I'm pretty sure that issuing them in this form allows a substantial
savings in postage, which alone would be a good reason for issuing them
in this manner. Theft from the US postal system is not a common crime,
in part because is carries severe penalties, and in part because it is
relatively heavily investigated. Also, negotiating a check issued to
another party is not easily done, and leaves a rather plain paper trail.

I don't rush to buy because of a rebate, but if one is available, I do
claim it. No one I actually know, including myself, has ever failed to
get a rebate they have properly claimed, although on occasion a
follow-up has been required. I don't know the OP, of course, but he
says he was dealing with Canon, when it is far more likely he was
dealing with some rebate processor. Manufacturers rarely handle rebate
processing in-house.

If you define scam as a fraudulent practice, I think you cannot call
rebates, in general, a scam, as so many people do complete them properly
and receive the rebate; were they a fraudulent practice, few people who
claim them would actually receive them. I agree that they do take
advantage of people's ineptitude, knowing that most of us either won't
bother claiming, or will prove ourselves to be unable to comply with the
terms of the offer, but that is true in all aspects of our lives; we are
all more than willing to take advantage of someone else's ineptitude.

On the other hand, if you define scam as something you can't figure out,
most of the posters here are correct in using the term.

Arthur Entlich wrote:
Obviously, you have connections with the fulfillment industry, and have
been defending them since this discussion began.

These cards look nothing like standard cheques. They also are so flimsy
that they often arrive torn, scuffed and bent. It also strikes me that
if they did look like cheques, since they are totally exposed, they
would get stolen in the mail chain.

There is no logical reason for issuing these in the manner thay are made
and send. In fact, they are "juinkier looking than almost any
junkmail", so I suppose that's a hint to look for. I'll rephrase then.

If you receive a filmsy, torn, smudged, dirty postcard, which looks like
a piece of garbage, chances are its a rebate cheque.

Art

Barry Watzman wrote:

Sorry, I don't believe you. You see, I have eyes, and know what a
check looks like. I also know what a UPC code looks like, and what
MICR is and what routing numbers and account numbers are. I will
never mistake a postcard that is a valid check for junk mail. And
anyone who does deserves to forfeit the check made payable to them.


David Nebenzahl wrote:

Barry Watzman spake thus:

Mön§igñor ßoddoM wrote:

I have seen this as well. The postcard check had to be cashed
within 60 days and could not be cashed by a third party. This after
taking about 5 months to get to me. And yes it looked like junkmail.


How can a postcard that is a legally valid check (Pay to the order of
..... $xxx.xx) look like junk mail?

Believe us, it can; just another of the many weapons in the arsenal
of the lying, scum-sucking retailers who use this phony-baloney
practice to make more bux.