Mazda Madness: $21,000 Cars for $9500*
Can you really get a brand new 2007 Mazda worth over $21,000 for less than $10,000? This local car dealer apparently uses the new math to come up with this bargain.
*MOUSE PRINT: The dealer assumes you will make a $9000 down payment either by cash or trade and deducts that from the MSRP to create an artificially low advertised price. [Boston Globe, September 10, 2006]
Here is another example from a different dealer.
Talk about an eye-catching price for a brand new Mazda Tribute. It is just over $10,000 for a $22,000 car. How in the world is that possible?
The answer is, it isn’t possible, unless you play with the numbers.
*MOUSE PRINT: The $10,090 price assumes a cash down payment or trade in worth $5500 to arrive at their artificially low advertised price. [Boston Globe, July 30, 2006 and net ad]
Here is how they work the math:
MSRP: $22,590
Cash or Trade in: -$5500
Discount up to: -$7000
================
Advertised Price: $10,090
These dealers are deliberately treating a form of payment — a cash down payment or a trade in — as a discount from the price. What you put down is never considered a discount from the price.
With their kind of logic, a home builder could advertise a $400,000 house for only $10 (assuming you also agree to give him a $399,990 down payment).
This type of advertising is reprehensible. What do you think?
Agreed; it is disgusting and an insult to the intelligent reader. The fine print will tell the story.
Comment by Dave Neptune — September 11, 2006 @ 7:33 amCould not agree more! I have called the new cars sales manager at several [Boston{ area dealerships to nform them that because of this SLEAVY practice I would not even COSNSIDER buying a vehicle from them – or even step into their showroom.
Comment by L. Kaplowitz — September 11, 2006 @ 8:41 amThese dealers should be locked up for misrepresentation.
Comment by Bill Ridge — September 11, 2006 @ 8:51 amWelcome to AMERICA, Can’t trust anyone in business….
Comment by Joe — September 11, 2006 @ 9:23 amObviously a scam. If it was “real” price, I suppose the dealer would only charge sales tax on the number in large letters, not the gross price before the deductions for the down payment and/or trade. But aside from the scale, it’s really no worse than Best Buy selling TV’s for $400 less, provided you agree to buy $400 worth of services from AOL.
Comment by Gary Allen — September 11, 2006 @ 10:43 amEverything said by prior observers is correct!
Comment by Len Kaufman — September 11, 2006 @ 12:16 pmBut as I have said many times the unethical individual cannot commit
the crime without the help and collusion of other people in responsible positions
Since the ads appear in a newspaper to reach large audiences why do they not have
copy ad editors like the standard copy editors to check stories from
their reporters before they are printed.
This country is still more trustworthy than all other countries of the world.
We have an amazing system of checks and balances which unfortunately are not
utilized appropiately.
If more people did what L. Kaplowitz did (see his comment, above), this sort of practice probably wouldn’t be as pervasive and prevalent as it is. But it must work, by getting prospects into the dealerships, or the dealers wouldn’t do it. But as others have pointed out, who would believe it? I guess enough people do.
Comment by Dan Kap — September 11, 2006 @ 6:10 pmThe solution is simple. A law that requires any listed price to be free
Comment by rolf arend — September 11, 2006 @ 9:45 pmof conditions, such as down payment, military discount, etc. The price posted
has to be available to all, with additional incentives, if any listed elsewhere
in the advertisement. Violations should be considered fraud, punishable by
jail time.
I’ve become numb to car ads. I’ve purchased 2 new vehicles during last 8 years. Both times I checked the newspapers for ads, followed through by going to dealer only to find that the cars advertised were not available or that there was alot of misinformation in the ads (as your examples show).
It boggles my mind that car dealers feel they have to misrepresent their product in order to sell it. What does this really say about the cars they are trying to sell? I’m now in the market to purchase another vehicle, I won’t even look at ads anymore — it has become an exercise in frustration for me. Its especially frustrating because I know advertising costs are factored into the price of a new car, so in essence, I am paying for them to lie to me about their product. AAARGGHHH!!!!
