The Discover Card Discovers … Minnesota’s No Pushover

Discover cardAs someone who lived in the state of Minnesota for years, long ago I came to the understanding that many people there view themselves as the ethical if not intellectual “umbilical cord” for the nation.

And why not? Minnesota has long been the font of “good government” initiatives many other states have sought to emulate. It’s the state that routinely leads all others in voter turnout, not to mention being the springboard of reformist politicians such as Eugene McCarthy, Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale.

So I wasn’t surprised to read last week that Minnesota’s Attorney General Office has filed a lawsuit against the Discover card for “deceptive marketing” practices. Discover is accused of making “aggressive, misleading and deceptive” telemarketing contacts in an attempt to lure customers into signing up for additional services that they didn’t realize carried a charge.

According to the complaint, customers were ostensibly being informed of Discover’s well-known “cash-back rewards” program, but then were told of the fee-based services as if those were regular features of the card’s benefits.

“Discover’s telemarketers employ an array of deceptive tactics to elicit an affirmative response from the cardholder without the cardholder actually understanding that they are supposedly aggreeing to purchase an optional product for a monthly fee,” the lawsuit contends.

According to the suit, Discover allegedly enrolled “tens of thousands of Minnesotans and charged them millions of dollars for enrollment in the plans” which include a “payment protection plan” that allows unemployed or disabled customers to suspend making credit card payments without penalty, an identity theft protection plan that costs ~$13 per month, and a credit-score tracking service that bills at ~$8 per month.

I love the way Lori Swanson, Minnesota’s attorney general, put it. “People expect their credit card company to stop and prevent these fraudulent charges – not be the ones making them.”

Or course, it’s not surprising that credit card companies are attempting to sell customers on fee-based services; the lawsuit claims that Discover earned over $295 million on these optional products during 2009 alone.

But the fact is, consumers are paying for additional services they don’t really need, as much if not all of their risk exposure is covered by other laws on the books. Of course, Discover conveniently left out that bit of information in their sales pitch to consumers.

“The biggest credit card companies make huge amounts of money by getting their customers to sign up for add-ons that are useless,” says Edmund Mierzwinski, a consumer program director at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

The Minnesota lawsuit seeks to order Discover not only to cease its aggressive marketing of these services, but also to reimburse customers who signed up for services they no longer want.

Based on how earlier cases of a similar nature against Experian and Providian have turned out … my guess is that Minnesota is going to be successful.

The Limits of Delivering “Cheaper Value”

Nano vehicle

Tata Nano car on fire
Tata Nano ... Tata "No-No"?
About a year ago, the international press was abuzz about the latest new “value” entry in the automobile business. Amid great fanfare, Tata Motors, part of India’s largest corporate conglomerate, was introducing the “Nano,” a car designed to appeal to India’s mass market.

The Nano, which can seat five people and has a surprisingly roomy interior for its size, carries a base price of only ~$2,200 — lower than any other car in the world — which proved irresistible to families of modest means whose finances had required that they make do with motorcycles or scooters before.

Some 9,000 Nano vehicles were delivered in July, but since then, sales have slowed dramatically – to just around 500 shipments to dealers in November.

How did Nano’s star fall so far, so fast – especially for a vehicle which Tata Motors thought was impressive enough that it planned to introduce it in other developing markets … then Europe … and finally to the United States?

Production delays have something to do with it. But the real problem is the performance of the car. Most alarming are reports that the vehicle can catch on fire, with one widely broadcast incident where a Nano caught on fire and was engulfed by flames on the way home from the auto showroom!

In response, Tata, while denying anything is wrong with the design of the Nano and studiously avoiding any language of “recall,” is offering to retrofit the automobile with extra safety features. It’s also extending the warranty on the car from 18 months to a solid four years.

Will these moves change the impression that the car is more of a “No-No” rather than a “Nano” and move its sales trajectory back into positive territory? Perhaps. But it’s interesting to note that sales of a rival “value” car made by Suzuki – the “Alto” – have now overtaken those of the Nano. The Alto carries a higher base price of $6,200, and yet it posted unit sales of ~30,000 in November, making it India’s best-selling car that month.

[The success of the Suzuki Alto in India is nice news for a company whose cars in the U.S. have been on a downward plunge all this year – with sales off ~42% in 2010 compared to 2009.]

