Grader Notes

[Transplant]

If you ever ask yourself why companies put this BS into their terms and conditions, or those long user agreements, this is the reason folks.

 

I'm about done with the topic, based on this new revelation (to me). Not a lot of room to argue about what they can do and what they can do with the data, if a court upholds the strict language of such a contractual term.

 

Maybe instead of whether they CAN do it (which I was briefly optimistic they could not), we need to go back to asking whether they SHOULD do it?

[Boba]

50 pages since my last post in this thread, seems like the majority thinks It's wrong to charge for the graders notes

[fantastic_four]

Wow. You guys would not make great patent or IP lawyers. If drug companies can patent a natural. biological process, then I think I can copyright the description of the book I own. Especially true if I haven't make that description or viewing public. To just dismiss the idea that the owner of a copyright or some IP is without merit, simply because the IP or description or copyright is simplistic, is foolish. You're showing you don't really know what you're talking about.

 

We apologize for our amateur rantings bringing down your legal standards for our comic book forum, o aspiring patent attorney Transplant. What is that you think is unique about the kinds of notes they take that hasn't been written in other forms a zillion times before and is a truly unique expression?

[Aman619]

If you ever ask yourself why companies put this BS into their terms and conditions, or those long user agreements, this is the reason folks.

 

I'm about done with the topic, based on this new revelation (to me). Not a lot of room to argue about what they can do and what they can do with the data, if a court upholds the strict language of such a contractual term.

 

Maybe instead of whether they CAN do it (which I was briefly optimistic they could not), we need to go back to asking whether they SHOULD do it?

 

 

which is where Ive been coming from. they CAN do it. So they ARE doing it. But the COST is in the SHOULD THEY area. It is ridiculously high, and makes sense more as a way to stop dealing with the notes than as a profit center (though, you can hear the execs saying... "but it just might. give it a try!")

[DiceX]

Thread recap so far brought to you by Graemlin Theater...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We now resume your regularly scheduled Friday thread already in progress...

 

 

 

For those just joining, to catch yourself up just read this post five more times.

 

 

 

[VintageComics]

If you ever ask yourself why companies put this BS into their terms and conditions, or those long user agreements, this is the reason folks.

 

I'm about done with the topic, based on this new revelation (to me). Not a lot of room to argue about what they can do and what they can do with the data, if a court upholds the strict language of such a contractual term.

 

Maybe instead of whether they CAN do it (which I was briefly optimistic they could not), we need to go back to asking whether they SHOULD do it?

 

 

which is where Ive been coming from. they CAN do it. So they ARE doing it. But the COST is in the SHOULD THEY area. It is ridiculously high, and makes sense more as a way to stop dealing with the notes than as a profit center (though, you can hear the execs saying... "but it just might. give it a try!")

 

There have been a few decisions made by CGC that might better have been served to have been run through an underwriter and a PR team rather than just an executive. Sometimes I wonder who makes these decisions as they might seem profitable in a board room but not as realistic and practical in the real world.

 

To me it seems obvious that the idea of charging for grading notes would be much more profitable if it were priced for a much larger buying pool than just the top percentile of collectors and dealers.

 

Pricing them at a $2 / $4/ $6 structure or something similar would probably create an avalanche of people using the service compared to $5 / $15 / $30 (or whatever the prices are).

 

There are literally 100's and likely 1000's more people willing to pay a small fee than there are willing to pay a large fee for the service.

 

Additionally, an email or an announcement telegraphing the service change would have done much more to help people become receptive to the idea change and ease the transition than just changing the rules.

 

I understand their reasoning behind the change. They want graders grading books and they want to cash in on the grading note/resubmission market. I just don't understand who they got to the decisions that they made and how everyone in charge agreed that they were good decisions.

 

From a PR standpoint it's a nightmare.

 

For one, not even a seasoned buyer with deep pockets is going to pay $30 a book when that person might only buy 1 in 5 or 10 or 20 books that they consider for purchase.

 

Who is going to spend $150 , $300 or $600 researching the purchase of one book? Nobody.

 

Secondly, the main reason behind customers wanting notes online was for access to those notes on weekends and evenings (when CGC is closed) when people are shopping online and at shows. If you need to way 24-48 hours to get notes, who is going to pay $30, $150 or $300 to wait 1-2 days for notes only to lose out on a book that they might have wanted?

 

Finally, there is the notion that a submitter should not have to pay to find out why their own books graded the way they did.

