Bundles

[Veruka_Salt]

Let's just reverse this. A person comes in to buy a popcorn, a candy and a soda. They know about and want the $3 bundle. The CSR instead shows them a sign saying that candy bundles are now $23, and you get four PRP movies free. Does that clear it up?

[BlockbusterLuvsU]

Originally Posted by Veruka_Salt

Let's just reverse this. A person comes in to buy a popcorn, a candy and a soda. They know about and want the $3 bundle. The CSR instead shows them a sign saying that candy bundles are now $23, and you get four PRP movies free. Does that clear it up?

If the mystery CSR refused to sell them the candy bundle without the PRP then yes, that is unethical. That's different from putting out a 2 for $23 sign for the PRP/snacks all together and hoping people who see it will want to get the whole enchilada.

[Hot Head]

Originally Posted by BlockbusterLuvsU

I hope you don't mean an HJ in the alleyway.

I would want him to shut the fuck up!

[BBStoreMgr112233]

Originally Posted by Veruka_Salt

Let's just reverse this. A person comes in to buy a popcorn, a candy and a soda. They know about and want the $3 bundle. The CSR instead shows them a sign saying that candy bundles are now $23, and you get four PRP movies free. Does that clear it up?

Yep! Perfectly!

[psycoma]

Originally Posted by BBStoreMgr112233

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.

You comparing someone coming in to buy prp with an employee's refusal to sell TA's is a little...no, a LOT off base. You're comparing apples and oranges. A customer comes in SPECIFICALLY to buy PRP product. They are told they cannot get the PRP product for the discounted price without also getting the candy to go with it. In order for this to be even remotely the same thing, you would have to say not that a customer was offered a Rewards membership or a monthly movie pass in place of an online membership but that a customer came in SPECIFICALLY to sign up for online but were told that wasn't an option and they needed to either buy a Rewards membership or a monthly movie pass.

The store manager decides to eliminate online signups in their store (against company policy) because they feel it is taking revenue out of their store by keeping customer's from spending money there and getting their movies by mail instead. Even though the online program still exists and the customer is fully able to sign up in store for it, they are told they cannot because it isn't offered.

Now you're looking at 2 similar situations and can compare the two. And they are both deceptive. The customer is coming in and knows specifically what they want. They know it is offered by Blockbuster as a company. However this single location is going to NOT offer it for whatever reason to suit their own needs. You're LYING to the customer by telling them the option is not there, when it in fact is. THAT is what is being argued and the point that you still seem to be missing. Whether or not in their infinite wisdom the specific store leadership decides to stop offering a promotion does not change the fact that a company wide sale price is not being honored and being falsely represented as unavailable.

[abhorrent scowl]

Originally Posted by BBStoreMgr112233

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.

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.

You know what... I'll admit it. The TA comparison, although not exactly the same sort of deception, is still deception if the information is deliberately being withheld from the customer. The difference that most here would comment on is the motivation for that behavior (as in the belief that TA hurts the store). Of course, at that point you have to start engaging in a debate over situational ethics, which would make for some very long reading. But yeah, you do raise a valid point.

But to the main point here:

Originally Posted by BBStoreMgr112233

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.

Let's say the customer brought up the two movies, and absolutely refused the bundle. Let's (hypothetically) say they were so adamant about not wanting the snacks that they are willing to pay the full $29.98 sticker price (I've actually seen customers pay more than they need to on a few occasions).
As the CSR rings up the purchase without the bundle, would the POS not give them the movies at $20? In other words, unless someone at the store level removed the 2/$20 option from the computer... it's still there.
Meaning 2/$23 is NOT the only option.
Meaning information is deliberately being withheld from the customer.
And it is therefore (drum roll please).................
Deceptive!

[AbandonedDreams]

Originally Posted by BBStoreMgr112233

First off, call the customer care and report the store. I'd imagine this is under the direction of the DM and you can get one of our bad DM's possibly in a little trouble. This practice was supposedly put to a stop by corporate about a year ago.

Secondly, I don't see anything deceptive about the promotion. The company can bundle things together any way they see fit. If it is advertised and posted that the special is that, then what is deceptive about it? It isn't like it was advertised for 2 for $20 and now they are charging you 2 for $23.