Comment by a.m.s. — September 12, 2006 @ 10:45 ami bet that dealer is in wakefield. i had a problem with them when it came to repairs. i also once worked for another of their dealerships. they are sleaze
Comment by b comins — September 12, 2006 @ 7:06 pmMy daddy used to say that there was a sucker born every minute. These dealers must have heard this as well. One more reason not to trust car dealers. I’ll keep my 1999 vehicle till it dies.
Comment by h ford — September 20, 2006 @ 8:39 amThe dealer whose ad you cited runs a radio ad in the Boston area whose catch phrase is “You Can Trust [name of dealer]” I’m of the belief that any company who has to advertise that you can trust them, means you couldn’t in the first place.
Comment by Preston Tucker — September 20, 2006 @ 11:23 amAs an owner of an advertising agency that specializes in working with automobile dealerships, I am amazed that the Mazda Corporation hasn’t stepped in on this matter. I would not be surprised if this was an ethical violation of the dealership agreement. If you like I’d be willing to forward this advertisement for corporate scrutiny.
I would put this under the grand “Chutzpah” theory of advertising tantamount to fraud. It is even worse than the ads which say a dealership will pay off whatever a customer owes on their existing car in order to get them into a new vehicle. In reality, the dealership pays nothing. Instead the previous automobile loan balance is “rolled over” / incorporated into the financing for the new vehicle.
I wish the days of the fraudulent hard sell dealerships was over. However, if consumers actually thought about the huge amounts they aare spending, most would probably not $50,000 on some new SUV.
As PT Barnum once said “No one every went broke under estimating the taste of the American public.”
In my work, I’ve tried to represent auto dealers who provide consumers with all the costs, taxes, dealership and manufacturer incentives up front.
Comment by SMG — September 25, 2006 @ 9:12 amPerhaps the best way to avoid traps like this is to remember this: TANSTAAFL (there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch)
Comment by Frank D Carey — September 26, 2006 @ 7:16 amThough I think car sales people deserve to be in one of Dante’s inner circles of hell and have no illusions about their honesty give me a break. The ad here clearly states the MSRP – cash or trade to come at the advertised price. Knowing how most businesses embellish at best and are outright liars at worst I really have little sympathy for anyone who doesn’t take the time or effort to learn about whatever deal they are getting into. It might be small print but it’s still print, if you don’t read it whose fault is it then? Everyone wants someone else to advocate for them instead of taking the responsibility in their own hands.
Comment by Steve — September 26, 2006 @ 7:39 amAlthough I’m not a fan of new legislation, a law requiring products over a certain amount (let’s say $500-1000 although others might push for a lower amount) must represent the true cost of their product on advertising – if an ad that is either printed or put online does otherwise, then the originator of the ad should be immediately fined, pending ligitation for fraud. Sounds kinda simplistic, but it would certainly make these advertisers think twice. Especially if the amount of the fine was defined as the difference between the published price and the true cost!
Comment by Steve — September 26, 2006 @ 7:51 amI couln’t agree more with the comments by smg. I also own an andvertising agency that deals with automobile dealers. The group we represent are honest, hard working dealers who try to advertise with no fine print or deception. It is unfortunate that they have to compete with the dealers who practice this type of misleading marketing.
smg, if you have a dealer who wants to compete by also engaging in this type of advertising, what do you do?
Stephen
Comment by stephen — September 26, 2006 @ 8:03 amsandt423@yahoo
This same type of scam for price advertising is most prevalent in leases. Look in any newspaper and the lease rate always has a high down payment to arrive at the “$99″ a month for a lease. The most unreadable mouseprint is at the bottom of the add where all the *’s live and the actual details and prices are listed.
Comment by Chris Worley — September 26, 2006 @ 8:21 amThis is no different than computer/laptop ads from Best Buy, CompUSA, Office Max, etc. that come in every
Comment by Pelica Montgomery — September 26, 2006 @ 9:10 amSunday paper. When will those companies be forced to put the pay-up-front cost in BIG letters so you know
how much you will REALLY need when you get to the store?
It is clearly stated in the ads that cash or trade in is required. I don’t understand why you’re making such a big fuss over their form of advertising. It’s not like they even made the words difficult to see. Other issues you have raised on this website are certainly valid and I appreciate you making this information available to the general public but, come on, we’re smart enough to pick up on the language in these ads…aren’t we?
