Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

August 29, 2016

Walmart Drops Price Match Guarantee in 100s of Stores

Filed under: Food/Groceries,Retail — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 5:44 am

Since May, Walmart has been quietly discontinuing its price match guarantee (“Ad Match”) in hundreds of stores nationwide. This is a marked change from a policy the company promoted for years in TV commercials like this:

When one goes online to Walmart.com these days to read their terms of their policies, this is all they say about matching prices in stores:


Check with your local store for additional details on the price match policy.

Walmart spokesperson John Forrest Ales told us recently that “more than 200 but less than 1000” stores are affected nationwide. He said that in place of the price guarantee, they are instituting “long term rollbacks.” That means that thousands of items, mostly groceries and consumables, are going to have lower everyday prices, with no set expiration date. Large blue signs are being posted in stores where Ad Match is no longer available.

Walmart sign
from WhatsYourDeal

How can you get around the discontinuation of their price match policy? You can still use their Ad Match app to scan your store receipt and automatically be entitled to any lower prices the app can find. Secondly, their price match policy still applies to purchases at Walmart.com and stores not participating in the new lower prices campaign.


• • •

August 22, 2016

Lowe’s Pulls Misleading TV Ad After We Cry Foul

Filed under: Internet,Retail — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 5:41 am

Recently, Lowe’s began advertising what appeared to be a great sale on major appliances — 20% off. Here is the advertisement that ran during the 60 Minutes broadcast last week:

Click play button.

Seems pretty straightforward and unambiguous, right?

Oh, but then there’s some hard to read fine print (and our video quality doesn’t help matters). So, here is a close-up:


Lowe's commercial

And if you still can’t read that, here is what it says:

“Valid 8/10 – 8/23. Whirlpool, Maytag, KitchenAid, Amana, GE, LG, Samsung, Frigidaire, Electrolux and Bosch brands limited to a maximum 10% discount, unless otherwise shown. See store for more details and more exclusions. US only.”

Huh? First we’re seemingly told that the only restriction on getting 20% off appliances is that they have to sell for over $395. Then we learn that virtually all the most popular appliance brands are excluded from the 20% off sale and are only 10% off?

Incidentally, the online disclaimer lists additional brands that don’t qualify for any discount at all off the regular price:


Online exclusions

So what brands are the full 20% off? For common major appliances, the Lowe’s website for a Massachusetts store only lists these additional brands: Haier, Hotpoint, Premier, Sharp, and Tappan. All of them that displayed the regular Lowe’s price (not MSRP) showed only a 10% off discount. Interestingly, despite the ad’s disclaimer, some models of the excluded brands were indeed at least 20% off.

According to enforcement policy of the Federal Trade Commission it is actually considered an unfair or deceptive practice for the big print to giveth and the little print to taketh away:

Advertisements often contain fine-print footnotes or video superscripts that attempt to disclaim, limit, modify, or explain claims made elsewhere in the ad. Advertisers cannot use fine print to contradict other statements in an ad or to clear up misimpressions the ad would otherwise leave.

Last Monday morning, Consumer World contacted the Lowe’s headquarters about these issues and to also ask if they would pull or revise the advertisement. It was not until Wednesday afternoon that we got the news that the company saw the light and yanked the ad. They said “there was a misstep in the editing process” and would modify it by adding “up to 20% off” in the headline. We suggested that that still would not fully remedy the problem, so some additional suggestions were made.

By Friday, true to their word, Lowe’s added the words “up to” to the commercial but did not take any of the other suggestions offered:

Lowe's revised ad

Consumers watching TV have a right to be told the straight poop about any offer and not have to freeze the picture to read almost unreadable fine print. As noted in the press release we issued last week about this matter, we have filed complaints with the FTC, the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office.

We welcome your thoughts in the comments.


• • •

August 15, 2016

Free Furniture Promo Tied to Election Turnout

Filed under: Retail — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 5:43 am

The latest gimmick to get shoppers to buy furniture during the summer doldrums comes from Bernie & Phyl’s, a small Massachusetts furniture chain. They are offering to refund the price of all furniture you buy until August 22 if the turn out for the 2016 presidential election equals or exceeds 75%.

Bernie & Phyl's

With a particularly contentious election at hand with what some would call two polarizing candidates, it is far from clear if we will have a big turnout or a small one.

But maybe history should be our guide.


According to the United States Election Project from the University of Florida, whose data will determine the official turnout for purposes of this store promotion, since 1948 when they started keeping track of these statistics, there has never been a turnout even close to 75% or more.

election turnout

MrConsumer has always railed against promotions that incorporate chance into the offer because that comes pretty close to the definition of an illegal lottery: paying a price for the chance at a prize.

So, if you need furniture this August, look for the best deal and don’t count on the election results to turn your purchase into a freebie.


• • •

August 8, 2016

Comcast’s Inside Wiring Plan Excludes Most Inside Wiring!

