B&N Bought YOUR info from Borders

[jhempel24]

If you are a Borders customer, then you will start getting emails from B&N soon, regardless of if you shopped there or not.

To opt out of this you need to go here, otherwise let the spamming begin:

http://ebm.cheetahmail.com/r/regf2?a...66639891&n=100

[Shack70]

I got the email yesterday. I thought it was nice that they came right out and said they bought the information to try and win new customers. No beating around the bush or trying to sugar coat it Im still going to opt out though.

[jhempel24]

I never got an email lol. I found out about it on my stations news program when I was switching it

[Kali Yuga]

I don't see why B&N would be more likely to spam you than Borders did.

And yep, they got your data. This is how the world works now; unless you are extremely paranoid, everything you do and buy on the Internets can be tracked and data-mined for corporate purposes.

[OtterBooks]

Our personal data had its IPO years ago.

[carld]

My Borders info consists of "Hasn't bought anything here in years."

[Ken Irving]

Since I'm a customer at any place that is a combination of bookseller and ereader device seller, anyone who buys and sells anyone, goes bankrupt, or whatever, is going to generate mail straight to my inbox. While Borders was disintegrating, I got plenty from them and then from Kobo when Borders moved all of its ereader accounts over there, and now I'll get more from B&N. Since at this point (Nook owner) I do get semi-regular email from B&N, I have to say that most of it is simply purchase confirmations. I could remove my name from what they got from Borders, but I'm kind of curious to see what they'll do once they get rolling. Maybe there will be a freebie or two in there - quien sabe? Anyway, someone was going to buy those lists and Borders' liquidator had every right to sell them. Some of what was netted on the liquidation will go to pay all those publishers (and thereby authors) who were hurt by the Borders mess, so that's fine with me.

[elemenoP]

I would like to get outraged about this, but since I was already a customer of *both* B&N and Borders, I don't see how I can. I only hope that they do the proper data-cleaning so I don't get the same emails twice.

eP

[Shack70]

[QUOTE=Ken Irving;1771711] I could remove my name from what they got from Borders, but I'm kind of curious to see what they'll do once they get rolling.[QUOTE]

I never though about it that way, maybe they will offer some really nice deals to convert us

[RainingLemur]

Hope they can convert some people. I imagine they'll have some kind of sale or coupon for the Borders customers who go to the green side.

[BeccaAnn]

I chose to opt out, since there isn't a B&N within a 100 miles of my home. The closest Borders (50mi away) was one of the locations bought by Books a Million. But if there had been one near me, I would have remained in since I shopped the store when I lived near one.

[TimW]

There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal today.

Consumer-privacy ombudsman Michael St. Patrick Baxter is accusing Barnes & Noble—the grave-dancing bookseller that spent $13.9 million on Borders Group Inc.’s old customer lists—of ignoring important changes in an email that the bookstore sent out to Borders customers last weekend. His editorial tweaks were meant to make it clear that former customers could block the transfer for their contact information and past purchase history to Barnes & Noble.

In court papers filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, Baxter said that Barnes & Noble’s message read more like a generous corporate gesture than a court-ordered disclosure.

“It was clear to the ombudsman that a robust and meaningful opt-out was critical to reaching the negotiated privacy related terms of the sale,” Baxter said in court documents. “(Barnes & Noble)’s failure to provide such relevant and material information in the opt-out notice may defeat the very purpose of the notice.”

Baxter argued for his changes without much luck—as detailed in a 14-page email exchange he filed with the court as evidence of the dispute.

[Grimm]

So he's saying they didn't say "we were court ordered to give you the option to opt out" but are still giving people the option to opt out?

Ummmmm... so he's mad about how they wrote it even though they specifically said "here's how you can opt out" right in the emails? Really? That seems kind of... nit-picky. I can see why a sex offender needs to notify the neighbors when they move into town but someone getting mad because "they didn't tell you the courts made them give you the option to opt out!!!!! :angrytempertantrumface:" Seems a bit childish.

Perhaps I'm totally missing the intent here, I did just lightly scan the WSJ article.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Grimm

so he's mad about how they wrote it even though they specifically said "here's how you can opt out" right in the emails? Really? That seems kind of... nit-picky.

It is, but apparently that's the guy's job. The WSJ article isn't entirely clear on his role, as best I can determine he needs to review privacy concerns stemming from the sale of the data.

B&N also only gave him a few hours review the text of the email, ignored some changes, and were a bit rude as well.

IMO it's not a big deal, just the usual corporate back-biting.

[rhadin]

Interesting. People who were on Borders list supposedly were interested in and bought books. B&N sells books. Why the outrage over B&N but the willingness to be on Borders' list when Borders was alive?

More interesting, at least to me, however, is that book lovers/buyers are upset about B&N taking over the Borders email list but there is no similar outrage regarding Amazon's new Silk browser, which is integral to Amazon's new Fire tablet, and which tells Amazon what stores you shop at, what you buy at those stores, and what price you are willing to pay for your purchases at those stores. Seems to me that Amazon's Silk is much more intrusive and a greater violator of privacy than the B&N email list.