Thread: Bundles
View Single Post
  #49  
Unread April 3rd, 2011, 01:36 PM
BBStoreMgr112233 BBStoreMgr112233 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by deathbydanny View Post
Since we missed the important thing, here it is--

It's not entirely deceptive to combine the individual offers (4 for $20 and $3 Candy/Coke/Popcorn) into one unsanctioned bundle (4 for $23) if the customer knows the other options and chooses the combination with full knowledge, but it most certainly IS deceptive to misrepresent those bundles.

CSR A knows that there are two different bundles. Any of us know that. DM B probably may have told him to combine those two into one bundle, and use signage suggesting it's 4 for $23 or whatever. A little non-kosher, but OK.

The deception, as I understood from the original poster, is that CSR A did not let the customer pick either option A (4 for $20) or option B (candy/popcorn/drink for $3.) The CSR suggested that option C (the combined A and B) was the only option. The tables, as mentioned, were given signs saying "4 for $23", which, to any schmo coming in off the street, gives the impression that the 4 for $20 combo is no longer available (FALSE.)

OK, is it dishonest to combine the bundles? A little unethical, but no. Is it dishonest to flat out lie and say Option A (which is valid) and Option B (also valid) are not a choice? In other words, you're lying to the customer about the individual bundles to suggest that the combined bundle is the ONLY option. Given that the motivation for this is (an assumption I know, but a pretty damned likely one) a sales goal, given that CSR A is deliberately misrepresenting the bundles BBV offers to get himself a tally on his bundle score, this is indeed deceptive.

The issue is, if the signage is taped over, again, you're not letting the customer know he has the option to take 4 for $20 rather than 4 for $23, even though 4 for $20 is still a perfectly valid offer. Even though Blockbuster allows you to buy four used movies for $20 without any additional purchases, this store is making the suggestion that the four movie combo MUST be in conjunction with the candy bundle. THIS. IS. DECEPTION. The theoretical customer may not know that there is still a 4 for $20 bundle. And the CSR or management is guilty of lying by omission, by not letting the customer know there is a 4 for $20, misleading him into thinking he HAS to buy the candy if he wants the four movies which stores are supposed to offer. Given the fact that we all know this is motivated by driving bundle sales, using a lie of omission to further serve your own purposes is unethical, dishonest, and deceptive. I don't see how anyone can see otherwise.
No, once again you missed the important thing. The leadership of that store decided to eliminate the 2 for $20 offer and only offer in their store ONE option, 2 for $23. Is this a company violation? Absolutely. Does the company want the store mangers, DM's or RDO's doing this? No they don't. However, being the store did it, and was only offering the one option, and it was properly advertised, it was NOT deceptive.

This is no different than the numerous employees who've posted on this forum that they will NOT offer TA to a customer. Some have said they will offer rewards or an in store pass but they will NOT offer TA. In these cases, is the employee deceiving the customer by not presenting ALL the options? No, they are not. Once again, they are violating company direction and "doing their own thing" but they are not deceiving the customer.

This is a long standing pattern in this forum. People struggle to look at issues dealing with BB objectively because of their strong dislike for the company and the leaders of the company.

The question being debated was what this store did deceptive, not whether it was right or wrong. Again, if the store properly advertised what they were doing and didn't selectively enforce this offer (allow some not to get it while making others get it) then it was not deceptive. Some leader made the choice to eliminate the 2 for $20 offer and make it only a 2 for $23 offer. In this store, based on the information given, this was the only offer and the only option. The knowledge you have about how BB normally runs their sales is irrelevant to the issue of whether the decision made in this store was or was not deceptive. Was it right or wrong is not the issue that I've been debating.