A Consumer-Related Ponderance During Lunch

[gnomi]

Here's the scenario: you go into a store and pick an item off a rack. The rack has a large sign that says "Sale: $29.99." In small print, the sign says "For items orignally marked $50." None of the items on the rack have an original price of $50. In fact, all of them are original price $80, and at the register they come up at a price of $49.99.

So... should you be paying $29.99 or $49.99?

Comments

[cbpotts.livejournal.com]

It just so happens that I'm currently writing a book on signage in the retail environment and this is what is known as a dishonest sign. There's an attempt (overt or otherwise) to trick the customer here -- the truth is the vast majority of shoppers don't pay the least bit of attention at checkout, and will pay the additionally $20 without ever noticing.

The sign is LEGALLY correct, morally wrong.

It's a deceitful practice, and one that I, being me, would call the retailer on. If there was actually $50 merchandise on that rack being marked down, then some not being included in the sale is forgiveable but stupid --

You shouldn't be paying $29.99 OR $49.99. You should get your money back, plus a gift certificate for an apology for an attempt to trick you.

Customer service FTW

Also, sent you an email, so you'll want to check your spam filters. It's to your self titled domain name.

[madfilkentist]

You should be walking out of the store.

[morgan-lowri.livejournal.com]

Ditto calling the store on their shit and walking out without buying anything.

[morgan-lowri.livejournal.com]

Also, if there are no more $50 items left on the rack, they should take that sign down and replace it with a generic SALE sign.

[samcdermott65.livejournal.com]

Definitely dishonest. I wouldn't be purchasing anything at that point.

shari