Comment by Kelly — September 26, 2006 @ 9:47 amI understand that advertisers must attract their readers with some gimmick to get attention to their ad, but
Comment by Cynthia Hatting — September 26, 2006 @ 9:53 amoutright false or deceptive ads take advantage of the public’s trust, which should be zero these days. What
happened to good old fashioned honesty? Thank goodness for non profit organizations like consumr’s report that
expose these ads and the less than honest claims that many advertisers make. It is a comment on society that
ethical behavior is sacrificed in the name of greed.
Hopefully the Massachusetts Attorney General is taking notice!!!
Comment by Greg Carty — September 26, 2006 @ 9:54 amI do have to agree with the last post. Although I don’t consider a trade-in to be a “discount” any more than anyone else, this ad doesn’t put it in mouseprint, or even small print-the “math” is quite clear.
Comment by Violet — September 26, 2006 @ 10:04 amI don’t agree with their terminology in the ad, but if you can’t pick up on that obviously misleading math you probably shouldn’t be taking out a loan anyway.
The main thing we need to do is educate ourselves (this site is a good start!) and always remember : Buyer Beware!
I find it rather funny. Going to buy a car has always been a struggle. Always
Comment by John — September 26, 2006 @ 10:56 amneed to go by the rule “if it sounds too good to be true…it is”.
I do not think this is reprehensible. The information is right there for you to
Comment by TM — September 26, 2006 @ 11:14 amread. I do not know why you would feel this is not acceptable. The American public
feels like they need to have everything spoon fed to them. I do not see this as
dishonest in anyway. The ad clearly states how they got to that figure. Down pay
and trade-ins are common in the industry. Please tell me I am wrong.
The first thing I saw on the ad was the cash/trade-$9,000. If you’re too dumb to notice that, then take the bus.
Comment by Jake — September 26, 2006 @ 11:26 amI agree that the cash / trade-in info is upfront in the samples provided. However, in other Boston area ads, it is sometimes listed in the fine print below the ad.
And people who want to buy a new car sometimes get emotional. All logic goes out the window.
I actually know someone who fell for one of these ads. She traded her car in and provided additional cash to get the “buy for” price. And to add insult to injury, she used dealer financing. It took her about 3 months before she realized her $9,990 car actually cost her around $24K including the financing charges.
The current spate of ads also reinforces what people have always believed, that being car salesmen are all sleazy. These ads just reinforce that notion.
Comment by Matt — September 26, 2006 @ 1:00 pmLeave it to a car dealer to do something like this…
Comment by Gary — September 26, 2006 @ 2:17 pmYou folks calling for legislation – why? To protect whom? The poor sucker who goes in thinking he can get a $25k car for $10k? That guy is a moron. It’s like they are chumming the waters looking for idiots, and I bet they are getting plenty! Any reasonable person would not believe they will get a $25k car for $10k, so why do we need to enact laws – for who’se protection? Morons? We are going to legislate safety nets for stupid people now? Maybe we should put warnings on food to remind people to take it out of the wrapper before eating it, or legislate signs reminding people to breath, lest they die.
Comment by Mike — September 26, 2006 @ 2:26 pmWhy is it that everyone thinks all car salesmen are sleazy? First of all, dealership owners and principals (operations managers, ect.)handle publishing the advertising you are discussing here. Second of all, consumers are just as shady. Be honest with yourself- how many times have you taken up alot of a salesman’s valuable time (that he is giving you for free at that point!), said “we want to go home and think about it”, and gone next door/ across town to waste another salesman’s time? The car buying process is capitolism at it’s best. Educate yourself and you will probably get a good deal, don’t bother to and that time you saved will probably cost you a little. To some people it’s worth it.
Comment by Michael — September 26, 2006 @ 2:34 pmTotal joke. Not just Mazda…they all do it. Car dealers are scummy to begin with but they’ve hit a new low.
