Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

April 15, 2019

Fly to Hawaii for $6 Roundtrip?

Filed under: Food/Groceries,Retail,Sweepstakes,Travel — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 5:10 am

Arby’s is running a promotion offering 10 lucky people the chance to buy roundtrip tickets to Hawaii for only $6.

Arby's contest

There are two opportunities to enter the sweepstakes: last Friday, and today (April 15th) at noon Eastern time. You will be flown first to Los Angeles, spend a night in a hotel, and then the next day, you will be whisked off to Honolulu in either first or business class. All for only $6. What a deal.

Except for one thing in the official rules.

Mouse Print*:

official rules

Your flights to and from Hawaii have to occur on the same day – April 27th. That’s right. Your day in Hawaii starts out with six hours on a plane going there. Then visiting an Arby’s to try three of their new sandwiches and be in a television commercial. And then another six hours on a plane back to the mainland.

As their ad states, “no volcanoes, no pineapple farms… just you, sweet buns, tender meat.”

So, if this is your idea of a fun vacation, hope you’re one of the first five today to win the trip. And here’s one additional consumer tip: You can save the $6 on the ticket by entering the promo code “Aloha.”




 

 

  ADV


• • •

April 1, 2019

Does Poland Spring Water Really Come From a Spring?

Filed under: Food/Groceries,Health,Retail — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 6:05 am

Here we go again. A lawsuit, originally filed in 2017 (but recently amended) against Poland Spring maker Nestle has been given the green light to proceed by a federal court.

Poland Spring

Plaintiffs allege in a 325-page complaint that Poland Spring water is not “100% natural spring water” as the label claims because it doesn’t really come from a natural spring. Rather, they say, it is groundwater that comes from a series of man-made springs. They contend the original Poland Spring in Maine ran dry in the 1970s.

For its part, Nestle says that Poland Spring water comes from eight different springs in Maine that meet the FDA’s definition of “spring water.”

…water derived from an underground formation from which water flows naturally to the surface of the earth may be “spring water.” Spring water shall be collected only at the spring [with] a natural force causing the water to flow to the surface through a natural orifice. –FDA regulations

Their website seems to protesteth a little too much for an innocent company by providing detailed information about the source of their water, including a map.

The judge in the case wasn’t buying some of the company’s arguments. For example, lawyers for Nestle asserted with a straight face in a prior hearing that the result of a previous lawsuit about the true source of Poland Spring water put the current plaintiffs on notice that the company’s claims might be false (and thus they can’t now contend that they were duped). This argument ranks right up there with a standard legal defense used by company lawyers in false advertising cases — “No reasonable consumer would believe the outrageous claims made in our advertising.”

So, it will be up to a court to decide whether the billions of dollars consumers have spent for Poland Spring water over the years was based on a false premise.

Hat tip to TruthinAdvertising.org for the lawsuit link.




 

 

  ADV


• • •

March 18, 2019

Thanks for Nothing, 2019 – Part 1

Filed under: Food/Groceries,Humor,Internet,Retail,Thanks for Nothing — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 5:51 am

“Thanks for Nothing” spotlights advertising that seemingly promises a great deal, and then lets you down big-time, or makes a product claim that proves untrue, or just makes you scratch your head and laugh.

Example 1:

Buy Dig is an online seller of electronics and other goods. Recently they advertised a pretty high-value coupon online, $50 off.

$50 off

However, if you click-through to see the actual deal, you would no doubt be disappointed.

*MOUSE PRINT:

$2000 purchase required

To save that $50, you have to make a $2000 purchase, saving a mere 2.5% off. Thanks for nothing, Buy Dig.


Example 2:

The problem with this Aunt Jemima syrup doesn’t even require you to read the fine print ingredients statement.

Butter syrup

What? Contains no butter? Thanks for nothing, Auntie.


Example 3:

Nothing turns shoppers off like high shipping costs, but this example takes the cake.

high shipping costs

A cheap, small plastic bottle costs over $18 to ship and the tax is three times the item’s price? Thanks for nothing.