The experience of the Nano and the Alto in India brings up an interesting question: Is it possible to make small, cheap version of products that are significant purchase items and win the confidence of a broad customer base?

To a degree, yes. But there are limits to “how low you can go” in value-engineering a product for performance and safety, below which customers just turn and walk away. (Or, in this case, drive away.)

Moreover, just like the experience of the Yugo or the Trabant, there’s a risk of forming a poor market image that’s impossible to shake off.

And in this particular case, the brand names don’t help at all. It’s just too easy for disgusted consumers to say “Ta-Ta” to Tata Motors and “No-No” to the Nano.

Pew Chronicles the Public’s Knowledge of Current Events: A Mile Wide and an Inch Deep

NewsIQ Research from the Pew Research CenterAll right, folks. Are you prepared to be depressed?

The Pew Research Center for People and the Press has just published the results of its annual News IQ survey in which it asks members of the U.S. public a baker’s dozen questions about current events.

A total of ~1,000 people were surveyed by the Pew Research Center in mid-November. The multiple choice survey covered a mix of political, economic and business issues and included the questions shown below. (The percentages refer to how many answered each multiple choice question correctly).

 The company running the oil well that exploded in the Gulf of Mexico (BP) … 88% answered correctly
 The U.S. deficit compared to the 1990s (larger) … 77% correct
 The political party that won the 2010 midterm elections (Republicans) … 75% correct
 The international trade balance (U.S. buys more than it sells) … 64% correct
 The current U.S. unemployment rate (10%) … 53% correct

 The political party that will control the House of Representatives in 2011 (Republicans) … 46% correct
 The state of Indian/Pakistani relations (unfriendly) … 41% correct
 The category on which the U.S. Government spends the most dollars (defense) … 39% correct
 The name of the new Speaker of the House (John Boehner) … 38% correct
 The name of Google’s mobile phone software (Android) … 26% correct

 The amount of TARP loans repaid (more than 50%) … 16% correct
 The name of the new Prime Minister of Great Britain (David Cameron) … 15% correct
 The current U.S. annual inflation rate (1%) … 14% correct

The percentage of respondents who answered all questions correctly was … fewer than 1%. Ten questions? … just 6% answered correctly. Eight of the questions? … only 22%.

On average, respondents answered just five of the 13 questions correctly. Even college graduates scored relatively weak, with an average of just seven questions answered correctly.

The public appears to be best informed on basic economic issues such as the unemployment rate and the budget deficit, while nine in ten respondents correctly identified BP as the corporate culprit in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill event. Not surprisingly, these were among the biggest news stories of the past several quarterly news cycles.

The worst scores were recorded on the TARP program and the current inflation rate, which fewer than one in five respondents answered correctly (about the same as the David Cameron/UK question which people could be forgiven for answering incorrectly).

You can view detailed results from the survey, including breakouts by age, gender, race and political party affiliation. Not wishing to step into a thicket by editorializing on these differences, I’ll leave it to you to see for yourself by clicking through to the Pew findings on your own.

Pew concludes that while Americans are aware of “basic facts” regarding current events, they struggle with getting a good handle on the specifics.

Might this be a byproduct of how people are consuming news these days? After all, there’s far less reliance on newspapers or news magazine articles … and more emphasis on “headline news” and short sound bites.

That’s the sort of recipe that results in people knowing the gist of a story without gaining any particular depth of understanding beyond the headlines.

Now that you’ve seen the correct answers to the questions, you won’t be able to test yourself against the public at large, so I’ve kind of spoiled the fun. But a little honesty here: how well do you think you would have scored?

A Game-Changer for Charitable Organizations and Causes?

Jumo, a social network focused on charities.Chris Hughes
Jumo, the newest social network focused on charities and social activism.
There’s a new international social media resource being launched. Jumo, which was unveiled this past week in a beta test version, aims to connect people with not-for-profit causes and charitable organizations.

Established in February 2010, Jumo describes itself as “a social network connecting individuals and organizations who want to change the world.”

The founder of Jumo is Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook who more recently served as director of online organizing for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008. He sees Jumo as a way for people to find and evaluate organizations that focus on the causes that interest them. Such organizations can range all the way from health and educational initiatives to ones dealing with advocacy issues such as gay rights.

News articles, YouTube videos, Twitter posts and other content will be added to Jumo pages, and users can also add their own comments and feedback.