Comment by Ryan — September 26, 2006 @ 2:36 pmThis ad is not misleading at all. NOWHERE in that ad is stated that the price of
Comment by eric0511 — September 26, 2006 @ 3:40 pmthe car is $10,000 or $9,000. It is simply showing the math to get it to that
number and it is 100% correct. As a consumer we have to pay attention and read
more carefully. Advertising are designed to attract people, I agree that it should
not lie to the public and in this case there is no lie or trick it’s not even
written in fine print!! Car salesmen are out there to make their living. Some of
them are sleazy but 90% are honest hard working men. We as consumers on the other
hand should also look in the mirror. When was the last time you were being honest
when you try to bargain for something? When was the last time you did not try to
make the salesman drop the price so low just to shop the next store? When was the
last time you did not go to a dealer just to get a free ride wasting the salesman’s
time?
Michael – A salesman is not “giving” me anything “for free” by doing his job and attempting to get a sale. Just how patronizing can you get? Someone trying to get MY business is doing a service by trying to sell him or herself, or their business or product? What kind of twisted logic is that?
The fact is, if you’re financing a car, even the window price is deceptive. Here’s what I do: I tell them “this is the car I’m looking at, and this is what I can afford per month. If you can’t do that, I can’t buy here.” End of story. The number in the window provides a “guide,” but nothing more.
Pontiac (as in GM, not thier dealers) has been doing this for years … lease a Grand Prix for like $129 a month (with a final month lease payment of nearly $10,000), but they were more up-front about it.
Comment by Jim — September 26, 2006 @ 3:44 pmReprehensible? Yes. Advertisers have been misleading people for years.
Comment by Tony — September 26, 2006 @ 4:09 pmWhen I was a kid growing up in the 50’s my dad would watch tv ads with disbeleif and proclaim “The stupid american public” because people would really beleive that you could get 15 to 20 “Clean Shaves” from that new Gillett Razor or some other puffery claim. Remember, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!!!
Jim- I am willing to bet you are exactly the type of hypocritical person I am talking about. You say “tthis is the car I am looking at, and this is what I can afford per month”. The salesman comes out, tells you “congratulations we can do that, how would you like that titled?” and you immediately start thinking about what excuse you can give to get out of there so you can go to the next dealer on your list to do the same thing with a lower “I can afford this much” amount. I said you needed to be honest with yourself Jim.
Comment by Michael — September 26, 2006 @ 4:11 pmI am just as surprised at a car ad running all this month in Las Vegas.
It goes like this:
$22,000 car for $10,000!
how is it done? The promotion is called double down. You put down $6000 and they match $6000. You put less? They put less. You put $8000? They still wont put more than $6000.
As always, this advertising is untrue because your downpayment comes off at the very end as does any rebate.
So in the end, after you pay all the taxes, fees, etc on on the car, they subtract your downpayment and their rebate.
I love Mouseprints comment. So when does your payment on an item count as a discount?
Does that mean when I pay for an entire computer, they could advertise it for $0?
Comment by Ronnie — September 26, 2006 @ 4:30 pmEric0511:
You said “NOWHERE in that ad is stated that the price of
the car is $10,000 or $9,000. It is simply showing the math to get it to that
number and it is 100% correct.”
That is incorrect. A cash downpayment NEVER comes directly off the initial MSRP. It is always the last thing taken off even AFTER taxes are added. Thus if you do a cash downpayment, it is physically impossible to make this ad works.
In some states, if you do a trade in, it is deducted off the MSRP prior to taxes.
It is true that ads are meant to attract, however they need to not deceive. In this case, in regards to a cash downpayment, the math is deceiving.
TO be accurate, they should have left the cash or trade out. To leave it in is like telling me a computer is $10 because they give a $300 discount and I pay $990 at the final checkout counter and then they ask me for the $10.
Amazingly enough there are people taken in by these ads.
The Double Down ad out here says in fine print that if the consumer disagrees with the ad, the dealer has the right to cancel the whole offer.
Comment by Ronnie — September 26, 2006 @ 4:37 pmFine print, any fine print, is reprehensable. By it’s very nature, fine print means there is something that the seller doesn’t want you to know. It’s a shame that we have to spend our time sifting though this BS.
Comment by Ed — September 26, 2006 @ 4:56 pmActually, this isn’t all that bad. At least you have a fighting chance at reading the math that is done above the price. It would be worse if they put that in the tiny print at the bottom. Here, it was right above the price, so it really is about someone not reading the whole thing.