When this idea first floated around the company, I use to only do this when we bumped it to 3 for $20 and 5 for $20 and we added the $5 bundle to it. Some stores were doing it all the time and even some were doing it as a $26 dollar deal so they got 2 bundles every time.

The company put a stop to this though because they were afraid that it was turning away customers who only wanted movies and not the bundle, as was your case. In my store, we never forced a customer to take it like they did with you. If the customer told us they were diabetic or just flat out didn't want it, we didn't make them take it and we didn't charge them for it either. Most people just saw the price and didn't read what all they got with it so they were pleasantly surprised to find they got the drinks, candy and popcorn with it and thought it was a great deal. When we stopped it, our PRP sales didn't go up but of course our bundle sales did go drastically down.

Funny thing is I actually got a couple customer complaints when we stopped it. We tried to explain they could still add the $5 bundle to it and still get what they were getting before and for the same price. I honestly had one lady tell me we should never have stopped doing it because she loved getting all the candy and drinks with it but now that she didn't have to get it she wasn't going to get it and that we should have kept making her get it. LOL

As much as I agree that the company doesn't know how to properly motivate stores and staff to achieve goals, I still disagree that 80 bundles a week is an unrealistic goal. I also disagree with the 3 no's routine and don't think you have to beg every customer to reach this number. If you just politely inform every customer about the bundles and politely upsell anyone who brings up atleast one of the components of a bundle, any store with 400+ actives a week should easily achieve the 80 goal this way more weeks than not.

Last time I called customer care (as a customer not an employee), my issue never gotten taken care of.


Also I'm not going to report a store who is doing this out of desperation in order to keep their jobs.

[AbandonedDreams]

Originally Posted by abhorrent scowl

Damn it, Danny beat me to posting on why the whole thing is deceptive, making this post irrelevant.

Well, too bad. I'm throwing in my 2 cents anyway.

While it may not reach the level of deception as it did during the EOLF when some tools "accidentally" forgot to mention the whole autosale thing, it still isn't what you could call ethical.

My reasoning behind this is that those 2 for $23 signs create the impression in the customers' minds that in order to get their 2 PRP movies for that price, they must also purchase the bundle.

Now, is that the truth? Do they have to buy a bundle to get a deal on PRP? Nope. And if it's not the truth... well, you see where I'm going with this. Granted, you aren't charging the customer for something he didn't get, but let's not forget, a lie of omission (withholding the truth) is every bit as much of a lie as one of commission (stating a falsehood).

I had heard about some shady dealings of this sort, but never saw of any them in our store. That shit would not have flown with my old SM. She recognized that if you have to lie to sell something, maybe it's not worth buying.

I don't miss BB, but God I miss working for her.

The signs I saw didn't say anything about bundles. Which is why I asked them so many questions when they told Mr AD about it.

[AbandonedDreams]

Originally Posted by BBStoreMgr112233

There is nothing deceptive about any company combining what is normally two seperate promotions into one and advertising it as one promotion. They can sell their products any way they want. If it had the proper signage, and was advertised as 2 for $23, as the original poster stated it was, then she/he was well aware of the cost when she made her choice to purchase.

Now if it was advertised as 2 for $20 and then the customer was told it was really 2 for $23 and they had to get a bundle or if they could only get the 2 for $20 price if they also purchased a $3 bundle, then that would have been deceptive. The original poster was clear that what she/he was expecting to pay was clearly marked. If it is clearly marked, how is the customer being deceived?

And yes, poking fun at someone who is only capable of repeating the same two words in every post is extremely juvenile. I apologize.

I was aware of the cost, but thought that was just for MOVIES. Therein lies the deception. Like I said, I was planning on buying some bundles anyway, but it would've been nice for the sign to explain that rather than just have us thinking the PRP price had gone up.

[AbandonedDreams]

Originally Posted by BBStoreMgr112233

LMAO, so it is ok for Hot Head to tell everyone FU, but I poke a little fun of him and I am now 5? Nothing but a heard of followers in this forum. Too funny!

Let me take a moment to thank each and everyone of you for the daily entertainment. This forum is like the TMZ of Blockbuster. Absolutely hilarious!

Most of us like Hothead. Yes, he says fuck everything, but he's usually funny and every once in awhile posts something useful. Mostly what I see from you is trying to spin EVERYTHING that anyone posts (even if its just someone venting) into something positive about Blockbuster.