 

I really think there is room for growth in this new idea that will be a little more accommodating for both CGC and the end consumer.

 

At least that is what I would have come to expect when compared to the rest of the products and services that CGC has to offer.

 

 

 

 

[burntboy]

 

Mike,

 

You being a lawyer I think you should read section 10. Seems to me you agreed to everything you are now upset with everytime you submit a book for CGC services.

 

I understand your feelings on having privacy of the comic books you collect I really do, but CGC in it's history has always used other people's books to highlight their services. You know if they ever grade the MH Action Comics #1 they are going to showcase that book in a huge article on their website or newsletters. It is not like CGC is telling the general public who submitted the books.

 

Now the whole graders notes fees and the crepe you have about CGC making money as a bi-product of your books....well that is something I am not touching and will leave that to you lawyers.

 

http://www.cgccomics.com/services/services-terms-and-conditions.asp

 

10. Company compiles data regarding, and makes digital images of, items submitted for Services. In partial consideration for the performance of Services by Company pursuant to this Submission Form, Customer hereby authorizes Company to compile such data and make such images and agrees that Company shall have an irrevocable, non-exclusive, perpetual, unlimited, royalty-free right and license to use and commercialize such data and images for any purpose.

 

IMHO, this is the best evidence submitted so far that CGC can do what they want with the "Data" and Images that are compiled in conjunction with their services...

 

And, it only took 43 pages, 650 replies, 8400 views and 6 days for Someone to point this out...

 

Still, an inciteful read...

[Cat-Man_America]

50 pages since my last post in this thread, seems like the majority thinks It's wrong to charge for the graders notes

 

The general consensus seems to be that this sort of one-size-fits-all legalese is very wrong ethically even if the technical legal jargon is necessary from a *spoon* covering standpoint.

 

My CGC submissions have always been via third party (per-screening before submission). I admit to never having carefully read the fine print before this thread, but prior to this I've never had reason to question the company's judgment in respect to services provided on my behalf. This thread has opened my eyes, but not in a way favorable to CGC's position.

 

As I see it, if you're paying for a service, the rights to the data obtained from that service should be handled solely at the customer's discretion, and if disseminated, either freely, with a minimal service fee (to maintain the upkeep of a database) or not at all.

 

In respect to the T&C agreement there are two unaddressed issues worth discussing: 1) Has this agreement been modified at some point to allow CGC more latitude in how it uses data obtained while performing services for customers, and 2) What would be the overall impact of striking the egregious phrasing from item 10 in the T&C contract when submitting books for appraisal. Note: Striking deal-breaking language in contracts to reach accommodation is nothing new in the business world and if enough customers did that it might convince CGC to make concessions.

 

Food for thought.

[VintageComics]

Still, an inciteful read...

 

It's insightful and inciteful.

 

[Boba]

If you ever ask yourself why companies put this BS into their terms and conditions, or those long user agreements, this is the reason folks.

 

I'm about done with the topic, based on this new revelation (to me). Not a lot of room to argue about what they can do and what they can do with the data, if a court upholds the strict language of such a contractual term.

 

Maybe instead of whether they CAN do it (which I was briefly optimistic they could not), we need to go back to asking whether they SHOULD do it?

 

 

which is where Ive been coming from. they CAN do it. So they ARE doing it. But the COST is in the SHOULD THEY area. It is ridiculously high, and makes sense more as a way to stop dealing with the notes than as a profit center (though, you can hear the execs saying... "but it just might. give it a try!")

 

There have been a few decisions made by CGC that might better have been served to have been run through an underwriter and a PR team rather than just an executive. Sometimes I wonder who makes these decisions as they might seem profitable in a board room but not as realistic and practical in the real world.

 

To me it seems obvious that the idea of charging for grading notes would be much more profitable if it were priced for a much larger buying pool than just the top percentile of collectors and dealers.

 

Pricing them at a $2 / $4/ $6 structure or something similar would probably create an avalanche of people using the service compared to $5 / $15 / $30 (or whatever the prices are).

 

There are literally 100's and likely 1000's more people willing to pay a small fee than there are willing to pay a large fee for the service.

 

Additionally, an email or an announcement telegraphing the service change would have done much more to help people become receptive to the idea change and ease the transition than just changing the rules.

 

I understand their reasoning behind the change. They want graders grading books and they want to cash in on the grading note/resubmission market. I just don't understand who they got to the decisions that they made and how everyone in charge agreed that they were good decisions.

 

From a PR standpoint it's a nightmare.