Comment by Dee — September 26, 2006 @ 5:37 pmThe ad itself is deceptive, no doubt.
However, if they stated that the final amount would be what you’d be financing (as far as a rough approximation of the loan’s principal amount) it would be quite useful to have that kind of information.
In other words, an MSRP of $20,000, with a $6000 trade-in(as if)/down payment, and maybe a matching dealer discount of $5000, you’d be borrowing essentially $9000 to buy the car. And *that’s* how you get lower monthly payments, because you’re not financing a $20,000 principle.
/very rough approximations
Comment by Jeremiah — September 26, 2006 @ 7:50 pmIn any business there are reputable people and disreputable people. My husband is an auto
Comment by Marci — September 26, 2006 @ 9:44 pmwholesaler and can fill pages with stories of unscrupulous people trading in their cars to
dealers.
“We’ve never been in an accident with this car.” CARFAX says differently.
The customer says, “My car is mechanically perfect. It runs beautifully.” The dealer decides
to drive it and the transmission won’t shift, confronts the customer, and the customer says,
“Oh, I didn’t notice any problem.”
The dealer asks how the brakes are and the person who wants to trade in the car says he
just did them a month ago. The deal is made, the dealer later puts the car up on a lift to
get the car ready to be resold and the brakes are worn down to the tolerance of needing to
be redone.
How many of you see yourself in this? It’s easy to point a finger at the businessman but
my husband sees the dishonesty of customers themselves all the time. People perhaps believe
that they are justified in being deceitful when it comes to trading in a car because of the
notion that “all car dealers are sleazy so that makes it OK to ‘get them back’.” But the truth
is that my husband is an honest individual and there are many others like him, and he doesn’t
stoop to low tactics. He can sleep at night and he doesn’t have to look over his shoulder.
Where does it say “DISCOUNT” ?????????
People would have to be idiots to think there isn’t a catch here.
Caveat Emptor.
If people want to blame other people for their own ignorance, they shall continue posting their issues here.
Comment by Mr. Feaor — September 27, 2006 @ 4:41 amAlthough it is a bogus offering it’s at least spelled out in large print so you kn ow were they get the final price. However, what the hell is the $7,000 discount? You never explained that wild offer. Another thing, what about these 0% 60 month for qualified buyers – I would love to find out what percentage of buyers are actually qualified buyers.
Comment by dexter — September 27, 2006 @ 8:47 amYes, that low price catches your eye–just what an ad is supposed to do. But both ads (especially the first
Comment by Joni — September 27, 2006 @ 10:06 amone you show) SHOWS the math, and the print isn’t that small. However, I’ve always had a pet peeve against
this type of advertising–the rebate style of advertising, where the PRICE (after rebate) is shown quite large
and then you see “(after rebate)”. These ads are aggravating and waste my time, whether they’re for cars or
grocery items.
And how about places like Menards? Not only do they show you the large sized price (after rebate), but the
mouseprint then tells you that this “rebate” is in the form of a merchandise credit check (coupon) which can
only be used at their store!
Don’t even get me started on “Everyday Low Pricing”…
This practice has been around forever in MA. That price has more wiggle room in it than anyone has mentioned as both “trade in value” and “rebate” are essentially amorphous BS testms. I have been offered a $5,000 trade in on a car clearly worth $10,000 and the one time I was supposed to get a rebate (my first brand new car) it was mysteriously absent on the final paperwork.It is just as bad now with the internet. I was told a price via email for a car with AWD, but after investing an evening at the dealership I was told the price I was quoted was for a car without it…even afeter I had specifically asked that question via email. Ultimately we ordered a car taht we were told aws on a lot in NY. We were told it would take weeks to arrive in MA. We stopped at another deaselr who told us that the dealership could get the car within 48 hours from that same lot in NY.We canceled the deal at the sleazy dealer and bought the car elsewhere.
