Charter sends contest winner two smaller TVs, plays "miscommunication" card
By Darren Murph 
posted Jul 9th 2008 1:10PM
posted Jul 9th 2008 1:10PM
[Image courtesy of ZMETravel]
posted Jul 9th 2008 1:10PM
The percentage of sales people that recommend Samsung HDTVs.
Salespeople are also becoming less likely to recommend LCD sets over plasma sets, which goes against the industry trend.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Time to sue for the big TV and take the littles ones as consolation prizes!!!
I can easily see the problem and am surprised that it has not been brought up before. You see "65", "19" and "42" are all numbers. As such, all numbers are created equal and their should be no difference. I have no idea what I'm saying.
Can't wait to see what the local Attorney General says when he(she) invariably gets involved. Great,easy pr for them.
I think Comcast might have hired some of our ex marketing people.
I don't know how they can claim it's a miscommunication. The Charter web site touting the 65-inch prize is still there!
:-P My link didn't work.
https://connect.charter.com/hddad/?ID=197&OriginatingID=420136
42 + 19 still isn't 65.
Exactly. Simple resolution here is to ship a 4" TV
I personally would prefer a 42" and a 19". Then again, I could sell the 65", buy a 42" and a 19" and still have some cash left over.
I think a family member of a Charter employee thought that the 65inch TV would look great in their living room.
Remember the McDonald's Monopoly scam?
hrm, I've never seen a digital 19" TV. Sounds like Charter sent him a soon to be obsolete piece of junk.
Go to Europe and you'll see loads of them. I expect the US will follow suit if it hasn't already.
I've got a 19" Samsung. It has 1440 x 900 16:10 resolution, and also works nicely as a PC monitor.
This is ridiculous. The idea that their Petty Cash can't handle a 65 inch TV (especially when they have to give a 42 and 19 anyhow) rather than deal with the bad publicity really smacks of either a scam or the worst-run company ever. What were their profits last year?
This needs to hit the evening news.
The original article mentioned that the user would be responsible for taxes. Is the consumerist absolutely sure that the contest winner did not originally communicate he may have difficulties paying the taxes on what could possibly be considered a 10k+ HDTV? (I find that contests usually claim & report to the IRS the full MSRP value for there prizes even if you as a consumer could get the item for much, much less by shopping around)
I'd be interested in what the BBB finds out. They will look into if Charter actually awarded the 65" HDTV to *someone* or not. If not, they'll probably end up getting fined a lot more than the cost of a 65" HDTV.
Sue 'em.
From the official rules:
"If necessary due to unavailability of the Prize, a prize of equal or greater value will be awarded at the discretion of the Sponsor."
It also says "The approximate total retail value of the Grand Prize is $11,715.64." That includes the TV and Charter Service. The Charter Service is separately valued at $1,715.64, leaving the approximate retail value of the TV as $10,000.
There is no combination of 42" and 19" LCD TVs on the market that add up to $10,000 MSRP, unless they sent a professional grade reference 19-incher.
So: 1) the only reason that they can substitute under the rules is due to unavailability (no chance), and 2) in that case, they have to match value. They substituted for no apparent reason AND they messed up the value.
If they can't come up with the TV, then they have to come up with the cash (which will at least make the taxes easier). Sue their asses.
Damn, and Charter still owes them 4 more inches of TV. Do they see a 4" LCD is on the way?
Remember, 65" HDTV probably means a 65" Mitsubishi DLP, which can be had for under $2,000 - not a 65" Sharp LCD or Panasonic plasma.
Nevermind, saw it was a flat panel.