A “counter-marketing” event during which University of Illinois students are asked to sign a petition in support of responsible credit card marketing — what’s responsible?

Since most of my current debt obligations (other than obvious exceptions, such as my mortgage) are associated with attending several years of graduate school, the topic of “students in debt” is certainly of interest to me.  Accordingly, Sarah Beldo’s article entitled, “Student credit cards under fire in Illinois,” on Credit.com, caught my attention. 

I appreciate the advocacy of Illinois State Treasurer Giannoulias.  Quoting from the aforementioned article:

On many college campuses it is normal to see a number of credit card vendors competing for students’ business.
 
However, Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias is looking to put a stop to this scenario, which he has described as predatory.
 
This week he has been on the University of Illinois campus holding what is called a “counter-marketing” event in which students are asked to sign a petition in support of responsible credit card marketing.

In my particular case, being at mid-career when I started graduate school, I already had established credit, and the maturity to manage credit obligations.  I have tried to utilize long-term supposedly “fixed rate” offers, along with traditional U.S. Department of Education loans (now “consolidated” — these are disbursed incrementally as one progresses through his or her courses). 

Meanwhile, I am certainly for “responsible credit card marketing.”  Unfortunately, the very definition of marketing includes pricing, and as long as one is playing Russian roulette relative to how credit card companies will change terms (i.e., pricing relative to fees and rates), there is no such thing as “responsible” relative to the credit card industry.  I am therefore gratified to see this example of backlash (counter-marketing) taking place at the University of Illinois, or on any college campus. 

For those who are familiar with the core messages associated with the ChangeInTerms.com site, I have long held that while we can’t really change any terms from a legal perspective (initial contracts are written entirely in favor of credit card companies, by virtue of “any time, for any reason, including no reason” change provisions), we can change the terms from a consumer perspective.  In other words, through “counter-marketing” (and I would argue that this is actually more potent and faster-acting than the law), put up a fight!  We can let credit card companies know that we’re no longer willing to tolerate present abuses, and in the long-run, they are making mistakes by alienating a customer base that is going to strike back.