Students
overwhelmingly support limits on campus credit card marketing, according to the
results of a nationwide U.S.PIRG survey of over 1500 students at 40 colleges in
14 states including the University of California, Davis.
“Campus credit
card marketing is simply out-of-control,” said Tracey Zeng, Chapter Chair of
CALPIRG campus chapter, “At tables on or off campus, or on your phone or in
your mail, there’s a credit card company making a pitch to get into your
wallet, even if you cannot afford to pay the bill.”
The survey
findings come as state attorneys general and Congress are also investigating
the enticements that the credit card companies rely upon to trap college
students into applying for credit cards that have bad terms and conditions,
Zeng said.
“Credit card
companies are desperate to expand their already massive profits and the best
two ways to do that are either to gouge existing customers with tricks and
traps or recruit new customers,” added Molly Fluet, Vice President of the
Associated Students. “Colleges are a mother load for finding new customers
because students live close together, are in need of credit and, like everyone
else, are attracted to free food, free t-shirts, and other free offers. The
catch is sometimes they get a card they don’t need or cannot afford.”
“The University of California,
Davis is very
concerned about the aggressive marketing techniques that the card companies use
to get into young people’s wallets.
That’s why it’s great that we have taken steps to rein in the marketing
tactics here on campus,” said Dan Xie, a student victim of credit card
marketing.
Among the key
findings of the “Campus Credit Card Trap,” were the following:
Three of four students (76%) reported stopping at
tables to consider offers or apply for credit cards. Of
students who reported stopping or applying at on-campus tables for credit cards
for free gifts ranging from t-shirts to blankets to “sandwiches” or “pizza” or
even “an iPod shuffle.”
Four in five (80% of students supported one or
more fair marketing principles. Nearly three-in-four students (74%) asserted
that only cards with fair terms and conditions should be marketed on campus.
Students also overwhelmingly (67%) opposed the sale or sharing of student lists
(which can include home and dorm addresses, email addresses and land line and
cell phone numbers) with credit card companies.
Nearly two in three students (66%) reported that
they had at least one credit card. Of these, 30% reported that their parents
paid the bill. Thirty-six percent (or just over half of the remainder) reported
that they paid the full balance on their primary card each month and just under
half (34%) reported carrying a balance from month-to-month.
Of all respondents, whether they had a card
currently or not, one in four (25%) reported paying at least one late fee; 15%
reported paying at least one over-the-limit fee and 6% reported that a card had
been cancelled for non-payment.
Zeng said that the release of the survey was part of CALPIRG’s
ongoing truthaboutcredit.org campaign to rein in unfair campus credit card
marketing. In addition to the release of this survey and other future reports,
the group’s activities include:
A FEESA (Sounds like VISA) campus credit card
counter-marketing campaign. “Our representatives dress like credit card vendors
and set up tables, too, but instead of handing out free gifts, we give out
credit education factsheets and “don’t be a sucker”” lollipops,” Zeng said.
Ongoing efforts to urge college administrations
to adopt the CALPIRG campus credit card marketing platform, which calls for a
ban on free gifts, a ban on selling or sharing student lists, a ban on campus
sponsorship of marketing and increased financial education.
“Even though some schools or states have restricted campus
credit card marketing, it’s clear that more needs to be done,” concluded Zeng.
“Without concerted efforts to keep the marketplace on campus fair, then banks
will keep finding new ways to get bad credit products into students’ wallets.”
