Sandals, a group of all-inclusive Caribbean resorts, is offering a seemingly amazing offer: Stay at their resort and they will fly you there free.
Are there any catches? Of course there are. It is for bookings made by September 2, for travel through December 20, 2009. The problem is with respect to the free airfare:
*MOUSE PRINT:
“Offer fulfilled as credit toward land portion of booking, based on double occupancy, minimum 3 night stay, $350 airfare per person for travel to Jamaica or Bahamas; $450 per person for travel to St. Lucia; $550 per person for travel to Antigua.”
Can you really fly to their locations for the amounts they will reimburse? Checking Boston to Freeport, Grand Bahamas, for a week from January 24 – 31, 2009, reveals the lowest airfares to be $388 to $401, not including luggage and travel agents fees. Their $350 credit would not quite cover the fare. (Fares to Nassau were slightly cheaper, though, being $336 to $343 at the low end.)
Fares to Jamaica were $317 to $325 on the low end, so assuming you ordered airline tickets now, your airfare would indeed be free. On the other hand, fares to St. Lucia were $704 on the low end, and Sandals’ $450 allowance is way below the actual fare. For Antigua, fares were $627 to $706 for the cheapest flights, most leaving before 6am. Their $550 reimbursement is $75 to $150 short of the actual fare.
How do they get away with advertising “fly free” when in many cases you will have to pay at least a portion of the airfare?
*MOUSE PRINT: “In some cases, offer may not cover all airfare costs, taxes, and fuel surcharges.” The inconspicuous disclaimer may not get them off the hook should a state consumer office go after them.
Of course, depending on the dates you fly, airfares will vary. And if you book now, but wait to buy your tickets closer to your vacation date, the reimbursement will likely come up quite short for all itineraries because airfares will likely be skyhigh by December 2009 when the offer expires.
This seems to be in line with the free coke or candy bar type coupons. They all say FREE, and then much lower and smaller ‘up to $X.XX value’. While I agree that the offer is misleading, would it really be struck down should a state consumer board go after them? Seems like this practice is a pretty common practice.
By the way, for the dates of 11/28/2008 – 12/6/2008 (the last week long vacation you could take before the offer expires) from Indianapolis IN, airport code IND-
to Nassau, Bahamas (NAS): $468 low end, $719 high end.
to Montego Bay, Jamaica (MBJ): $483 low end, $909 high end.
to Vieux Fort, St. Lucia (UVF): $841 low end, $941 high end.
to St. John’s, Antigua (ANU): $662 low end, $1229 high end.
I used Expedia.com to find the pricing.
By the way, how about an explanation as to why a ticket purchased to transport a person from airport to airport doesn’t include the fuel? A taxi doesn’t change extra for the fuel after you pay for the ride, neither does a train or a bus. How can the airlines do that?
Thanks again Edgar, my girlfriend has pointed out that offer to me, but I hadn’t read the fine print yet. I’ll be able to keep this in mind when I am talking to her about where we’re heading this winter.
Just to clarify, while I expressed doubt that a state consumer board would go after this offer, I am not in any way trying to say there is nothing wrong with this type of mouseprint. It is misleading and should be an illegal practice. I guess it’s just cynicism that I doubt any governing body would even bother to take a second look.
Anyway you look at it, it will save 2 people 700 dollars off the cost of the total vacation. Resorts are hurting right now beause of the higher air fares people are not traveling so if they can help take the pain out of the high airfare I don’t have a problem with it. Is the title misleading, absolutely, but anyone who sees the word FREE on any Ad and does not read the disclaimers is an idiot.
Lets also note that while all other offers are for double occupancy, the list the room price per night based on single occupancy. They want an extra ~$100 or so per person as far as I can tell from their website.
This offer should have been promoted as a $X.XX credit for your air travel expenses and not as a fly free offer. It still would have been a good deal. Fine prints should be used to further clarify the offer displayed to the consumer in big print, not to change the meaning of the word “free”.
“Lets also note that while all other offers are for double occupancy, the list the room price per night based on single occupancy. They want an extra ~$100 or so per person as far as I can tell from their website.”
I find this sort of hilarious since Sandals bills itself as a “couples only” resort – you couldn’t stay at one of their resorts as a single occupant even if you *wanted* to.
It seems that the whole problem with this is that their promise is not valid in most cases. As indicated, if they said something like, “order a vacation and we’ll give you up to $1100 back” that would have been better (although still deceptive.)
I should try that for my small business:
Buy my product and get free shipping(*)
(*) up to 0.01 per order, applied as a credit on your next order.
As for “based on double-occupancy”, many hotels say this but don’t really charge you extra…unless they’re resorts.
Is it any wonder that people have come to distrust all businesses, no matter how trustworthy they are?
(If you run a legit business, people nickel and dime you to death; if you falsely advertise, they accuse you of misleading them–and rightly so!)
—
Anyway, I feel bad for travel-related businesses, but it’s time for them to find a new business model to get people to their resorts/countries/etc. For example, why are Mexican resorts more expensive than U.S. resorts when the taxes are much lower, the food costs are much lower, and the labor costs are much lower? And now they’re complaining because the world’s economy is down and they’re not getting the same hundreds of millions of dollars per year that they used to.
Well, you’ve got to at least give the credit for being creative with their promotional offer. Even if you have to spend the credit on activities, it’s more than many resorts are offering right now. I do agree though that you should always read that mouse print so you’re not in for a surprise when you’re expecting that refund!
It is misleading and should be an illegal practice. I guess it’s just cynicism that I doubt any governing body would even bother to take a second look. Thank you.