What’s the inspiration behind Jumo? It’s to establish a social platform focusing on issues, advocacy and not-for-profit organizations rather than on personalities or branded products. “The more connected [an] individual is to an issue they care about, the higher probability there is they will stay involved over a longer period of time,” Hughes has stated.

As part of establishing its mission, Jumo has outlined the following three key factors:

 Millions of people are working to improve the lives of others, many of whom lack the resources to have major impact.

 There are millions of other people who would want to help, but don’t know how.

 Despite where we are with technology, it’s still difficult to find meaningful opportunities to get involved.

Jumo provides a platform wherein people can discover the type of causes and organizations they care about, follow the latest news and updates in those fields, and support the work of these organizations through the donation of skills, time or financial support.

In Hughes’ view, this is what differentiates Jumo from social media platforms such as Facebook, which also allows the creation of pages for non-profit groups. Facebook’s groups tend to be passive, with many an individual’s interaction going little beyond “following” or “liking” them.

Hughes believes there will be significantly more volunteering and giving associated with the people who interact with organizations on Jumo. And if that happens, it may finally fulfill the promise of online platforms enabling not-for-profits to raise money more efficiently and less expensively than via traditional means.

That’s a goal that has been stubbornly elusive to date, as only about 5% of all U.S. donations come from online giving, according to the Blackbaud Index of Online Giving.

How does Jumo intend to grow and thrive in the online world? As a not-for-profit initiative itself, it plans to rely on payments from users and sponsorships from groups that would like to receive more highly visible promotion on the site.

Jumo already contains ~3,000 charitable organizations and issues-oriented groups which have been “seeded” on the site. But any organization that is certified as “tax exempt” is eligible to set up a page on Jumo.

Is Jumo destined to transform social activism? Only time will tell … but it will be interesting to see how this interesting new venture evolves and grows in the coming months.

More Insights on Online Display Ad Effectiveness

Ad clickthrough rates
Clickthrough rates are only part of the story in online display advertising.
Last week, I blogged about the low level of clickthroughs on online display ads – basically a cipher at 0.09%.

In a conversation with a business colleague of mine who is with one of our healthcare client accounts, she mentioned that it’s also important to consider the branding aspects of online display advertising. The idea that people may not click through at that precise moment in time, but are favorably disposed to pay a visit later on.

This got me to looking for additional research into the matter. What I found from several advertising digital media marketing and data reporting companies – MediaMind (Eyeblaster) and comScore – confirms this impression.

An analysis by comScore of consumer clickthrough behavior covering ~140 online display ad campaigns found that only about 20% of the conversions came after clicking on a banner ad. The remaining 80% of conversions happened among those who had seen the ad but not clicked through at the time. Instead, they converted at a later date.

Other interesting points from comScore’s analysis include:

 Online display ad campaigns yielded nearly 50% improvement in advertiser website visits as measured over a 30-day period.

 Users who were exposed to the online advertising were ~38% more likely to conduct an advertiser-related “branded” keyword search in the subsequent 30-day period.

 Users who were exposed to the online advertising were ~17% more likely to make a purchase at the advertiser’s retail store.

Similarly, MediaMind’s analysis of ~100 million conversions from thousands of online ad campaigns has found concurring results – namely, that only ~20% of conversions are the result of a clickthrough, while the vast majority of the conversions happen at some point after viewing the banner ad without clicking on it at that moment.

The takeaway from all this: It’s a mistake to consider online advertising clickthrough rates in a vacuum. Because at best, it’s only a partial measure of the effectiveness of an online ad program.

The “Skinny” on 2010 Holiday Spending

Consumer Holiday Spending
Holiday spending on the rise? Yes, but ...
The “early returns” from this year’s Black Friday retail sales are quite encouraging. Online retail sales are experiencing an even bigger bump in activity. The question is, do these positive early results foreshadow a strong holiday season overall?

Each year, Gallup attempts to answer that question in advance by conducting a poll every November in which it asks U.S. consumers for a prediction of the total amount of money they plan to spend on holiday gifts. This year’s poll findings were published this past week.

And the results? The good news from the consumer economy’s standpoint is that the average personal spending expectation has risen to $714 for 2010, which is ~12% higher than last year’s $638.

The not-so-good news is that we’re still in the doldrums when measured against most of the previous decade. In fact, only in the years of 2009, 2008 and 2002 has expected personal spending been lower than it is this year.

