Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Sneaky Ways Drugstore Reward Programs Limit Redemptions and Cost You Money – Part 2

Last week, we looked at the MyWalgreens reward program and demonstrated how their rules often force customers to pay additional money out of their own pocket despite having enough Walgreens funny money in their rewards account.

This week, it is CVS’ turn.

CVS – ExtraBucks

We’ve all gotten the CVS ExtraBucks slips that pop out of the register after making a purchase of a product that promises a particular bonus. For example, they may advertise “Buy brand X shampoo, and get $2 in ExtraBucks.” In a sense, it is a nasty tactic because you are not getting dollars off the item you are actually buying, but rather those dollars can only be applied to a subsequent purchase. And they expire rather quickly — usually in about three weeks.

CVS Extra Bucks

Let’s say that you have several individual ExtraBucks coupons in your possession — one for $1, one for $2, and one for $10. Now you want to buy a $7 item. While you can pay with the $10 coupon, you will lose $3 because the system does not give back change. On the other hand, if you use just the $1 and $2 coupon on that $7 item, you will still owe $4 in real money.

So even though you have a total of $13 in ExtraBucks, it is not like an account you can draw against to pay in full for anything you want up to your total balance.

We think that CVS should allow you to bank your ExtraBucks and simply let you drawn down your balance and apply whatever amount you like to your purchases.

When we posed this idea to CVS, the company said, “Unfortunately, we won’t be able to comment.”

Here’s an even better idea for CVS. How about dropping ExtraBucks entirely and simply reduce the sale price of the advertised item by the amount of the ExtraBucks that would otherwise be provided upon its purchase? Fat chance that will happen.

Feel free to talk about your experiences with CVS ExtraBucks in the comments.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Ho Ho NO: Unplugged Shoppers Face Higher Grocery Prices

UPDATE: On January 12, a New Jersey assemblyman filled the first bill in the country requiring retailers who offer “digital coupons” to also provide paper ones of equal value to those customers who do not have internet access.

The millions of seniors who don’t use the internet (25% according to Pew Research Center) or who don’t have a smartphone (39%) are being charged substantially higher grocery prices than their more tech-savvy counterparts because they cannot clip the e-coupons necessary to be charged the advertised sale prices in the store. Unplugged lower income shoppers face the same roadblock. (See our recent story.)

Look at just the front page of this ad from a Washington, DC Safeway store right before Christmas advertising in-store prices. Note how much more an unplugged (“non-digital” in red) shopper pays versus a digital shopper:

*MOUSE PRINT:

Safeway non-digital prices

Just on those five items being purchased in-store, a non-digital shopper even if a member of the store’s loyalty program would have paid $67.03 compared to just $42.73 for a shopper who was able to clip the digital offers before going to the store. That is almost $25 more for the very same items.

Similarly, at this Star Market in Boston, an unplugged shopper would pay over $29 more for just these seven items.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Star Market non-digital prices

In November, five national consumer organizations including Consumer World called on a dozen leaders of the supermarket industry to make an offline alternative available in their stores to disconnected shoppers so everyone could have an equal opportunity to pay the same discounted prices. The response has been silence from them or a bit of misleading PR-spin.

Now it is your turn to speak up and speak out telling supermarket executives how “digital-only” sale prices unfairly discriminate against the millions of shoppers without internet access or smartphones. Urge those companies to make a new year’s resolution to find a way to offer their unplugged customers the same lower sale prices that more digitally-capable shoppers pay.

So… please consider sending an email to the CEOs of Albertsons Companies (which owns Acme, Albertsons, Carrs, Jewel Osco, Randalls, Safeway, Shaw’s, Star Market, Tom Thumb, and Vons), The Kroger Company (which owns Baker’s, City Market, Dillons, Foods Co., Fred Meyer, Food 4 Less, Frys, Gerbes, King Soopers, Kroger, Marianos, Metro Market, Payless, Pick ‘n Save, QFC, Ralphs, and Smiths), and Stop & Shop.

The Albertsons Companies: Vivek.Sankaran@Albertsons.com

The Kroger Co.: Rodney.McMullen@kroger.com

Stop & Shop: Gordon.Reid@stopandshop.com

Perhaps together we can help convince stores to treat all their shoppers equally and fight inflation a little more easily.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Amazon Accused of Misrepresenting Fast Prime Delivery

Amazon PrimeRecently, two California consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Amazon claiming that the company misrepresents how fast it delivers products when you have a Prime membership.

On their website, Amazon promises free same-day or one-day delivery on millions of items. In other places, they promise two-day shipping.

The lawsuit contends that in many cases the company does not deliver on the promise.

*MOUSE PRINT:

… in opting to purchase [Prime] and pay a monthly $12.99 monthly fee for the Product, Plaintiff Brittain relied on the expedited shipping speed attributes, which are undoubtedly material to the reasonable consumer. During the time span when Plaintiff Brittain paid for [Prime], on at least three occasions, Defendant Amazon failed to provide her with the advertised benefits of [Prime]. and deliver her ordered goods within the marketed shipping speed of two days or less.

The suit contends that the plaintiffs would not have bought the membership or would have paid less than the current $139 a year or $12.99 a month had they known of the longer delivery times that they would experience.

In claiming misrepresentation and unfair practices, the lawyers are seeking restitution and damages for all affected California Prime members.

So what has your experience been with Prime? Do you typically get the same day, next day, or 2-day delivery that the company promises?