Nabisco took out a full page in a recent Sunday coupon insert promoting a free package of Chips Ahoy cookies. What they were asking people to do was to visit their Facebook page, and there they could download a coupon for a free package of cookies.

That is not such an unusual offer. Last year, TGI Friday gave away free hamburgers if you became a fan of theirs on Facebook.

What’s different about this offer is buried in the fine print, and not even in that section of red words at the bottom of the ad.

*MOUSE PRINT:

So the offer is not really what the headline promises, nor even what the coupon at the bottom of the ad suggests in the larger print. The offer is really:

1. Buy a gallon of milk.
2. Buy a package of Nabisco cookies.
3. Become a fan of our cookies on Facebook.
4. Then and only then, get a free package of cookies.

The Federal Trade Commission’s guidelines on the use of the word “free” say:

“When making “Free” or similar offers all the terms, conditions and obligations upon which receipt and retention of the “Free” item are contingent should be set forth clearly and conspicuously at the outset of the offer so as to leave no reasonable probability that the terms of the offer might be misunderstood. Stated differently, all of the terms, conditions and obligations should appear in close conjunction with the offer of “Free” merchandise or service. For example, disclosure of the terms of the offer set forth in a footnote of an advertisement to which reference is made by an asterisk or other symbol placed next to the offer, is not regarded as making disclosure at the outset. ”

Will advertisers EVER learn to play it straight (and follow the rules) and not lead consumers to believe they are offering something for free with no additional purchase necessary, when in fact there are many strings?

As we become more health conscious, we tend to be attracted to products that are better for us. Unfortunately, manufacturers usually charge a premium price when a product offers health benefits compared to similar products.

Here, for example, is Campbell’s Tomato soup — the regular type and the 25% less sodium version. Their regular tomato soup is $1 a can, while the can with less salt is $1.39. A huge percentage price difference. Funny, how we’re charged more for less. But it gets worse. When one checks the nutrition label, there is a big surprise:

*MOUSE PRINT:

The 25% reduced sodium version has just as much salt as the regular version!

Interestingly the mouse print on the back of the label of their regular tomato soup claims that it has 42% less sodium than Campbell’s regular soup — a greater reduction in salt than their so-called reduced sodium product.

How does Campbell’s explain these discrepancies? Consumer reporter Michael Finney (who tipped us off to this story) of the local ABC affiliate in San Francisco asked them [ignore initial 15 second ad]:

(Here is a direct link to the story if you cannot access the video above.)

Over the past six months or so, Wal-mart has been advertising that families who spend a $100 a week on groceries could save $165 in three months if they shop at Wal-mart.

Now, there are two new versions of the ad that apparently started running nationally around February 16, 2010, making the claim “People who spent $100 a week at leading national supermarkets on frequently purchased groceries, could have saved $55 in one month by shopping at Wal-mart instead.”

*MOUSE PRINT:

Look at their disclaimer above.  Do you think there might be something a little fishy about the proof they offered for how they arrived at that claim?  Putting aside the issue that they don’t count meat, produce, and other weighed-to-order items which can be a substantial portion of one’s grocery bill, and that there really is no such thing as a “national supermarket” with locations in all states, look at when their survey was conducted.  It is for an almost six week period beginning January 31 and ending March 12, 2010. Check your calendar because it still is not March 12 yet!  So how does Wal-mart know the results of its price comparison a month before the comparison is over, and how can an as yet uncompleted survey be used to substantiate an advertising claim?

That question was posed to Wal-mart’s PR folks, who were invited to comment for this story twice.  No response was received. And the commercial is still running (it was on during 60 Minutes last night) despite Wal-mart being made aware of the problem one week ago.

It is also curious that the savings claimed last summer in a similar series of commercials – $165 for three months — works out to exactly $55 a month.  That is the very amount they are claiming to be the current monthly savings.  Have not grocery prices changed even a penny in six months?

Last June, the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau ruled in a case about Wal-mart’s previously advertised grocery savings claims (similar to this commercial):

“NAD further determined that the claim ‘if you bought these kinds of groceries at Wal-Mart, you could save on average over $700 a year’ was not supported by the evidence in the record and therefore recommended that it be discontinued.”

