I Hate Blockbuster Forum  

Go Back   I Hate Blockbuster Forum > Lovers of Blockbuster > Are You An Employee Of Blockbuster?

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Unread April 3rd, 2011, 12:58 PM
its_me_ASM69's Avatar
its_me_ASM69 its_me_ASM69 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBStoreMgr112233 View Post
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!

I wasn't going to post further about this, considering how I said what I wanted to say but,
Sorry, when HH says FU it always makes me laugh, but your childish rant was just pathetic.
And as being part of some HERD? "spellcheck" I say what I want when I want. I follow no one.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to its_me_ASM69 For This Useful Post:
BBW[BlockBusterWorker] (April 3rd, 2011), Hot Head (April 3rd, 2011)
  #42  
Unread April 3rd, 2011, 01:06 PM
djblade's Avatar
djblade djblade is offline
IHBB GOD
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBStoreMgr112233 View Post
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.
Quote:
Only there was a sign taped over the 2 for 20 sign that said 2 for 23.

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.
__________________
  #43  
Unread April 3rd, 2011, 01:06 PM
BBW[BlockBusterWorker]'s Avatar
BBW[BlockBusterWorker] BBW[BlockBusterWorker] is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bayside, Queens NY
Posts: 167
Send a message via AIM to BBW[BlockBusterWorker] Send a message via Skype™ to BBW[BlockBusterWorker]
Quote:
Originally Posted by its_me_ASM69 View Post
Sorry, when HH says FU it always makes me laugh
Agreed. I can't remember a thread where he didn't come out of nowhere with a font size 30 FU about some stupid BB crap. If only I could have worked a shift with HH in person, I would trade my UE away for it.
__________________

Please join me in converting all your copies of the Riddick Trilogy as so.
The Following User Says Thank You to BBW[BlockBusterWorker] For This Useful Post:
Hot Head (April 3rd, 2011)
  #44  
Unread April 3rd, 2011, 01:10 PM
abhorrent scowl's Avatar
abhorrent scowl abhorrent scowl is offline
IHBB Freak
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Not at Blockbuster anymore!
Posts: 1,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBStoreMgr112233 View Post
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.
__________________
Why does this pic somehow remind me of Blockbuster?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to abhorrent scowl For This Useful Post:
AbandonedDreams (April 3rd, 2011), BBW[BlockBusterWorker] (April 3rd, 2011), Big Dog (April 3rd, 2011), HelloItsMeMOM (April 3rd, 2011), Hot Head (April 3rd, 2011), its_me_ASM69 (April 3rd, 2011), KateOTomato (April 3rd, 2011)
  #45  
Unread April 3rd, 2011, 01:24 PM
Hot Head's Avatar
Hot Head Hot Head is offline
IHBB GOD
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: In my car
Posts: 3,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBW[BlockBusterWorker] View Post
Agreed. I can't remember a thread where he didn't come out of nowhere with a font size 30 FU about some stupid BB crap. If only I could have worked a shift with HH in person, I would trade my UE away for it.
Yes it would of been fun I was always written up for telling the customers that they are trying to play the system like they how they get thier child support. You would of been like .
__________________
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
╭∩╮(︶__︶)╭∩╮

Even the Devil, which is the main share holder of blockbuster is saying you guys are making me look bad!

Horse Power is how fast you hit the wall. Torque is how far you take the wall with you.

Last edited by Hot Head; April 3rd, 2011 at 01:31 PM.
  #46  
Unread April 3rd, 2011, 01:25 PM
Hot Head's Avatar
Hot Head Hot Head is offline
IHBB GOD
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: In my car
Posts: 3,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by its_me_ASM69 View Post


I wasn't going to post further about this, considering how I said what I wanted to say but,
Sorry, when HH says FU it always makes me laugh, but your childish rant was just pathetic.
And as being part of some HERD? "spellcheck" I say what I want when I want. I follow no one.
Atleast I know someone has a good sense of humor here.
__________________
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
╭∩╮(︶__︶)╭∩╮

Even the Devil, which is the main share holder of blockbuster is saying you guys are making me look bad!

Horse Power is how fast you hit the wall. Torque is how far you take the wall with you.
The Following User Says Thank You to Hot Head For This Useful Post:
its_me_ASM69 (April 3rd, 2011)
  #47  
Unread April 3rd, 2011, 01:34 PM
BBW[BlockBusterWorker]'s Avatar
BBW[BlockBusterWorker] BBW[BlockBusterWorker] is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bayside, Queens NY
Posts: 167
Send a message via AIM to BBW[BlockBusterWorker] Send a message via Skype™ to BBW[BlockBusterWorker]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot Head View Post
Yes it would of been fun I was always written up for telling the customers that they are trying to play the system like they how they get thier child support. You would of been like .
I would have most likely lol'ed real hard. I love when employees give the customer what they deserve.
__________________

Please join me in converting all your copies of the Riddick Trilogy as so.
  #48  
Unread April 3rd, 2011, 01:46 PM
deathbydanny's Avatar
deathbydanny deathbydanny is offline
IHBB Freak
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: One nation, under Canada, above Mexico
Posts: 1,089
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Keyes
OK ladies, gents, shareholders... I must admit, I haven't a goddamn clue about what to do. Things seem so rough, I just wanna go home. No lies, we're in a pickle... WAIT! I HAVE AN IDEA!
Quote:
Originally Posted by deathbydanny
If I want the experience of being in the store, let me have it on my own fucking terms.

Last edited by deathbydanny; April 3rd, 2011 at 01:52 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to deathbydanny For This Useful Post:
AbandonedDreams (April 3rd, 2011), its_me_ASM69 (April 3rd, 2011)
  #49  
Unread April 3rd, 2011, 02:36 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.
  #50  
Unread April 3rd, 2011, 02:41 PM
BlockbusterLuvsU's Avatar
BlockbusterLuvsU BlockbusterLuvsU is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot Head View Post
I can send you a picture of it but i would want something in return.
I hope you don't mean an HJ in the alleyway.

Putting 2 for $23 and 4 for $25 signage isn't deceptive if it says everything you get for the price. It is deceptive, however, for employees to tell customers they HAVE to get the candy or there is no discount when in fact there is. Corporate sent us some of those signs that said "2 for $25" etc, and they had the picture of the movies, and the candy, and then listed everything that you got together for $25. However, we did tell customers the regular cost of the PVD promotion without the candy if that came up.
__________________
No thanks, I don't rent enough.

Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not represent Blockbuster's or Dish Network's positions, strategies or opinions, because they are all a bunch of dickless idiots.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BlockbusterLuvsU For This Useful Post:
AbandonedDreams (April 3rd, 2011), HelloItsMeMOM (April 3rd, 2011)
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:57 AM.


vBulletin Version 3.7.1
© 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.