Filed under: Electronics,Telephone,Thanks for Nothing — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 5:55 am

One of the ways that telephone and cable companies try to make extra money is to pitch inside wiring plans to their customers. For about $5 a month, these plans typically promise to fix the cable or telephone wire in your home or apartment should it cause a problem with your service. Normally this would be the owner’s responsibility. Most consumer advocates say not to fall for the scare tactics and save your money because inside wiring rarely goes bad on its own.

Last week, the Washington state attorney general went one step further. He sued Comcast, a large purveyor of these inside wiring plans because of alleged deceptive tactics they used to sell these policies. The lawsuit accuses Comcast of misleading 500,000 Washington consumers and deceiving them into paying at least $73 million in subscription fees over the last five years for a near-worthless “protection plan” without clearly disclosing its significant limitations.


Here is how Comcast promoted its plan before the Washington AG began investigating. (Here is how the plan it is currently presented.)

It says in part:

“Comcast offers a comprehensive Service Protection Plan (SPP), eliminating any concerns about being charged additional fees for service calls related to inside wiring. … Hassle-free replacement and repair of defective customer inside wiring.”

When one checked the fine print terms and conditions of the Service Protection Plan as originally promoted, the introductory paragraph even reiterates the promise:

“Inside wiring covered under this plan is owned by the customer or a third party and is defined as wiring that begins at the “Demarcation Point,” which begins 12 inches outside the customer’s residence and extends to the individual phone jacks, cable and Internet outlets and extensions in the home.”

Digging deeper into the terms however, reveals the truth (emphasis added below).


Comcast fine print

Maybe 90% of the wiring inside a home is behind walls, and it is excluded! Thanks for nothing, Comcast.

Things get worse, according to the WA-AG’s complaint.

[While] Comcast claimed the SPP covers all service calls related to customer-owned equipment, it does not cover any actual repairs relating to customer equipment. It simply covers the technician visiting the customer’s house and declaring that the customer’s equipment is broken.

Comcast also marketed the SPP as covering service calls relating to Comcast equipment and wiring outside a customer’s house. However, these issues are already covered for free by Comcast’s Customer Guarantee promises.

The Washington AG is seeking $100+ million in his lawsuit.

For its part, Comcast issued the following statement:

“The Service Protection Plan has given those Washington consumers who chose to purchase it great value by completely covering over 99 percent of their repair calls. We worked with the Attorney General’s office to address every issue they raised, and we made several improvements based on their input.”

Incidentally, it is believed that Comcast marketed its service protection plan the very same way nationally… so you probably have not heard the end of this yet.


• • •

August 1, 2016

Getting a Price Match is Like Pulling Teeth

Filed under: Internet,Retail — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 5:40 am

Office Depot/Office Max had a crazy low price ($1) last week on the gel pens that MrConsumer loves. But since he lives right across the street from Staples, he decided to pick them up there and get Staples to match the price.

Uni-ball $1

Staples only had five-packs and these were four packs. So, I decided to call 1-800-Staples to see if their phone ordering/website customer service department could put through the order. Staples did carry the four-pack online, the same as OD/OM.

Staples’ regular price is $8.49 for this item and I wanted three of them, so I knew I probably would have a fight on my hands because under Staples’ 110% price guarantee, they will not only match the price, but also deduct 10% of the difference from the competitor’s selling price. And on three packages, this is going to cost them an arm and leg — about $25.

Uniball Staples

I called the 800 number for Staples and asked for a 110% price match. I told the rep that he had to look at the OfficeMax/Depot ad front page, but instead he looked at their website and couldn’t find the $1 item. After leading him by the hand subsequently to the circular, he put me on hold to see if he they would match (beat) the price.

He returned to the phone maybe 10 minutes later to say that they would not because the item has to be “available for delivery” and he said this was not. I challenged him to show me where in their price match policy it says that. And after 10+ minutes on hold again, he returned to the line, and sheepishly admitted he could not find such a rule and would honor the price match. (They do have rules about whether shipping is free or not, however, but he did not mention them.)

In this case, I pointed out that both OD/OM and Staples provide for online ordering for free in-store pickup, so shipping was equivalent too.

The bill with the 110% price match came to 75 cents plus tax for three packages. But this whole transaction took 45 minutes on the phone.

Uni-ball match

Through the years, MrConsumer has observed that stores promote their price guarantees in a big way, but some seem to encourage their employees to search for loopholes to deny the match to the customer.

As a side note, in reviewing the Office Depot/Office Max fine print, that company uses mouse print 10 pages away to disclaim plain English representations on the front page of their circular. Right beneath the ad for the gel pens it says that you can order online for free store pickup, seemingly referring to everything at least on that page, if not the whole circular.

Office Depot

But on page 10, in a print footnote, the company says the opposite.


“Price and offers available in-store only 7/24/16-7/30/16 (unless otherwise noted)… and are not online or by phone, including orders for in-store pickup. [emphasis added]”

Well, which is it? Can you order online for in-store pick up or not?


• • •
Next Page »
Powered by: WordPressPrivacy Policy
Copyright © 2006-2016. All rights reserved. Advertisements are copyrighted by their respective owners.