10 Club Membership Problem - Need Advice

RedMosquito22

Lostdogsinthegarden wrote:

I just have no clue how you didn't notice this 15 years ago...

They didn't start showing number until '98. How could I have known? They said this was my only number I've ever had. How could they not have my address and name stored before '96 but have others stored? You can't tell me they don't know the name associated with every number ever handed out.

RedMosquito02

Something screwey is going on here....I'm 182XXX and didn't join until '97....a friend of mine that joined in '94 is 80XXX....just doesn't add up...the flood/fire thing sounds bogus too...how could you ave not noticed this before now? I have my number tattooed, just like they recommended years ago ; )

RedMosquito22

I just only remember a no more than 2 week lapse in 96 that they said did not affect my seniority at the time. That was before numbers were handed out. In 98 I got my number always had good seats and assumed thats where I should be. I am not a PJ message board visitor very often and don't have any friends that are in the fan club other than my cousin. I would just like to know what cause my membership to be booted to the '96 join range. They say my name was never associated with another number. If they told me I let it lapse somewhere I'd understand, they just tell me I never had another number which is obviously not true.

Lostdogsinthegarden

RedMosquito15 wrote:

I just only remember a no more than 2 week lapse in 96 that they said did not affect my seniority at the time. That was before numbers were handed out. In 98 I got my number always had good seats and assumed thats where I should be. I am not a PJ message board visitor very often and don't have any friends that are in the fan club other than my cousin. I would just like to know what cause my membership to be booted to the '96 join range. They say my name was never associated with another number. If they told me I let it lapse somewhere I'd understand, they just tell me I never had another number which is obviously not true.

So it looks like that 2 week lapse screwed you over. They apparently didn't take care of it for you like they said they would.

RedMosquito22

Lostdogsinthegarden wrote:

So it looks like that 2 week lapse screwed you over. They apparently didn't take care of it for you like they said they would.

That doesn't mean that they can't now. If it was in '96 they would definitely know my old number. From what people have emailed me other older members have gotten their numbers back after months of lapse. I can't think of any reason why record of my name isn't on another number especially when they don't reassign them to anyone.

RedMosquito02

Unfortunately, it does...they can do whatever they want....and do.

Indifference

RedMosquito15 wrote:

That doesn't mean that they can't now. If it was in '96 they would definitely know my old number. From what people have emailed me other older members have gotten their numbers back after months of lapse. I can't think of any reason why record of my name isn't on another number especially when they don't reassign them to anyone.

This happened to me as well - they had no record of my older # under my name - it happens - I moved on. Though you discussing it brings up the emotions.....

RedMosquito22

Indifference wrote:

This happened to me as well - they had no record of my older # under my name - it happens - I moved on. Though you discussing it brings up the emotions.....

But they do have record of it, others have gotten their old numbers back.

It boggles my mind why I can't even get an explanation out of them.

Poncier

RedMosquito15 wrote:

I just only remember a no more than 2 week lapse in 96 that they said did not affect my seniority at the time. That was before numbers were handed out. .

It sounds like you got a number from that point in 96. Since numbers weren't assigned till later, they are probably correct when they tell you its the only number thye have on record for you. The issue then becomes why did you not retain seniority to your original 92 join when numbers were assigned.
Sounds like when you lapsed, they started a new record for you and that where your number was assigned.

The question is: since seniority was not in effect in 96, why would you have asked/they have said that your lapse didn't affect your seniority? Why would it have come up?

dangerboy

the more he talks, the more holes open up in his story.

there's no way in hell they confirmed anything about seniority to you in 1996. it didn't exist. now, they might have still had chronological records of transactions, but they hadn't ever brought up anything about seniority or member numbers by 1996.

RedMosquito22

Poncier wrote:

It sounds like you got a number from that point in 96. Since numbers weren't assigned till later, they are probably correct when they tell you its the only number thye have on record for you. The issue then becomes why did you not retain seniority to your original 92 join when numbers were assigned.
Sounds like when you lapsed, they started a new record for you and that where your number was assigned.

The question is: since seniority was not in effect in 96, why would you have asked/they have said that your lapse didn't affect your seniority? Why would it have come up?

Because I am not dumb enough to think that a lapse in coverage wouldn't affect your seniority in any fan club. Even if I didn't have a number I knew that fan clubs have record of your join date and I didn't want that ruined. Is that hard to figure out?

They sent me 16 xmas records they have to have record of my name and address from 1992.

Poncier

RedMosquito15 wrote:

Because I am not dumb enough to think that a lapse in coverage wouldn't affect your seniority in any fan club. Even if I didn't have a number I knew that fan clubs have record of your join date and I didn't want that ruined. Is that hard to figure out?

They sent me 16 xmas records they have to have record of my name and address from 1992.

???
Angry tone there.
I just wouldn't at that point in time have thought to say "will this affect my seniority?" if I had been late renewing, since there was no known advantage to being a member longer than the next guy.

zolstice

RedMosquito15 wrote:

That doesn't mean that they can't now. If it was in '96 they would definitely know my old number. From what people have emailed me other older members have gotten their numbers back after months of lapse. I can't think of any reason why record of my name isn't on another number especially when they don't reassign them to anyone.

The only reason people have been able to get their old number back is if they have been able to provide old correspondence between themselves and the 10C with their old member number on it.

You make claims that they must have a record of all number associated with your name, this is assuming that you know exactly how their membership database is set up.

We would all like to think that they had all of the kinks worked out in their database and how they run the fan club right from day one, but get real. The people who run the 10C were not all professionally trained in how to do what they are doing. Many of them have grown into the job, and learned the hard way through mistakes and errors how to run a fan club for a hugely successful rock band. The fan club started out before the band ever released an album, back in the Mookie Blaylock days. They had no idea how big the band would be, and for all they knew there would only ever be a small loyal following in the Washingotn area. In all likehood, they kept all of their original membership info on paper records, filled out by hand. Then the band's popularity blew up and they had to learn how to deal with working for a huge band the same way the band had to learn how to deal with having a huge fan base. At some point they had to switch over to using an electronic database, but at that point in time they still had no need to have a memebrship # because they weren't doing fan club ticketing by seniority yet. All they ever did were have "fan club only" shows.

We don't know exactly how they switched over to electronic records, or how they determined seniority when they firs started handing out number. It is always likely that when they started assigning numbers, they did the best they could to get seniority as close to reality as possible, but some members may have slipped through the cracks. I've been in charge of transcribing paper records to a database in the past and there are always issues where certain bits of information are missing. Perhaps a persons last name isn't filled out for whatever reason, or the address infor is incomplete, or the join date was never recorded. All you can do is work with the information you have and do your best.

RedMosquito22

Poncier wrote:

It sounds like you got a number from that point in 96. Since numbers weren't assigned till later, they are probably correct when they tell you its the only number thye have on record for you. The issue then becomes why did you not retain seniority to your original 92 join when numbers were assigned.
Sounds like when you lapsed, they started a new record for you and that where your number was assigned.

The question is: since seniority was not in effect in 96, why would you have asked/they have said that your lapse didn't affect your seniority? Why would it have come up?

Because I am not dumb enough to think that a lapse in coverage wouldn't affect your seniority in any fan club. Even if I didn't have a number I knew that fan clubs have record of your join date and I didn't want that ruined. Is that hard to figure out.

They sent me 16 xmas records they have to have record of my name and address from 1992.