 

For one, not even a seasoned buyer with deep pockets is going to pay $30 a book when that person might only buy 1 in 5 or 10 or 20 books that they consider for purchase.

 

Who is going to spend $150 , $300 or $600 researching the purchase of one book? Nobody.

 

Secondly, the main reason behind customers wanting notes online was for access to those notes on weekends and evenings (when CGC is closed) when people are shopping online and at shows. If you need to way 24-48 hours to get notes, who is going to pay $30, $150 or $300 to wait 1-2 days for notes only to lose out on a book that they might have wanted?

 

Finally, there is the notion that a submitter should not have to pay to find out why their own books graded the way they did.

 

I really think there is room for growth in this new idea that will be a little more accommodating for both CGC and the end consumer.

 

At least that is what I would have come to expect when compared to the rest of the products and services that CGC has to offer.

 

 

A voice of reason

[blue808]

If you ever ask yourself why companies put this BS into their terms and conditions, or those long user agreements, this is the reason folks.

 

I'm about done with the topic, based on this new revelation (to me). Not a lot of room to argue about what they can do and what they can do with the data, if a court upholds the strict language of such a contractual term.

 

Maybe instead of whether they CAN do it (which I was briefly optimistic they could not), we need to go back to asking whether they SHOULD do it?

 

 

which is where Ive been coming from. they CAN do it. So they ARE doing it. But the COST is in the SHOULD THEY area. It is ridiculously high, and makes sense more as a way to stop dealing with the notes than as a profit center (though, you can hear the execs saying... "but it just might. give it a try!")

 

There have been a few decisions made by CGC that might better have been served to have been run through an underwriter and a PR team rather than just an executive. Sometimes I wonder who makes these decisions as they might seem profitable in a board room but not as realistic and practical in the real world.

 

To me it seems obvious that the idea of charging for grading notes would be much more profitable if it were priced for a much larger buying pool than just the top percentile of collectors and dealers.

 

Pricing them at a $2 / $4/ $6 structure or something similar would probably create an avalanche of people using the service compared to $5 / $15 / $30 (or whatever the prices are).

 

There are literally 100's and likely 1000's more people willing to pay a small fee than there are willing to pay a large fee for the service.

 

Additionally, an email or an announcement telegraphing the service change would have done much more to help people become receptive to the idea change and ease the transition than just changing the rules.

 

I understand their reasoning behind the change. They want graders grading books and they want to cash in on the grading note/resubmission market. I just don't understand who they got to the decisions that they made and how everyone in charge agreed that they were good decisions.

 

From a PR standpoint it's a nightmare.

 

For one, not even a seasoned buyer with deep pockets is going to pay $30 a book when that person might only buy 1 in 5 or 10 or 20 books that they consider for purchase.

 

Who is going to spend $150 , $300 or $600 researching the purchase of one book? Nobody.

 

Secondly, the main reason behind customers wanting notes online was for access to those notes on weekends and evenings (when CGC is closed) when people are shopping online and at shows. If you need to way 24-48 hours to get notes, who is going to pay $30, $150 or $300 to wait 1-2 days for notes only to lose out on a book that they might have wanted?

 

Finally, there is the notion that a submitter should not have to pay to find out why their own books graded the way they did.

 

I really think there is room for growth in this new idea that will be a little more accommodating for both CGC and the end consumer.

 

At least that is what I would have come to expect when compared to the rest of the products and services that CGC has to offer.

 

 

 

 

This

[RockMyAmadeus]

The argument CGC would make is that the grader notes are their proprietary work-product and they can do with it whatever they choose, but as CGC is providing an appraisal service to customers rather than a manufacturer of goods that argument becomes less valid.

 

^^ ^^

 

Under this scenario the slippery slope mentioned earlier is no longer the issue, it's the loosely packed snow-job that supports any justification for charging additional fees for services already rendered. The avalanche warnings have sounded.

 

 

^^ ^^

[RockMyAmadeus]

Do you think Dave Anderson would relish sending in the Church Action #1 and having the graders' notes available to anyone who pays $30 to CGC?

 

 

http://www.collectors-society.com/news/ViewArticle.aspx?IDArticle=990

 

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

Here's a thought:

 

As myself and others have mentioned, CGC's Grader's Notes from the last few years leave a lot to be desired. They aren't nearly as comphrensive as they used to be, and that's logical, since its a time consuming process to record them as you grade a book. Or at the very least, it adds time to the process.

