'False' discounts

Scroll to see replies

Yeah, 'closing down' yet not closing down is worse, I think, but still I'd stick with "Don't buy stuff for more than you think is a fair price, and you have nothing to complain about if you got what you paid for at the price you willingly paid".

Yes, and most people do follow that principle. I think the issue is not too different from the moral issues surrounding the likes of QuickQuid. It's preying on people who, for whatever reason, don't have the same discernment when making purchases as you or I.

Think about the number of people leaving school without basic maths skills and it's no surprise why people are falling for taking out ridiculously high interest loans and why people are drooling at the thought of an overpriced sofa just because it has a '75% off' tag.

Reply 21

natninja

Original post by Hopple

That's not bad. Unless you're arguing it would cause a shortage of essential items because of hoarders, but then you'd blame the hoarders, surely?

It's bad because the consumer assumes that the normal price is higher which implies a higher quality so if the discounted price is slightly higher than another brand then the consumer would be more likely to buy the discounted brand.

I suppose it isn't really all that bad, just irritating... but also on a technical point, if it is 'on discount' longer than it is at full price then it can't be called a discount and full price would have to be called an anti-discount or something

Reply 22

LeeMrLee

Original post by Hopple

Misleading who? How? Thousands (millions?) of people happily paid £1.99 for strawberries. If someone buys anything with a (perceived) discount regardless of price then that's their problem.

the only way I could think of that they could mislead by is, say for example the strawberries are really worth £1.50...tesco wants to sell them for £1.99 but putting them at that price straight away would make people think they're really overpriced....now if tesco slaps the £3.99 label on then says there is a 'sale' and they're really only £1.99 it makes people think that they're a getting a good deal because they're saving money (when in reality they're not, its a different perspective). I'm not saying whether I agree our not I'm just attempting to explain how it could be seen to be misleading.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 23

Hopple

Original post by Autistic Merit

Tbh, if they have the money to spend on it and get what they want then I don't see the problem. The payday lending is very different though, in that you are bound to a (potentially) long term contract rather than a one-off purchase.

Original post by natninja

Irritating enough to be criminal, a fineable offence? :wink:

I can see why people might object to it, it being not technically correct, but it's not really doing any harm, and actually gives sellers more flexibility to lower their prices with an advertisement.

Reply 24

Autistic Merit

Original post by Hopple

Although the two are often connected. For example, taking a payday loan out to pay for a bed from Dreams that is '50% off'. So I think the problem is they sometimes don't really have the money to afford it, in reality.

Reply 25

Hopple

Original post by LeeMrLee

It's not misleading though, you're getting a box of strawberries for £1.99, and have willingly agreed to paying that price. Everything that has taken place - you getting strawberries, and you giving £1.99 - was made very clear before the transaction took place.

Reply 26

Hopple

Original post by Autistic Merit

The problem there is still the payday loan, taking out more money than they can afford to repay :wink:

If the bed really was 50% off (or legally speaking, had been at double the price for 4 weeks), we'd still have the potential problem of people taking out a loan to get the 'bargain'.

Reply 27

natninja

Original post by Hopple

I can see why people might object to it, it being not technically correct, but it's not really doing any harm, and actually gives sellers more flexibility to lower their prices with an advertisement.

I believe it's actually part of the consumer rights act - it isn't doing 'harm' per se but consumers do have a right not to be messed around with by retailers, if the act didn't exist though there would be far worse things ro worry about...