- 62 -
petitioner received.17 The NCIB report resulted in further
adverse publicity for petitioner.
In or about September 1986, petitioner began using a
sweepstakes prospect mailing package known as the Instant Cash
package. The Instant Cash package mailings were highly
profitable for petitioner--especially unusual for prospect
mailings. However, petitioner’s use of this sweeps package
resulted in adverse publicity for petitioner. After receiving
complaints from contributors who received the Instant Cash
Package,18 petitioner stopped using the package by about June
1987.
At petitioner’s board of directors meeting on June 13, 1987,
its executive director proposed that petitioner establish a
cancer patient assistance fund which it would fund with $2,000
per month. In discussing the proposed patient assistance fund,
17 As is discussed infra, table 10 and the text following,
NCIB did not accept petitioner’s allocation of a portion of its
direct mail campaign expenses to public education.
18 Recipients of the package were informed that they were
winners in a contest with a prize of $5,000, if they would enter
the contest. As applicable State laws generally prescribed that
the recipients of such sweepstakes contest solicitations be
allowed to enter the contest without making a contribution, they
were also asked, but not required, to make a contribution to
petitioner. Although the solicitation letter also indicated that
the actual amount won by a recipient would be decided in a later
drawing, the individuals who complained to petitioner believed
the package was deceptive. In actuality, the $5,000 prize money
awarded in the contest would be split evenly among all the
contestants who entered the contest, and these contestants
typically received about $.09. In some instances, petitioner
refunded the contributions it received from the complainants.
Page: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011