Bundles

[AbandonedDreams]

Originally Posted by djblade

Sounds like fishy business is going on here. If the Op will show her receipt, we can see if it was truly a deal. Note: The $3 bundle would be credit it off.

Don't think we have the receipt. $3 bundle wasn't credited off. We paid $23 bucks. Thought it would be for 2 movies, wound up getting a bundle. Asked what happened if we didn't want the bundle, and were told we had to take it.

[AbandonedDreams]

Originally Posted by deathbydanny

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.

THANK YOU!!!! Points for reading comprehension.

[AbandonedDreams]

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.

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.

Was not properly advertised.

[AbandonedDreams]

Octopule (sp?) post because I can!!!!

[OzMan]

Originally Posted by BBStoreMgr112233

Nothing but a heard of followers in this forum.

Yeah, I herd something about that, too

OK, here's the nice, and simple solution to this question.

BB1112222333344445555etc calls his LP manager on Monday, and tells him that his store has been doing this (because he feels it's the right thing to do).

If LP agrees with him, it's NOT deceptive.

If he's never HERD from again (sorry, couldn't resist), except for maybe a postcard from Gitmo.... well, then, we have our answer, as well.

Sound like a plan?

[OzMan]

Originally Posted by AbandonedDreams

Octopule (sp?) post because I can!!!!

And I do believe that's the new record....

[AbandonedDreams]

AND they weren't even spam!!!

[HelloItsMeMOM]

Originally Posted by AbandonedDreams

.... a store ... doing this out of desperation in order to keep their jobs.

That is the sad part of all of this. The deception is caused by sheer desperation.

[TheAnomaly]

Originally Posted by abhorrent scowl

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).

Blockbuster lies about commission all the time. (Closing store TA sales, anyone?)

The cake is a lie, too, btw.

[BBStoreMgr112233]

If the sign did not advertise the bundle came with it, then I would agree that it was deceptive. I assumed it did because we had signs that changed the price and indicated the bundle came with it. Yes, assumptions make an ass out of you from time to time and I will own up to mistakes.

I do not try and spin everything positive about Blockbuster. I don't hold the ill will, spite, and hatred many of you do for this company. I enjoy my job and am thankful for the job I have. Due to this, I chose to focus on the positives when possible.

You will find many threads where I have stated that I believe many things are wrong with Blockbuster. I have stated many times that unless things change after this process (BK & now auction) it will only be a temporary solution.

I try and post information that is helpful when I feel I have knowledge that will help another poster. I "attack" posts that I feel doesn't have merit or logic. People tend to stretch the truth when they are angry or trying to make a point. I am not always right and I will gladly admit when I feel I have been proven wrong.

I still stand behind my opinion that a company has the right to change their promotions or bundle them any way they see fit. It doesn't matter how the POS rings it up. We have test markets throughout this company that offers different rates and different promotions all the time. However, now that the OP has clarified the advertisement and that it did not fully indicate that the $23 promotion was for both the PVD's and the Bundle, then I would agree that the way it was advertised was misleading to the customer on what they were to receive and what they were paying for.