 

Now, let's say they explore this path of a new revenue stream Eventually you'll get someone that is very unhappy at having paid $30 for notes from a book that has sparse notes, especially if a book was graded on-site in one of their marathon weekend sessions. So, now the mandate is put foward for books at the higher grade tiers to have more detailed notes to satisfy potential customers, which, logically, now adds time to the grading process. Will the extra generated revenue make up for the delays in creating notes that people will actually feel satisfied in paying $15-$30 for?

 

I also find the fact that its days later, and some folks on here still haven't gotten their notes via email to be another huge potential pitfall. If the return isn't immediate, and instead is open-ended and unknown, who is going to pay $30 for notes on a book where the auction might end before you actually receive final product? Are they going to offer refunds for those that complain? Why isn't the return instantaneous? I'm assuming their is no direct link into the main database, and that the information has to be pulled, possibly screened/edited, and then transcribed (cut + paste) to be sent to the purchaser. So, who is doing this? A customer service rep? Don't they have enough to do already?

 

I don't know, this sounds like another "sounds great in theory" idea that may not work out quite as well in reality.

 

 

[COI]

To me it seems obvious that the idea of charging for grading notes would be much more profitable if it were priced for a much larger buying pool than just the top percentile of collectors and dealers.

 

Pricing them at a $2 / $4/ $6 structure or something similar would probably create an avalanche of people using the service compared to $5 / $15 / $30 (or whatever the prices are).

 

There are literally 100's and likely 1000's more people willing to pay a small fee than there are willing to pay a large fee for the service.

 

But again, you're assuming this is profit-motivated and that the prices themselves are not a deterrent. It very well may be about making more money, but we don't know for sure.

 

And maybe this was their brilliant plan all along; introduce the change with astronomical prices, get people riled up, then lower the price and appear to be giving the customer a bargain for something that used to be free. Brilliant.

[COI]

As myself and others have mentioned, CGC's Grader's Notes from the last few years leave a lot to be desired. They aren't nearly as comphrensive as they used to be, and that's logical, since its a time consuming process to record them as you grade a book. Or at the very least, it adds time to the process.

 

Now, let's say they explore this path of a new revenue stream Eventually you'll get someone that is very unhappy at having paid $30 for notes from a book that has sparse notes, especially if a book was graded on-site in one of their marathon weekend sessions.

 

These prices could be set up by CGC as a deterrent, more than a revenue stream, for this very reason.

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

As myself and others have mentioned, CGC's Grader's Notes from the last few years leave a lot to be desired. They aren't nearly as comphrensive as they used to be, and that's logical, since its a time consuming process to record them as you grade a book. Or at the very least, it adds time to the process.

 

Now, let's say they explore this path of a new revenue stream Eventually you'll get someone that is very unhappy at having paid $30 for notes from a book that has sparse notes, especially if a book was graded on-site in one of their marathon weekend sessions.

 

These prices could be set up by CGC as a deterrent, more than a revenue stream, for this very reason.

 

If the price doesn't do it, the fact you can submit a value tier book and get the book back five months later before your notes arrive certainly will.

[mycomicshop]

I also find the fact that its days later, and some folks on here still haven't gotten their notes via email to be another huge potential pitfall. If the return isn't immediate, and instead is open-ended and unknown, who is going to pay $30 for notes on a book where the auction might end before you actually receive final product? Are they going to offer refunds for those that complain? Why isn't the return instantaneous? I'm assuming their is no direct link into the main database, and that the information has to be pulled, possibly screened/edited, and then transcribed (cut + paste) to be sent to the purchaser. So, who is doing this? A customer service rep? Don't they have enough to do already?

 

My understanding is that the notes can't be made available as-is because they're often abbreviated and coded into a kind of grader shorthand. Also, since the notes were originally written for internal use only CGC probably wants them to be screened and edited to be sure that everything in the notes is relevant and professional. So whether you call in or make a web request, somebody at CGC is looking up the notes, doing whatever translation and editing is necessary, and then providing you the result.

[chrisco37]

And maybe this was their brilliant plan all along; introduce the change with astronomical prices, get people riled up, then lower the price and appear to be giving the customer a bargain for something that used to be free. Brilliant.

 

Just like the gas companies do. Jack the prices up to butt-rape levels, then cut them back to still well above pre-hike pricing and we're all happy as at least now we're getting lubed.

[Marty Mann]

Since the selling of Grader Notes has become a profit

center for CGC, how long do you think it will be before

the fee for Grader Notes will be automatically added to

the cost of Grading?

 

mm