Quote:
Originally Posted by BBStoreMgr112233
If the decision of that store manager, DM, or RDO was to make this combined offer and the offer is clearly marked and advertised, then it is not deceptive. The promotion was that for $23, you get 2 PRP movies, 1 drink, 1 candy, and one popcorn.
Should a store ignore the normal seperate bundles and create a new combined bundle outside corporate's direction? I would agree that it should be something company directed and not done individually by a store, district or region. I agree this store is violating company policy and should not be making this offer. However, the offer in itself, properly advertised as it was, was not deceptive to the customer. They paid what was advertised and got what was advertised.
|
First, let me apologize to the dead horse before I start to once again smack it. The deception does not come from a discrepancy between what they are paying for and what they are getting. Agreed.
But let's take the case of Fred, a hypothetical customer. Fred walks into BB, looking to buy some PRP. He sees a table of movies marked $14.99. Taped to the table, he sees a sign that says 2 movies, 1 candy, 1 drink and a popcorn for $23. Well that's less than the $29.98 that the sticker price would indicate 2 movies would cost, and although he doesn't particularly want the snacks, he makes his purchase.
But is he aware that for $3 less, he could get just the movies? Without the unwanted snacks? No. And why not? Because the store has omitted that information from the signage (please refer to my last post in this thread about lies of omission).
With the proper information, Fred could have left the store with more money in his pocket, and without the junk food he didn't want in the first place. But of course he didn't have that information and therefore
bought something he thought he had to in order to get the cheaper price on the movies. The stores that engage in this practice know this, and
that is why it's deceptive.