Example 4:

Finally, if you want a quick meal, ramen noodles are about as fast as you can get, and dirt cheap in this offer. The trouble is you could starve before your order arrives.

ramen noodles

Thanks for nothing, Amazon


If you find an offer suitable for a “Thanks for Nothing” mention, please submit it to edgar(at symbol)MousePrint.org .




 

 

  ADV


• • •

March 4, 2019

A $2-Million Coupon Surprise

Filed under: Food/Groceries,Retail — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 6:12 am

Have you read any good coupons lately? If not, you are in for a surprise courtesy of the folks at Kimberly Clark, makers of paper products like Kleenex, ScotTissue, and Viva paper towels.

Most people don’t read the fine print of anything, let alone cents-off coupons. But maybe they should, particularly if they are trying to pull off some coupon monkey business.

*MOUSE PRINT:

$2-mil penalty

That’s right. Kimberly Clark is threatening those who commit coupon fraud with up to $2-million in criminal or civil penalties or jail if you try to rip them off. This addition to coupons was instituted four years ago but has gone largely unnoticed.

According to the Coupon Information Corporation, the industry group that fights coupon fraud, losses from counterfeit coupons and coupon misuse cost manufacturers (and in turn consumers) millions of dollars a year. In the largest case to date, the head of a coupon clearinghouse was sentenced to 10 years in jail and ordered to pay $65 million in restitution to companies, including Kimberly Clark, after being convicted in a massive coupon fraud case.

The warning on coupons is meant as a deterrent. But for those who ignore it and get busted by the feds by surprise, they may have wished they had actually used this Kimberly Clark coupon:

Depends




 

 

  ADV


• • •

February 18, 2019

When It Comes to Yogurt, Size and Ingredients Matter

Filed under: Food/Groceries,Health,Retail — Edgar (aka MrConsumer) @ 5:51 am

Have you read any good yogurt labels lately? You may be in for a surprise.

Here is the 6-oz. container of Yoplait Original strawberry banana yogurt:

Yoplait 6-oz

It is made with real strawberries and bananas, just as the front label depicts.

Thrifty shoppers, however, may find it more economical to buy the quart size container of Yoplait Original strawberry banana. But, they will get less than they bargained for.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Yoplait 32 oz

Checking the ingredients, all the real strawberries and bananas disappeared! While it does say “smooth style” on the front of the label, one might have reasonably assumed that they merely blenderized the fruit into the yogurt to create a uniform, smooth texture.

Nope. And the fine print of the front of the label doesn’t help much either. It says, “flavored with other natural flavor,” which might to the average shopper merely convey that other flavors are also mixed in.

Not to be outdone by this bit of yogurt trickery, once upon a time, Yoplait made a line of Yoplait Whips for the Girl Scouts evoking the flavors of some of their bestselling cookies.

Here is Yoplait’s Girl Scouts “peanut butter chocolate” Whips… but something is missing.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Yoplait peanut butter

According to the ingredients, there is no peanut butter in Yoplait’s peanut butter chocolate yogurt.

We asked General Mills, the maker of Yoplait, about the labeling of these two products. In particular, why different sizes of seemingly the same product did not have the same contents, and why they don’t more accurately describe the product on the front of the container. The company did not respond.

FDA regulations unfortunately allow manufacturers to play games with how product flavors are labeled, even to the point of permitting none of the depicted ingredient to actually be present in the product.

(i) If the food is one that is commonly expected to contain a characterizing food ingredient, e.g., strawberries in “strawberry shortcake”, and the food contains natural flavor derived from such ingredient and an amount of characterizing ingredient insufficient to independently characterize the food, or the food contains no such ingredient, the name of the characterizing flavor may be immediately preceded by the word “natural” and shall be immediately followed by the word “flavored” in letters not less than one-half the height of the letters in the name of the characterizing flavor, e.g., “natural strawberry flavored shortcake,” or “strawberry flavored shortcake”.

This is called consumer protection?




 

 

  ADV


• • •
« Previous PageNext Page »
Powered by: WordPressPrivacy Policy
Mouse Print exposes the strings and catches buried in the fine print of advertising.
Copyright © 2006-2019. All rights reserved. Advertisements are copyrighted by their respective owners.