I think that the videos are great. The fact is that most of the people saying that they are offering help to ID Theft victims really don’t provide any substantive help. The same is true for ID Theft prevention. Further, the idea that getting a free credit report annually is some actual preventative step for ID Theft is ridiculous. Likewise, anyone offering protection that doesn’t address other types of ID Theft than financial (such as Character/Criminal, Social Security, Drivers License, and Medical) is grossly misleading their customers. One of the FTC’s biggest concerns right now is the promiscuous use of the media to hawk these worthless products. That is the whole purpose behond these videos. There are some other advocacy organizations who will be coming out with similar messages soon.

“I forgot to mention, I like the videos. From a marketing perspective they are catchy and should work well for You Tube.”

“www.annualcreditreport.com was created – mandated – by the government to force the credit reporting bureaus to provide an actual free report once a year from each of the three reporting bureaus. http://www.freecreditreport.com is ONE of the reporting agencies (Experian). Shortly after the government mandated credit agencies provide a free report and annualcreditreport.com was created for the benefit of consumers, Equifax built its site to look like it offers all three (like the real government site). If you go to freecreditreport.com, you will see they list all three credit agencies at the top. When you click through “by Equifax” is in small letters. If you ask me this is deceptive trade practices and confuses the consumer. When a company requires credit card information or deceptively gets you to sign up for products, it is deceptive. These three “agencies” hold alot of power over people. Think about it, our entire system is built on credit. 3 for-profit agencies hold the key to everyone’s credit. They are no longer “non-profit” organizations. They are making money or attempting to make money off of everyone who visits the site. There is nothing wrong with making money or alot of it, but in the case of Equifax, I think there is something wrong with using deceptive tactics to get people to believe their report site is the only free report. That is why the government (FTC) has to beef up its marketing campaign. It is there to protect consumers. It is consumers right (and responsibility) to get ALL THREE of their credit reports for free every year. It is also the consumers right to go to each reporting agency and get a FREE report if you believe you have been turned down for credit and it is unjustified. It is also the consumers right to go to each reporting agency if you are a victim of fraud or identity theft and those reports are free. These two things above are not advertised, but that is our right as well. All the FTC is doing is attempting to educate consumers in a way that “pokes fun” at Equifax and reinforces that annualcreditreport.com is the place to go to get all three reports for free. All 3 agencies end up making it more difficult my creating an account because the next year, the system has you log in to the agencies. In my case, I have to call TransUnion instead of being able to use the website due to this problem. The bottom line is that the credit reporting agencies use practices that are meant to deceive and take advantage of the consumer. The spoofs are only meant to reassert where the real annual report site is. My thought is that the annualcreditreport.com SHOULD BE http://www.annualcreditreport.gov It is absurd that the government does not simply purchase that name and link the names. .gov would differentiate the term in people’s minds and it would be easier. People who are not as informed and hear about the reports being available need to associate a gov name. That way they would not be confused and go buy Equifax products.”

My problem with freecreditreport.com or even annualcreditreport.com is that it leaves the individual with a false sense of security, when actually he or she is at great risk of identity theft in other areas.

For example, assume someone has a wallet stolen. Along with cash and credit cards, the thief now has a drivers license, a medical ID card, and perhaps even a social security card, any of which can be used maliciously. Credit monitoring itself wouldn’t even detect abuse with the credit cards.

We need a wall of protection, one that provides credit monitoring, full restoration, and also perhaps legal council, should crimes be committed in our names by thieves.

My thoughts are that the government version may truly be free, however the videos indicate it is free for a report once a year. These other ads from freecreditreport.com may be misleading in that it is actually a subscription to more of a service (with more offerings than one report a year), you can cancel it within the first 9 days at no charge. Their site states that the consumer will likely get all 3 agency reports within 4 days. If people actually bother to read the text below the curly haired guitarist’s picture, they will know that it is a subscription at $14.95 a month if they don’t cancel. They will also be informed that they can go get the FTC report because freecreditreport.com included this link in their text: http://www.annualcreditreport.com So I guess my opinion is that one is no different than the other. Each video from the two sources can be considered somewhat misleading if you don’t bother to go to the web sites.”

“I was expected something boring form the FTC, but was pleasantly surprised. I admitI love the Free Credit Report.com commercials. Is it bait and switch? “Well it did say offer applies with enrollment in Triple Advantage.” Gotta watch the fine print.”

“I would like to strangle the young man every time I hear the song. I am constantly being asked about the service and people are surprised when I tell them it is not free.”

“Wow, those are catchy… now I’ve got the chorus playing in my head. I’ve always wondered how “Free Credit Report.com” was getting away with saying “free” when you have to pay for the services – isn’t that considered false advertising??