One of the biggest attractions online sellers can offer is free shipping. And that’s what Fry’s does for some items.

MrConsumer recently purchased Norton Internet Security (plus Norton Utilities and Norton Ghost) for about $75 from Frys.com because a full price rebate was offered, as well as free shipping (instead of the usual $6.98). In the same order, he added on another software program that was also $75, but it was not labeled as coming with free shipping.

Sure enough, their computerized ordering system charged $6.98 for shipping the order, despite the fact that Norton was supposed to be shipped free. How can the company get away with this?

*MOUSE PRINT: If one clicks the “free shipping” logo, there is this disclaimer:

1. If your order contains “eligible” and “non-eligible” items, shipping will be charged for “non-eligible” item(s).

The policy is understandable if the non-free shipping item is sent separately or adds weight to the box that contains the free shipping item causing the company to pay more for postage. But that was not the case here. As you can see from the picture above, Norton is a rather large product and it came shipped in a carton roughly 12″ by 12″ by 12″. In the same carton, was the other software — a box that weighed a mere three ounces.

The carton with just Norton weighed 21 ounces and with the added software box, it weighed 24 ounces. That additional three ounces did not push the shipping cost into a higher bracket, according to FEDEX’s shipping chart. So, Fry’s charged $6.98 for shipping a carton that otherwise would have shipped free, and which cost them no more to send because of the added three ounce software box.

Customer service was unsympathetic, and only after speaking to a supervisor did the company agree to refund half the shipping cost.

In several TV commercials, the President of Dish Network touts the company’s low prices and success in becoming number one in customer satisfaction. In fact, he unequivocally proclaims:

“Dish Network is ranked number one in customer satisfaction among ALL [emphasis added] cable and satellite providers.” [Commercial one, and commercial two. ]

Not so fast, Mr. Ergen. There is a nearly unreadable disclaimer on the screen.

*MOUSE PRINT:

“According to the 2010 American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) survey results for the US largest cable and satellite TV providers. The claim excludes fiber optics carriers.”

If you look at the actual survey results from the University of Michigan for May 2010, you discover the true ranking of companies:

*MOUSE PRINT:

Funny thing, the real number one-rated company for customer satisfaction is Verizon FiOS and the real number two company is AT&T U-verse. In essence, Dish is saying, if you exclude the number one and number two company, we are number one! That is kind of like Alamo declaring “We are number one (if you don’t count Hertz and Avis)”.

Dish Network was invited twice by Mouse Print* to comment on its advertising practices but did not respond.

Disclosure: MrConsumer is a member of Verizon’s Consumer Advisory Board (but even if he wasn’t, Dish Network’s ads would have been subject of a Mouse Print* commentary).

Most of us are used to seeing infomercials where a product is offered with a free trial period. You pay the advertised price, and then if you decide you don’t like the product, you return it, and get your money back.

Now, there is a new breed of promotion,  like this PowerMeter ad. It appears you pay $9.95 for the device that measures the speed of your golf swing, and if you don’t like it, you can return it within 30 days.

If on the other hand you like it,  you might assume that you just keep it. Not so fast.

*MOUSE PRINT:

“If after 30 days you still like the Medicus Power Meter, then it’s just 4 payments of $19.95″ … PowerMeter website

So the $9.95 advertised price is the price of the “risk free trial”, not the price of the item. If you keep the PowerMeter, it will cost you a total $89.75 . 

The total price of the item may come as a surprise to purchasers who assumed the price  that was advertised was in fact the price of the product. To make matters worse, most infomercials that use this new technique of advertising, don’t disclose the actual cost of the product itself in the commercial even in mouse print. 

Incidentally, if you don’t keep the product, it isn’t even clear if you get your $9.95 back because this was not a “free trial” but a “risk free trial.”

Thanks to Eric from the Montgomery County Office of Consumer Protection for this submission.

For a while last year, it seems like every cable and satellite provider was claiming to have the most HD programming. If they all claim to have more, someone’s not telling the truth.

Here is DirecTV’s “To Tell the Truth” commercial claiming to have more HD than Dish Network or cable.

But then you had Comcast claiming to have more HD than satellite:

Can you believe anyone? DirecTV challenged Comcast’s claims before the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Better Business Bureau, where the organization reviewed Comcast’s claims in TV commercials such as:

· “More HD”
· “Comcast has more HD than satellite. More HD than anyone.”
· “More HD choices”
· “More HD Options”
· “You might think DIRECTV has more HD than Comcast but you’re wrong!”

Here is part of NAD’s ruling.

*MOUSE PRINT:

“Following its review of the evidence, NAD determined that DIRECTV currently offers the most HD channels and Comcast, by combining its HD channels and HD On Demand library, currently offers the broadest selection of HD programming. NAD also determined that “claims like ‘More HD Choices’ or ‘More HD Options’ is a logical way to describe the combination of linear HD channels and HD content On Demand available to Comcast subscribers.” However, NAD also found that, depending on the context in which such claims appear, they could also be reasonably interpreted to mean “More HD channels” – as the challenger argued. NAD recommended that that the advertiser modify five separate commercials to avoid consumer confusion.”

The bottom line is that both companies confused the public as to the quantity of HD offerings they had. So if you are shopping for a new provider, look at the channel lineup of each company to see what is actually being offered in your area.

T.B. of Ohio wrote to Mouse Print* about a V. Smile V. Motion learning system he saw in April at Wal-mart advertised at a “rollback” price of $49.00.

He questioned the legitimacy of the discount, given the fine print and his personal experience in buying the item previously.

*MOUSE PRINT: The rollback sign was posted on 2/17/10.

What’s wrong with that? T.B. bought the very same item at the very same price at the very same Wal-mart two and half months earlier —  in December 2009. He even provided his sales receipt as proof:

So how could there be a rollback with no savings? A Wal-mart spokesperson responded to Mouse Print*:

“Walmart has recently said that we are stepping up both the number and depth of Rollbacks and communication of those Rollbacks to our customers. Yes, this toy was on Rollback last fall for the Christmas Holiday. We have simply extended the savings beyond our normal 90-day Rollback period on this toy, and the date on the sign reflects the date the Rollback was re-posted in the store.”

Who knew that a rollback was only temporary, first of all, let alone that it could be renewed?