I’ve been planning on doing this post for some time, but putting it off because it involved a lot of research.
What tipped me over the line? The other day my husband got a solicitation from Cambridge Who’s Who.
“It is my pleasure,” the letter from Editor in Chief Jennifer A. Gonzalez begins, “to inform you that you are being considered for inclusion into [sic] the 2007/2008 Cambridge Who’s Who Among Executives and Professionals “Honors Edition” of the Registry.”
This is a major honor, Jen explains, because the Registry will include biographies of “our country’s most accomplished professionals,” many of whom regard inclusion as “the single highest mark of achievement.” There’s an application form that my husband can fill out and send back if he’s the snail mail type, or if he’s electronically inclined he can apply online. Just in case it occurs to him to wonder whether there’s a catch, Jen hastens to reassure him: “There is no cost to be included in the Registry.”
My husband knows me (and Writer Beware), so the first words out of his mouth were “This is a scam, right?” Unfortunately, many people are much less suspicious.
There are legitimate Who’s Who publishers that curate their listings and research the people they include. While they’d love it if you bought the book, that’s not the main reason for their existence. Cambridge and its ilk, on the other hand, are all about the hard sell.
Similar to the vanity poetry anthologizers, Who’s Who schemes lure customers by presenting themselves as a no-cost opportunity, but make their money by persuading people to buy books and/or memberships–often at costs exceeding $1,000. They claim to be selective, but in reality they harvest names just as junk mailers or spammers do, randomly and without regard to credentials–which means that their networking value, often touted to justify the enormous membership or purchase fee, is negligible.
The bigger ones attempt to tailor their solicitations–Rob is in insurance, so he got the Executives and Professionals letter. A woman might get an invitation to the Executive and Professional Women registry. There’s a solicitation for people in education. There’s one for scientists. There’s one for healthcare professionals. Here’s an especially disgusting one targeted to people with religious affiliations.
The Who’s Who gambit is a long-running, recognized telephone sales scheme about which there are a sizeable number of warnings. There’s a dizzying number of different Whos–many of which, I would guess, are run by the same people, though they’re pretty good at making themselves seem separate. Here are just a few examples:
- United Who’s Who (which has an unsatisfactory record with the Florida BBB for failing to respond to complaints)
- International Who’s Who Historical Society (ditto)
- American Who’s Who Association, which has a number of different schemes
- Premier Who’s Who (formerly Prestige Who’s Who, also d/b/a America’s Who’s Who)
- Emerald Who’s Who
- Madison Who’s Who (this one also has an unsatisfactory BBB record)
- Global Register’s Who’s Who (formerly National Register’s Who’s Who)
Frequently, the Whos are short-lived. Doctors’ Who’s Who (erm) and Nationwide Who’s Who are now only Internet memories, but Google either of them and, as with the rest, you’ll see people who list them as a professional credential. Ditto for Enterprise Who’s Who–which suggests one reason for the schemes’ short shelf life in the complaints it has left behind.
Back to Cambridge Who’s Who. It’s half of a two-headed hydra made up of Cambridge Who’s Who (which previously did business as Manchester Who’s Who and Empire Who’s Who) and Metropolitan Who’s Who. Cambridge and Metropolitan do business separately, and have different websites, URL registry information, and mailing addresses. But their logo designs and their solicitation letters are identical (compare Manchester-now-Cambridge’s letter with Metropolitan’s)–as are their hard-sell telephone tactics.
People who answer the solicitations from Cambridge and Metropolitan report very similar experiences. (These links represent a fraction of the online discussions and complaints about Cambridge in particular.) A representative of the company phones them, congratulates them on the honor of their inclusion in the registry database, and conducts a lengthy interview, with many questions about careers, professional accomplishments, etc.
Once the victim has been softened up by this process, the phone solicitor lowers the boom. The victim–who, remember, is under the impression from the initial solicitation letter that no costs are involved–is told that there are two levels of membership–a cheaper junior membership (currently close to $800) and a more expensive lifetime membership (currently nearly $1,000). This money, the victim is assured, isn’t for inclusion in the database; it’s for access to the database–which surely they’re going to want to have, since the registry is a fantastic networking opportunity. To sweeten the deal, there are extras–gift certificates, airline ticket vouchers, a handsome award certificate, a media kit.
If the victim expresses doubt about the cost, the solicitor says something like “You know what? Because I really don’t want you to miss out on this fabulous opportunity, I’m going to offer you a lower rate! You’ll only have to pay what a charity organization pays!” More hard sell tactics ensue. If the victim continues to resist, the solicitor hangs up on him or her–just like those magazine-sales scams where the people rudely blow you off the instant they realize you aren’t going to fall for their line of bullshit.
I’m sure it won’t surprise anyone to learn that Cambridge and one of its predecessors, Empire, have poor records with the Better Business Bureau. Empire’s BBB report shows 57 complaints over the past 36 months, most involving (surprise, surprise) selling and refund practices. Cambridge’s BBB report shows a stunning 150 complaints over the past 36 months, again involving selling and refund practices, and also billing and credit disputes. The bulk of the complaints–123 out of 150–have been made in the past 12 months. Metropolitan’s BBB report is currently being updated. When I viewed it in February (when I first began thinking about doing this post), it cited complaint patterns similar to Cambridge’s. Some of the content of that report is reproduced by blogger T.J. at his dogscatskidslife blog.
Another thing Cambridge and Metropolitan share: a very poor reaction to criticism. The hydra really, really doesn’t like it when people say bad things about it. When the Southern Conservative blog featured a satirical post about a solicitation letter from Metropolitan Who’s Who, a threat of legal action quickly followed from one Cyndi Jeffers of Metropolitan (she also contacted people at the blogger’s job). Blogger Shawn Olsen, whose description of his experience with Manchester Who’s Who is linked in above, is being pursued by a lawyer hired by Manchester/Cambridge, who threatens a defamation lawsuit and demands $7 million in compensatory and punitive damages. These two bloggers appear not to be the only ones who’ve experienced this kind of harassment.
If you hear from a Who–and don’t assume it will be one of those I’ve highlighted in this post, because I wouldn’t be surprised if Cambridge, at least, were thinking it might be time for a name change–don’t hesitate. Toss the letter straight into the recycling bin. That is, unless you want to make fun of it on your blog.
UPDATE 1/11/22: As the date on this post attests, it’s been a while since I heard anything about a Who’s Who solicitation. But you should still consider it an active “beware”, because today, I received one myself:
The submission URL leads to a “dangerous web page” warning, so it didn’t seem wise to explore further, but from what I can gather, Professional Who’s Who is part of a web of Whos associated with Marquis Who’s Who, which apparently was once at least somewhat legit but in 2015 or 2016 was bought out by Worldwide Branding, the company that owns Cambridge Who’s Who (the subject of this post). Professional Who’s Who isn’t included in Marquis’ listing of its many Who variants, but the logos tell the story: