It has been brought to my attention, that the numbers I cited, in this blog, and in the report, relating to the Panasonic rebate, are incorrect:I reported that the new Promotion was going to be $400 mail-in cash rebate, and a $250 Blockbuster rental card. Well it turns out I screwed up. I see now (from the new banners just received from Panasonic's ad campaign, and a couple of emails from dealers), that the campaign is actually $650, consisting of $400 in Blockbuster rentals, something that many folks will value as being worth far less, and $250 value for an extra year extended warranty! I checked an email received from Panasonic, and it too said that.Unless I were to value the $650 of blockbuster rentals and warranty, as about the same as cash (and I know many don't like the Blockbuster cards), that should put the Panasonic in the $2000 - $3500 range.
Here's how I'm going to treat things:
The awards, as they sit, will remain. Afterall, for those that will value the Blockbuster card as useful, and extra year warranty, it could just barely be rationalized that the PT-AE2000U still makes the top of the lower price category.
But more to the point, if I do not leave it there, I need to change the price point, so that I have at least three projectors in the Entry level category, which might mean making the lowest category $2400 and under, or something like that. That would move a couple projectors over, and force me to redo both the Under $2k and $2K to $3500 sections. All that would occomplish is moving back all reviews a couple of weeks. I just don't have the "strength" to redo it all. Sorry!
I will, however alter some of the text in the report to correct about the rebate, and I will factor in the different rebate, in the current one-on-one comparisions that are in progress right now, including Panny vs Sanyo, Panny vs HC4900, Panny vs. Epson Home Cinema UB, and assign it a different value proposition.This will delay posting them a couple of days, now probably Thursday night when 6-8 comparisons will now post, as as three of the four I have already written, but not posted, involve the Panasonic.
Again, my apologies, for a grave error on my part. I can't even blame it on Panasonic. I spoke with them, misunderstood, and then didn't look closely at the email they sent me, which properly stated the program, so the fault is all mine. -art