So the “$55″ ad above is the new and improved version of the commercial?

The second phase of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act (CARD Act) goes into effect today.

In the past few months, however, credit card issuers have been busy making fine print changes to their rules before the reigns tighten, as this satirical video points out. [ Direct link to video if box below is blank, but in Windows 7, you must use the 32-bit version of Internet Explorer or Firefox.]

*MOUSE PRINT:

You can be sure that credit card companies will find new and clever fees and loopholes in the law to help offset any loss of revenue suffered as a result of the new rules. Keep your eye on those fine print notices!

Consumer sites, including this one, tend to point out a lot more negative than the positive issues about companies and their practices. This, however, is a story of extraordinary customer service that deserves to be publicly acknowledged.

MrConsumer (aka Edgar, the editor of Mouse Print*) recently needed to replace his 23-year old gas range, fondly nicknamed the “Price is Right stove” because of its one-piece design consisting of a range, oven, and microwave popularized decades ago by that game show. After perusing the ads, he narrowed down the choices to a Sears Kenmore slide-in gas range advertised for about $1000 the last week in December in  the Sears circular.

After calling four stores, MrConsumer finally found a local Sears that stocked the particular stove so he could look at it. It was very important that the range be stainless steel and have a professional look. As it turned out, the store did not have the advertised stove on display, but rather a similar but higher model. To confirm that the advertised stove was identical in appearance to the one in the store, the salesman took MrConsumer to a computer terminal to look at it online. The picture showed that it had stainless steel knobs, a computer control panel with a 0-9 digital keypad, and matte finish grates just like the similar model in the store.  Assured of these specifications, the order was placed for this range:

At this point you might be able to guess what happened next when the stove was delivered on January 25.  The grates were shiny black, making them look cheesy and not very professional.  The electronic controls only had an up/down arrow to change the temperature in five degree increments.  So, if you wanted to go from 300 to 400 degrees, you would have to press the up arrow 20 times.  MrConsumer was very not happy, but since the electrician and plumber were already scheduled, the stove was installed the next day.

Complaining to Sears’ 800 number resulted in a very quick callback from the store manager.  While willing to compensate MrConsumer for having received a lesser digital control panel, she was not so willing to try to obtain the matte finish grates shown both in the store and online.  In part, she pointed to the fine print on the website:

*MOUSE PRINT:

In MrConsumer’s defense, this description was not shown to him in the store, and is not even visible on the same page where the stove is described online. (One has to click a link  “more specifications” to find this. You will also notice it says the knobs are black, when in fact they are stainless.)  Further, this description is contrary to the more prominent magnified picture at the top of the page that clearly showed matte grates, and the accompanying description that said “ professional-look heavy duty cast-iron grates are completely dishwasher-safe.”

Not willing to take “no” for an answer from the local store, MrConsumer sent a factual and polite email to two highly placed executives responsible for major appliances at Sears headquarters. [See the first comment below for the trick to finding such executives.]  He asked for a price adjustment because of the lesser digital display, and requested that Sears provide the matte finish grates as was represented.  

One of the executives actually responded the day after mailing, on a Sunday no less, saying that this was not the type of experience (being shown one thing, and receiving another) that their customers should have to go through.  Within a few days, a person from “executive resolutions” called, acknowledging the wrong stove was pictured on the website.  Remarkably, they offered to replace the stove with the one pictured (a more expensive model by about $250) at no cost, and to even cover the costs of having their plumber do the installation.

Wow. Is that not remarkable customer service, above and beyond expectations?  It almost feels like the clock was turned back several decades when stores really did care about satisfying their customers.  Hats off to Sears for showing that a big company can acknowledge a mistake and bend over backwards to remedy the situation.

(Despite the seeming fairy tale ending to this story, there will be a part two, as MrConsumer’s kitchen is now home to two Sears ranges.  Ironically, in part, it is because more fine print tripped up the company’s best of  intentions.)