Comment by Bob — September 27, 2006 @ 10:59 amWhy would one buy a car from a manufacturer who would endorse this advertising gimick…One other point to watch: there was a ship full of Mazdas which nearly capsized in the North Pacific. The vehicles aboard are to be sold as new. Watch for water damage disclaimers (in mouse print, of course)…
Comment by Beavercreek Bob — September 27, 2006 @ 11:42 amSure, the ads don’t say that the final price is that amount, but they’re trying
to make it look that way. Plus, as has already been said, they’re showing
money off MSRP to get to that price. I don’t care how clear they make it,
including the amount you pay in the calculation for a price is wrong. They
might as well have just put the full amount and advertised at $0, except that
would make it too clear what they were doing.
This doesn’t mean I think I, or anyone else, would actually fall for this. But
that doesn’t change the fact that it’s wrong to do. It also gives the ad
attention it doesn’t deserve, taking it away from those who won’t stoop that
low.
They’re doing this on the car lots now too. The other day I was looking
Comment by Scott — September 27, 2006 @ 11:48 amat some cars with a friend, and saw a used car at a pretty low price. When I
checked the tag, it had printed at the bottom that the price assumed cash or
trade. I said right then, and stick by it now, that I won’t shop from a dealer
using deceptive practices like that – especially when they’re doing it right on
the lot.
It doesn’t look like misleading fine print to me! It’s right there! They show you the MSRP price is $21,065, then right below that, in the same size font, they deduct a Cash/Trade amount of $9,000, along with their “matching”(?) price of $2,500, bringing you to the $9,565 bottom figure. Yes, the bottom figure is bigger and attention grabbing, but I don’t see anything misleading here.
Comment by Rosey — September 27, 2006 @ 12:39 pmIn the ad, it CLEARLY states that they are expecting a down payment for a person to get the car at the price stated. Ther is nothing deceptive about the ad; a person just needs to be able to read, and understand what they are reading. If they’re not capable of doing that, they have no business handling money anyway.
Comment by John Law — September 27, 2006 @ 1:15 pmThis appears to be a new version of the “it’s free for a fee” scam. One of the more common of these is the “free” credit report fleece, which puts the promise to give you a free credit report in big print, and tries to hide the part where you agree to pay for a year’s worth of credit monitoring in small print. The best protection from all these scams to remember that most businesses are not in the busines of giving things away for free.
Comment by Barry Fox — September 27, 2006 @ 3:41 pmSeveral thoughts on this:
*I’m surprised to see this here as “news.” This has been how cars are advertised for as long as I’ve been old enough to shop for cars.
*For those that have commented that it says as plain as day “cash/trade” and therefore it itsn’t misleading, I have to admit that I (a pretty educated and skeptical person) totally fell for this when I was shopping for my first brand new car at 21 years old. I feel foolish admitting it, but I didn’t know exactly what “cash/trade” meant. The word “trade” really threw me off, probably because I’d never owned a car worth trading in–the idea had never even occured to me! Now “cash,” I know what that its! And I thought the “rebate” part was from Chevrolet (or whoever) and the “cash” was from Big Joe of BBig Joe Chevrolet. I truly believed it was a discount because it is so clearly presented to make people believe that. I quickly realized my mistake when I went to the dealership, and I felt so dumb! But I STILL managed to get duped, because I was young and inexperienced, not because I was too stupid to understand. And that is why these folks should have to follow some guidelines for truth in advertising. I’m not one to scream LEGISLATE! every time some poor schmuk gets taken for a ride, but I’m not one to sit back and watch the rich screw the poor time and time and time again.
*This whole practice truly does boggle the mind. Whoever came up with this must be a total genious! Imagine the first time some guy spouted the idea in a board room somewhere… “All right, fellas, I’ve got an idea to get ‘em in the door! Let’s write down the price AFTER they’ve already paid for half the car!!” All the others must have thought he was crazy. But he really was on to something. I agree iwth all the other commenters–they might as well advertise cars, computers, Cracker Jacks and cookies as being free. After you’ve paid for them.
Comment by Sabrina — September 27, 2006 @ 6:47 pmThat the State or Federal governments allow this to repeat itself shows me that there are huge deficiencies in coconsumer consumer protection within our system of government. Then again, it there weren’t then this site wouldn’t exist.
Comment by Norman — September 27, 2006 @ 8:32 pmBIG PRINT: FREE!!!!
micro-print: after you pay for it.
