[zaidf]

Associating discounts with businesses who haven't agreed to them is problematic for me.

That's a much broader net than this specific issue.

Run of the mill coupon websites have been associating businesses with coupon/discount verbiage for a long time, some even profitably.

To be clear, where do you stand on verbiage such as "If x people vote to request a 50% off coupon at Premium Brand, we will talk to Premium Brand."

Personally I have no problem with this - it may screw up the premium brand when it comes to SEO but that is Team Google's problem to improve search quality.

[rockya]

a) Coupon/discount verbiage is typically done with the consent of the business.

b) Please try doing this with Bose and Apple. Let me know how it works out.

[zaidf]

http://www.retailmenot.com/view/apple.com

http://www.retailmenot.com/view/bose.com

http://www.bargainist.com/deals/stores/amazon/#b

http://dealspl.us/zappos-coupons

[georgemcbay]

Loopt is going to settle this matter tomorrow by putting up an offer for 50% off the iPad 2 redeemable at your local Apple store.

Wait, they aren't going to do that? Well, they really should... don't you all agree with me, guys?

Snarkiness aside, this illustrates why I don't like the Loopt model. Even if you ignore the trademark use issues, the whole system sets up a situation in which an outside party is allowed to set another business up as the bad guy for not honoring arbitrary deals they may never had any intention of offering.

IMO this is way worse than Groupon because at least with Groupon you sign up to be screwed.

[rockya]

Those are compilations of actual deals offered by the merchant, not stuff that was made up by others deciding what sort of discount a merchant might offer.