If we take an average of the ten years covering 2000-2009, the expected personal spending found by Gallup’s survey is $747, which means that 2010’s dollar amount doesn’t even come up to the average of the past decade.

Here’s another interesting finding from the survey: Evidently, the increase in expected holiday spending compared to last year is being driven by only a small percentage of consumers. Half of the Gallup respondents reported they would be spending “about the same” this year, whereas one third reported they would actually be spending less.

The remainder – fewer than 15% — reported they would be spending more.

And all of that activity on the Internet? We can be sure a goodly amount of it is driven by the desire to find the very best price available. And to prove that out, the latest online holiday shopping report survey from rich media firm Unicast finds that more than half of consumers are using the Web to research and compare deals between online stores and retail outlets.

The bottom line on all this: It’s a mixed picture with a slight lean on the scale in favor of optimism. Which is a darn sight more positive than what we saw in 2008 and 2009.

Happy Chris-kwanz-ukah, everyone.

Insurance Fraud: The $80-billion Elephant in the Room

Insurance FraudIn all the debating about health insurance over the past two years, issues of consumer access and allowing pre-existing conditions have been at the forefront of the discussion.

One aspect that’s been much less reported is the issue of insurance fraud. Recently, I read some eye-popping statistics from the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud (CAIF). This not-for-profit organization estimates that the level of annual insurance fraud amounts to the equivalent of ~$950 for each household in the United States.

Moreover, the Insurance Information Institute estimates that fraud accounts for ~10% of the losses in the property and casualty insurance segments, while the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association reports that ~3% of the U.S. health care industry’s expenditures are due to fraudulent activities.

So we’re not talking chump change.

Insurance fraud to the tune of $80 billion per year doesn’t happen just because of a few bad apples out there. What’s happening is far more serious than that. Indeed, there are highly organized fraud rings operating throughout the country engaging in everything from staging dangerous accidents to setting up bogus medical services.

The problem goes beyond merely the added cost being borne by consumers. CAIF contends that lives can be endangered, too, due to staged auto accidents, arson incidences, and “medical procedures” being performed by phony physicians.

Is it any wonder that insurance companies like GEICO have well-staffed special investigations units devoted to ferreting out illegal insurance activities wherever they can find them.

Insurance fraud has surely been a problem since the dawn of time, because at its heart is the opportunity for financial profit. In response, a plethora of national and state laws aimed at controlling fraudulent activities have been on the books for years (although surprisingly, insurance fraud is a crime in just 48 of the 50 states – what is it about Virginia and Oregon, I wonder?). Most states maintain their own fraud bureaus as well.

But like so much else the government tries to control or influence, all of these earnest efforts to stem fraudulent activities don’t seem to be adding up to much or getting us closer to a fraud-free world.

Now here’s an idea: Let’s pass some more anti-fraud laws!

Online Display Ad Clickthrough Rates Finally Bottom Out … Near the Bottom

Online Display Ad Clickthrough Rates Bottoming Out
Online display ad clickthrough rates have stopped declining ... bottoming out at 0.09%.
The latest news in online display advertising is that ad clickthrough rates have now leveled off after an extended period of decline – one that was exacerbated by the economic downturn.

So reports digital media marketing firm MediaMind (Eyeblaster). According to a report released this past week, one key reason for the decline being arrested is the greater sophistication of advertisers in targeting online advertising to audiences and groups that are more likely to be interested in them.

That being said, the overall clickthrough rate has leveled off at an abysmal 0.09%.

That is correct: less than one tenth of one percent. In any other business, this would be a rounding error.

If that statistic seems difficult to believe, consider this factoid: The average Internet user in America is delivered more than 2,000 display ads over the course of a single month. We might think that users would be inclined to click on more than just two or three of these ads during a month’s time.

But it’s important to realize that when users are in the mood to shop and buy, they’re typically going straight to the sites they like … or they’re using Google, Bing or some other search engine to find their way.

And it turns out there’s really no such thing as an “average” Internet user, anyway. Research conducted by digital marketing auditing and intelligence firm comScore, Inc. has found that around two-thirds of people on the Internet never click on any display ads during the course of a month. Moreover, only 16% of Internet users are responsible for around 80% of all clicks on display ads.