This is so obviously illegal. Whether or not the FTC/FBI/FCC/SEC/CIA/IMF or Barney has gotten around to arresting this scum, they are commiting a crime. And this isn’t some crime that Congress hasn’t thought of yet, this is oh so clearly false advertising.
On the plus side, you can call their bluff. If a dealer advertises a price for merchandise, they are legally obligated to sell you that product for that price. You might have to sue or whatever, but usually just threatening to sue is as effective.
Comment by Bob — September 29, 2006 @ 1:29 amI love those advertisements! I teach at an alternative high school and will do a lesson on buying a car and auto insurance. This ads provide me with up front examples along with that magical “double sticker” and a variety of other tactics used to take advantage of those who are vulnerable – lack of education, poor credit and so on. My students automatically look for that magical * in all ads.
Comment by rick mcnair — October 1, 2006 @ 11:40 amReprehensible though such ads may be, the consumer still bears responsibiliy for judging their claims. Anyone who reads your site’s stories should quickly learn to “read the fine print.” If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Educated, judicious consumers are the best remedy for unscrupulous ads. If those ads don’t generate sales, they will be abandoned.
Comment by Thomas J. Bazzone — October 4, 2006 @ 10:00 amIf these ads run in the paper or TV should make the papers responsible or the TV
Comment by Michael C. — October 6, 2006 @ 10:28 amstations it does reflect on to them.Also if it seems to good to be true is it
isn’t true.
Just goes to prove my point once again….. I have always said that I’d rather have a sister in a whore house than a brother as car salesman.
Comment by Doug P — October 10, 2006 @ 10:03 amAutomobile dealerships get away with many outrageous claims, which are usually
100% lies. When are the federal, state and local governments going to step in
and make them stop doing this to consumers?
Just as the examples mentioned here, there are thousands of others which are even
more deceptive.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!
They are a bunch of crooks.
Comment by Jose S. — October 13, 2006 @ 9:43 amThey need to apply the 7-year-old rule to these ads:
Ask a 7-year old how much the car costs. I he/she says $9500 then it’s a deceptive ad. If he/she says $9500 plus the $7000 you have to give first, then it’s okay.
By 7 years old, the human mind has the capacity to understand basic math and basic text. All of the words there are basic so if an average 7-year doesn’t get it, then it’s either deceptive or confusing. Either way that would not qualify as a good ad in my books.
Try the same thing with a 14-year old, and you’ll probably the correct numbers on the first ad, but maybe not the 2nd because the print is a lot smaller.
–
Comment by RS — October 14, 2006 @ 10:44 pmBTW
I think the auto industry is the 2nd most unscrupulous industry in America…next to the legal system (which includes our govt reps!)
The best way to purchase a vehicle, if it is a dealership that will haggle, is to
Comment by Valerie Thomas — October 16, 2006 @ 9:52 amask for the dealer invoice and offer up from there. Be fair. Be firm. They do have
to make money to stay in business.
This is the same scam as the website banner for mortgage loans that assume a 20% down payment. $500,000 loan? $500/month? No problem. Just make a 80% downpayment.
Comment by B. Deamon — October 18, 2006 @ 12:45 pmAlmost every car advertisement I’ve seem has appeared thatway. Tjese ads These ads are not misleading because its all spelled out how the dealer arrives at the advertised price. Car dealerships need to do everything they can inorder to entice customers to vist thier dealership. Why is it that people feel they have the right to haggle over the price of an automobile?? I dont go to WWal-mart and haggle over the price of a TV.
Comment by Steve — October 20, 2006 @ 3:34 amSame old stuff for the past 50 years. Car dealers have always had three or four
Comment by Will Rogers — October 26, 2006 @ 7:33 pmprices for the same make and model car. It has always been a hassel to deal with
automobile dealers. The games they play with customers are nothing less that
another way to screw the customer. It is not only the automobile industry that
is playing games it is MOST ALL retail outlets!!!!!!!!!!
This is part of why most car dealers are considered crooks or bandits by the general public.
