official, particularly a county sheriff, cannot dictate what speech is or is not appropriate,” the site’s general counsel tells the Journal.

American Express, which has long avoided associations with adults-only merchants like strip clubs, had already ended its relationship with Backpage for advertising in the adult section of the site.

The sheriff’s office unsuccessfully sued Craigslist in 2009, claiming its adults-only ads were a public nuisance. This time, Dart says he isn’t trying to censor anyone; he just doesn’t want credit card companies to facilitate potentially illegal transactions.

“It is regrettable that Backpage has dedicated so many resources to lawyers and lobbyists when they could be partnering with law-enforcement to seek justice for sex trafficking victims,” a statement from the sheriff’s office to the Journal read.

While Backpage has received support from some in the media for its previous First Amendment fights, others are applauding the recent decisions by Visa and MasterCard.

“Other businesses should act just as boldly to stop their brands from being associated with a website that reportedly generates millions of dollars every month through online ads for adult entertainment,” reads a recent opinion piece from the Seattle Times editorial board. “[S]exual exploitation of anyone, especially children, should not be as easy to purchase as a book on Amazon.com or takeout from Jimmy John’s.”

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Luxury Accessory Counterfeiters Change Their Methods, Brands Must Catch Up

(Christine)

It used to be pretty easy to spot counterfeit luxury goods online: when a handbag that normally costs, say, $3,000 is available for $50 on a website that popped up overnight, that’s usually a pretty good hint. That’s why counterfeiters have an interesting new tactic: they’re improving the quality of their fakes and selling them for prices closer to those of the original item. You know, to keep from arousing customers’ suspicion.

At the same time, consumers who can afford to drop a few thousand dollars on items like watches or purses are more comfortable making those purchases online, which makes it even more important that they’re sure the items they’re ordering are genuine.

There are now companies that specialize in this specific field: a recent Bloomberg News article featured MarkMonitor and Data & Data exist specifically to do this for brands that are likely to be counterfeited, though of course they can’t tell you who their clients are. Their method is to trace the seemingly infinite number of sites selling bogus goods back to the relatively few masterminds that run the sites.

One marketplace notorious for counterfeit goods is trying to become less notorious and carry fewer counterfeit goods. Alibaba has relationships with makers of fancy accessories that range from friendly to litigious, and has formed special partnerships with some brands that allow them to order faster takedowns of counterfeit items.

How much money is at stake? One research firm estimates that counterfeit sales –– even sales for more than 50 bucks –– result in $82 billion in lost sales for designer and luxury brands every year.

Luxury Firms Fight Online Fraudsters Over Expensive Fakes [Bloomberg]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist