- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Los Angeles prosecutors office going after major retailers
Posted on 12/9/16 at 8:30 am to JOHNN
Posted on 12/9/16 at 8:30 am to JOHNN
They can sell item for whatever they want, high or low
The final sales price has never been the talking point, regardless of what sfp tries to tell you
Please read again to see what is being discussed.
Thanks
The final sales price has never been the talking point, regardless of what sfp tries to tell you
Please read again to see what is being discussed.
Thanks
This post was edited on 12/9/16 at 8:32 am
1
Posted on 12/9/16 at 8:33 am to Rouge
Then they need to go after car dealers too
Posted on 12/9/16 at 8:33 am to Rouge
quote:
I think you missed this point
Was $100
Now $60
The claim is that the store never offered that good for sale at $100. The retailers were allegedly inflating numbers to make consumers think they are getting a better deal.
That isn't always how it works. Many times it is "suggested price" at $100 and our sale price at $60.
Posted on 12/9/16 at 8:34 am to TypoKnig
quote:
If MSRP is $100 and they advertise "Was $100, Now $60", I don't see how that is false advertising.
If they say "MSRP $100", then I agree. I don't know that there even is a "MSRP" on every item manufactured. But if I say "was $100", that means I "was" selling it for $100. If that's not true, then it's false advertising.
Posted on 12/9/16 at 8:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
they're trying to control the advertised former price of a good, which is absurd
No, they are trying to prevent lying to customers in advertising, which is not absurd. If I claim that the toaster I am selling will cure cancer, it doesn't matter that the consumer should know better, I'm not allowed to make that claim in my advertising. Unless, of course, the toaster actually does cure cancer.
For the same reason, if I claim I "was" selling the product for $100, it doesn't matter if the customer can check and compare prices, I'm not allowed to make the claim unless it's true. In both situations, I'm making a false claim about the product in an attempt to convince the customer that the product is better (or more valuable) than it really is.
It would be fine if they said the product was "worth" $100 because that's a subjective opinion that is different for every person. A glass of water may be "worth" a fortune to someone dying of thirst in the middle of a desert. Stating a subjective opinion is not illegal. But the issue here is making a factual claim (I was selling the item for $100) that is false.
Posted on 12/9/16 at 8:43 am to WaltTeevens
quote:
Can't I say "a pet rock is worth $100,
Dude, they're $85 at Nordstrom
Posted on 12/9/16 at 9:06 am to Rouge
quote:
They can sell item for whatever they want, high or low
The final sales price has never been the talking point, regardless of what sfp tries to tell you
Please read again to see what is being discussed.
Thanks
My reply had nothing to do with what sfp said in this topic. It had to do with what tangerine said, which was an eventual reply from a topic you started.
These companies dont have to advertise products at any "before" rate in order to put them on sale. There is always a msrp for items. Kohls buys from the distributor for a much lower price than msrp. They then have a team that decides the price of said items once they hit the shelves.
Kohls meeting: "OK guys, Chaps/ Mark Anthony/ Apt 9, etc says this style shirt has an msrp of 82 bucks and according to our corporate agreement, we cant sell any lower than 75% off that price. Lets do all of these at 40% off since we are about to have our 4th of July sale. Does everyone agree? Any opposition? Ok on to the next item"
It then goes to the racks with a sign above it saying original 82.00, sale 49.20. So its not false advertising, and there is nothing wrong with it. It might be in that grey area of right and wrong, but it hasnt hit the wrong yet.
Because of the way that everyone can see everyone elses prices right away and offer something for a penny or two less, msrp's have actually gone way up in order to still sell the product at a reasonable profit and not water down the brand so much that retailers dont want to mess with them. When I had my business, it was crazy what some of the companies listed some msrp's at. You knew that no one would ever sell at that msrp but because of the agreement to never sell below a certain percentage off msrp, you could keep end pricing at a fair level in order to not water down the companies value.
Posted on 12/9/16 at 9:06 am to WaltTeevens
quote:
I mean, who decides what something is worth? Can't I say "a pet rock is worth $100, but I'm selling it for $10 as part as our 90% off sale!!!"?
Yes, you can state any subjective opinion you want. Papajohn's was sued by another pizza chain for their claim "Better ingredients, better pizza". They defended the case on the grounds that calling something "better" is stating a subjective opinion and not alleging a fact. After losing the case on another issue (appeals court ruled that the jury had not been asked, and had therefore not decided, that buyers were actually influenced to buy Papajohn's because of the claim, and reversed the lower court judgment against Papajohn's), the other chain ran ads actually quoting from Papajohn's filings in the case stating that they weren't claiming it was a fact, but were just stating a subjective opinion. This was actually not a valid defense because in false advertising cases, claiming your product is "better" than another one is treated as a factual claim that requires something to back it up, but that does not affect the general principle that subjective statements of opinion are permissible.
quote:
If someone is dumb enough to fall for it...then whatever.
As long as you don't lie to them, yes, that's true. You can't make a false statement of fact and put the burden of knowing that you are lying on the buyer.
The whole argument that the buyer should have known better than to believe the lie is logically inconsistent. If you claim something in your advertisement, then you obviously intend for a consumer to believe it. If you don't think a consumer would be stupid enough to believe it, you wouldn't make the claim. If you do believe a consumer is stupid enough to believe it, then you are trying to deceive them in order to take unfair advantage of them. Preventing that is the whole purpose of laws prohibiting false advertisement.
This post was edited on 12/9/16 at 9:32 am
Posted on 12/9/16 at 9:15 am to JOHNN
quote:
It then goes to the racks with a sign above it saying original 82.00, sale 49.20. So its not false advertising,
I would disagree with this. You can say "MSRP $82.00" or, as many infomercials do, something similar like "you could pay $82.00" or "a $82.00 value" or any other subjective opinion of worth. You can even make factual claims if they are true, such as "similar shirts sell for $82.00" or "other retailers sell this shirt for $82.00", etc. But saying something "was $82.00" or is "marked down from $82.00" or "regular price $82.00" is a false claim unless you actually did offer it for sale at that price.
Posted on 12/9/16 at 9:21 am to nolanola
quote:
That isn't always how it works. Many times it is "suggested price" at $100 and our sale price at $60.
If by "suggested price" you are referring to MSRP, then yes, you can say that if it's true. The whole issue is lying to consumers. You can say anything you want as long as you're not lying.
Posted on 12/9/16 at 9:29 am to Nuts4LSU
We have long accepted that retailers lie and deceive on pricing and so-called value marketing.
Albertsons has been doing this recently with a few wines that I regularly buy. There's one bottle in particular that I have been buying for years in the $17-18 range. Lately, the price tag says "regular price $28, today $23." Total bullshite, so I buy that wine somewhere else.
Albertsons has been doing this recently with a few wines that I regularly buy. There's one bottle in particular that I have been buying for years in the $17-18 range. Lately, the price tag says "regular price $28, today $23." Total bullshite, so I buy that wine somewhere else.
Posted on 12/9/16 at 9:33 am to Rouge
quote:
The claim is that the store never offered that good for sale at $100. The retailers were allegedly inflating numbers to make consumers think they are getting a better deal.
I'm kind of torn on this. On the one hand, goods should just be priced at the price it costs to by them. Sales and all that bullshite are just a way to get customers on the door.
On the other hand, as a salesman, I know people are fricking retarded and if you tell them they can buy something for $60 they'll bitch about the price and try to get it lower. If you tell them the exact same good is on sale for $60 marked down from $100 they'll write you a check or swiped a credit card without thinking about it.
Like it or not, chasing "the good deal" in retail sales is as American as baseball and Apple pie. It's not something you can just eradicate.
You really want to fix problems in this country as far as advertising and lieing to people, go after the fatass fast food markets. "It's not fast food, it's Wendy's" "fresh, never frozen products" "$5 healthy footlongs" "kids meals"
Fast food is out of control in this country.
This post was edited on 12/9/16 at 9:40 am
Posted on 12/9/16 at 9:34 am to Rouge
The reason I prefer resale shopping.
Posted on 12/9/16 at 9:36 am to G Vice
quote:
We have long accepted that retailers lie and deceive on pricing and so-called value marketing.
No, we don't accept that they lie to consumers.
quote:
Albertsons has been doing this recently with a few wines that I regularly buy. There's one bottle in particular that I have been buying for years in the $17-18 range. Lately, the price tag says "regular price $28, today $23."
That's fine if they actually did offer it for $28.00 before that. If they didn't, then it's false advertising. There's nothing to prevent them from raising the price from $17 to $28, then "reducing" the price to $23, but they should have to offer it at $28 at least for some amount of time before they can claim that $28 is the "regular price".
Posted on 12/9/16 at 9:38 am to Nuts4LSU
quote:
We have long accepted that retailers lie and deceive on pricing and so-called value marketing.
No, we don't accept that they lie to consumers.
Yes we do dude. Intelligent people are very well aware that retailers are lieing pieces of shite. If you don't already know that I will immediately question your intelligence.
quote:
There's nothing to prevent them from raising the price from $17 to $28, then "reducing" the price to $23, but they should have to offer it at $28 at least for some amount of time before they can claim that $28 is the "regular price".
Great. There's your work around. Absolutely no reason for the government to get involved and blow tax payer money in this retarded nonsense.
Posted on 12/9/16 at 9:39 am to Rouge
quote:
Why is "the consumer should know better" considered an acceptable counter argument?
Because it is.
Posted on 12/9/16 at 9:41 am to foshizzle
quote:
Because it is.
Because that's how a free society works.
If you're too stupid to understand something you make a mistake and you learn from it or you piss your life away. You're free to do either. It's not the government's job to baby you into which decision it believes are best.
The government is here to protect its citizens from physical threats and criminal actions. Not piss and moan about boats in driveways, retail sales markets, statues, etc...
Posted on 12/9/16 at 9:43 am to Breesus
gov loses this case. i hope the retailers make it go to trial.
Posted on 12/9/16 at 9:50 am to Nuts4LSU
quote:
I would disagree with this. You can say "MSRP $82.00" or, as many infomercials do, something similar like "you could pay $82.00" or "a $82.00 value" or any other subjective opinion of worth. You can even make factual claims if they are true, such as "similar shirts sell for $82.00" or "other retailers sell this shirt for $82.00", etc. But saying something "was $82.00" or is "marked down from $82.00" or "regular price $82.00" is a false claim unless you actually did offer it for sale at that price
All of this. I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand about the concept. It is patently false to say a shirt "was $60" when it never actually retailed for $60 at that store.
Posted on 12/9/16 at 9:53 am to Coon
quote:
If you're dumb enough to believe the "before" price, the government can't help you.
Women.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News