Comment by D Nelson — October 31, 2006 @ 7:29 pmPersonally i feel that, one advertisemnets in general are all ridiculous. A car dealership should not be allowed to advertise anything other than the MSRP of the vehicle they are advertising.. That is the reason there are so many misleading ads in teh industry . The reason they have to advertise like that is due to the consumer always looking to negotiate the best deal( not like it can be done in most other business ie: doctor, lawyer,restaraunt,)than the dealer has to show a lower price to keep the consumer shopping . The reality is like other business in retail there should BE NO NEGOTIATION and the ads should only be , by LAW allowed to read the MSRP only > so, some consumer advocate should help get that into law. Oh yeah i am a sales manager in a NYC car dealership.
Comment by Mitchell K. — November 1, 2006 @ 12:43 pmDee, says as long as the font size is the same it’s o.k.
Comment by tom — November 3, 2006 @ 11:58 pmmany ads in my paper say, at the very bottom in tiny print
all prices above reflect $5k down. All car dealers are pure
scum..
Simply deceptive to increase sales.
Comment by Mike — November 7, 2006 @ 7:31 amThis is a clasic (and criminal) example of the old ‘bait and switch’ false advertising scam. Anyone who is drawn in by this bait and switch tactic should be able to file a lawsuit against the store if they do not sell them a car *for the advertised price*. And they will win. Then, these victories need to be publicized.
That is the only way this practice will stop.
I recently moved here from California and this was not allowed there. But it appears to be rampant on the East Coast and its really sleazy. Also, clearly, people pay substantially higher prices here for many consumer items.
(Too many layers between consumer and manufacturer?)
Whatever is causing it, it will eventually have to stop.
Comment by Secret Squirrel — November 13, 2006 @ 12:34 pmDon’t they have any large trees and rope around that area?
Comment by Kevin — December 19, 2006 @ 4:04 pmThe television folks would love to cover it ….
A car dealer in Denver did this too. I really couldn’t believe what I was reading!
Comment by Terry Lee — February 14, 2007 @ 9:25 amHmm, everything I buy is now FREE…after I pay for it!
Car dealers that advertise in this manner are telling you only one thing about themselves. THEY ARE DISHONEST. DON’T DEAL WITH THEM IF YOU HAVE ANY SMARTS AT ALL.
Comment by Roger T — February 27, 2007 @ 1:49 amIt appears all car dealerships publish ads just like these. This is because if one were to advertise the lowest “REAL” actual cost you could buy their car, no one would call or inquire about the legitimate addbecause they would be to busy chasing the lowest large number in print. It is the greedy american people that force legitimate dealerships to sink to lower levels in order to keep up with their low level peers ads.
Comment by Geoffrey — July 22, 2007 @ 8:57 pmI was a car salesman for years, until earlier this year. Hardworking, honest, and straightforward as I was – I can honestly say that many dealer owners and principals (the people who create the ads) are not. Often, when you encounter dealer staff misleading you, it is because their managers MAKE them do it. As I told my clients for years, dealers got this bad rap starting after WWII, when the majority of their deceptive advertising practices began – and IMHO dealers deserve ALL of the bad rap they get from the marketplace – because they are often quite guilty of the underhanded practices that they are accused of. (please withhold my name)
Comment by Don Barletta — May 30, 2008 @ 12:30 pmI’m a Finance/Sales Manager in the Auto Business. With that out of the way–Quit your bitching about car
Comment by Tim B — July 11, 2008 @ 7:36 pmdealers and thier ads. You should know that these ads are meant to catch your attention and to encourage
you to come into the dealership to negotiate your car purchase. Fine print or not-anything that seems to
good to be true probably is! I would like to see advertisments that are realistic-BUT-most of the managers that write those ads never have to deal directly with the customer. Outright fraud should be punished and dealers that practice fraud in thier ads
should be boycotted. The buying public needs to look at all ads for content and restrictions and incentives
that may apply to the cost of the vehicle they want to buy. Just so you know-we know about the buyers tricks
too! My car has no mechanical issues! Never been in a body shop! Been the best car I’ve ever had! I’ve
never even used the 4 wheel drive or been off-road! My credit is next to perfect! I could go on for 10
pages. Bottom line is; A customer who is angry will never give you thier business-so-call the dealership
and discuss the ads and their content before wasting you time.