All the more reason why search marketing continues to be the online advertising powerhouse that it is. And why not? It’s putting your business in front of the customer when s/he is in “search-and-buy” mode … not when s/he’s doing something else.

Is Green No Longer Golden?

Green Marketing HypeA funny thing’s happening on the way to nirvana in the environmental world. Consumers are balking.

That’s the conclusion drawn by several articles appearing recently in The Wall Street Journal and Advertising Age.

The Wall Street Journal article, written by Stephanie Simon and published in October 2010, focuses on what motivates consumers to “turn green.” Is it the strength of the environmental message? Appealing to our better nature? A feeling of affinity with nature?

Hardly. It turns out it’s good old fashioned guilt. In particular, if people are aware that their colleagues or neighbors are doing a better job than they are on the green scene, they’re more likely to respond to the peer pressure.

Simon references two recent studies to illustrate the point. In the first, a mid-size hotel attempted to promote towel reuse by placing placards in guest rooms. One placard was headlined “Help Save the Environment,” while another one trumpeted, “Join Your Fellow Guests in Helping to Save the Environment.”

Guests who saw the second placard were 25% more likely to reuse their towels. And in a follow-up to the initial experiment, guests who were informed what percent of past guests in their room had reused towels, the compliance rate went even higher.

In the other study, middle-income residential utility customers in San Marcos, CA were given one of four doorknob hangers that promoted the use of fans instead of air conditioning, each touting a different message:

Hang-tag #1: Save $54 a month on your utility bill!
Hang-tag #2: Prevent the release of 262 pounds of greenhouse gases per month!
Hang-tag #3: Conservation: It’s the socially responsible thing to do!
Hang-tag #4: 77% of your neighbors already use fans instead of air conditioning – it’s your community’s popular choice!

The result? Consumers presented with the fourth hang-tag reduced their energy consumption by an average of ~10% … compared to 3% or less reduction in energy consumption for any of the other hang-tags.

But peer pressure lasts only so long, as the study found that all four groups slipped in their conservation as time went on.

If the Wall Street Journal article poses some interesting perspectives regarding motivational factors, a November 2010 Advertising Age article by Jack Neff claims that a quiet backlash may be growing against green products and green marketing. Neff reports slowing sales in key green categories such as cleaning products and water filtration devices.

Timothy Kenyon, a senior marketing analyst at GfK Roper Consulting and author of the 2010 Green Gauge® study, dubs the slowdown “green fatigue.” But the phenomenon may be more than simply fatigue, because greater numbers of people are exhibiting outright disbelief in claims that up until now have gone essentially unchallenged.

In fact, 61% of the respondents in that Green Gauge® study believe that green products are too expensive, up significantly from the 53% who held this view in 2008. One-third of respondents think that green products “don’t work as well” (the figure was closer to 25% in 2008). Most startlingly, nearly 40% of the respondents feel that “green products aren’t really better for the environment” – again, up from 30% two years earlier.

With this degree of environmental skepticism now charting with American consumers, the Advertising Age article suggests several ways for companies to keep green marketing relevant and worthwhile as a message platform:

Don’t expect any real sacrifice from consumers – whether it’s paying more, accepting lower performance or sacrificing convenience, it’s likely to be a non-starter.

Don’t overstate the case – many people already think green products don’t work as well as their conventional counterparts, and they will punish brands that purport to perform better but fail to live up to the claim.

Promote product benefits that go beyond “green” – green features are really just tie-breakers in the decision to purchase a product, so it’s better to have something else to talk about as well.

The bottom line these days: Green is no longer gold, and consumers have moved well beyond the siren call of “green for green’s sake.”

The novelty has worn off … and the skepticism has set in.

Amidst the Depression … An Inspiring Tale

Samuel J. Stone, aka "B, Virdot"
Samuel J. Stone, the real identity of "B. Virdot," whose act of kindness benefited the citizens of Canton, Ohio in the Winter of 1933.
One topic that’s been “done to death” in the world of books is that of the Great Depression. It seems very little new could possibly be written about it. But I’ve come across a very interesting book just published that sheds new light on this chapter of American history – and does so with a personal poignancy that strikes right to the heart.

The book is A Secret Gift: How One Man’s Kindness – and a Trove of Letters – Revealed the Hidden History of the Great Depression, written by Ted Gup, a former investigative reporter with the Washington Post (ISBN-10: 1594202702 … also available in a Kindle edition). It’s about an act of kindness done by the owner of a chain of clothing stores, who posted a pseudonymous announcement in December 1933 in his hometown (Canton, Ohio) newspaper offering to send holiday cheer to those in need.

The holiday cheer was in the form of $5 checks (worth about $100 in today’s money) which were sent to ~150 families in response to letters received that described family hardships of that year – one of the worst of the entire Great Depression. The announcement stated that the identities of the letter-writers would be kept secret “until the very end.”

This act of kindness would remain hidden for decades until Ted Gup’s mother (the daughter of the benefactor) gave the author a suitcase filled with memorabilia from her father, Samuel J. Stone. Among the artifacts was a bundle of letters written to a person named “B. Virdot.”

At first seemingly unrelated to the author’s grandfather, the giveaway clue was an old clipping of the “B. Virdot” newspaper announcement, revealing that “B. Virdot” was, in actuality, Samuel Stone.

The letters sent by families laid low by the economic events of the day revealed that the Great Depression did not discriminate by social class or status. Some of the checks Mr. Stone sent were to former business owners who had lost their companies, savings, insurance policies and homes.

Many other checks were sent to families of more modest means; one was sent to a recently widowed mother of two children who had no savings and a house mortgage. “It looks pretty dark sometimes but we still hold on to that ray of hope – that this terrible depression will soon be over,” she wrote. She went on to state, “I have never received charity of any kind.”

That’s one of the themes that runs through the letters: These were people with dignity, who were not inclined to ask for charity nor even to discuss their plight with others. They had played by the rules in their lives – taking responsible jobs, buying homes, building their savings, raising their families – until the collapse of the economy and closure of the banks robbed them of nearly everything.

Drawing on his investigative reporting background, Ted Gup proceeded to research as many of the families as he could find, to learn more about them and to interview their descendants (he would eventually interview nearly 500 descendants).

One of the interesting aspects of this endeavor was how few of the people he interviewed really understood (or even knew) the hardships that their families had suffered in that time. Yet tell-tale signs were there when descendants were told of the events those many years ago. One son spoke of his mother: “There was a loss of confidence. For her, the good times were wonderful, then all hell broke out. Friends of hers said she had been full of pep and vigor. I didn’t know her that way at all, so I think it probably did a job on her.”

Dignity was important to these people of the 1930s, when folks felt uncomfortable talking about hardships with their relatives or with their children. Yet they opened up to a total stranger in their letters – maybe the only time they ever did so. One man asked “B. Virdot” to reveal his real name to him so that one day he might repay the gift with interest.

But Samuel Stone never did so. Instead, he took his secret to the grave. And his grandson discovered that this wasn’t the only secret his grandfather had kept. Instead of being “Samuel J. Stone, born in Pittsburgh” as he’d always claimed, Ted Gup found out that his grandfather’s real name was Sam Finkelstein … and instead of being from Pennsylvania, he had been born in Dorohoi, Rumania.

Not only that, it turns out that Sam Finkelstein entered the United States illegally and never normalized his immigration status – even after becoming a prosperous businessman in America. Even much later, during World War II when the U.S. government required foreign-born residents to register or risk deportation, Samuel Stone was still afraid to take any chances and did not step forward.

So what in the end was the basis for Samuel Stone’s gesture to his fellow Canton residents? Was it an act of kindness delivered anonymously so that the families in question could maintain their dignity and not have to face the person who knew their innermost hardships and fears? Or was it Stone’s own fear of being discovered as an illegal alien that kept his gifts anonymous?

That part of the story will never be explained. But thanks to Ted Gup, the grandson, we have a surprising new story to add to the chronicles of the Great Depression.

And this one is more inspiring, heartwarming – and intensely personal – than any other I’ve read. As the author himself states, “For one moment, in one forgotten town, one man managed to shrink the vastness of the Depression to a human scale.”

As a side note, Samuel Stone would keep his promise “until the very end,” but 400 of the descendants of those who wrote the letters held a gathering in Canton just last week in a reunion that was never meant to happen — but did, thanks to this book. (And one of those who wrote a letter to “B. Virdot,” now a a 90-year-old woman, was actually on hand for the occasion.)

This book is definitely at the top of my list for holiday gift-giving this season. I heartily recommend it – it’s that good.