Retail

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Fry’s (Not So) Free Shipping

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.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

More Products Downsized

Earlier this year, Tropicana downsized it half gallons of orange juice. They went from 64 ounces to 59 ounces, but the container appeared to remain the same size.

Just last month, Tropicana’s big competitor, Florida’s Natural followed suit:

*MOUSE PRINT:

The package is a barely noticeable 1/4″ shorter, but contains five ounces less than previously.

When asked by Mouse Print* why their product was downsized, the company responded:

“As I hope you are aware, our major competitors had all previously made the switch. Although we had tried to maintain the 64 ounce size, we were at a big cost disadvantage. Consumers still bought the lower ounce cartons of our competitors, so to remain viable in the juice business, we had to follow suit.

As a company owned by farmers, we understand offering value to our customers. We have no control over the retail price supermarkets charge for our product. With that in mind, we will offer our 59 ounce features at a lower promotional cost, compared to the features usually run on the 64 ounce product.”

Another item that was downsized and discovered earlier in the year was Ivory Dishwashing Liquid.

*MOUSE PRINT:

When asked why the change, P&G responded:

” I’m sorry to hear that you have noticed the downsize in our bottles of Ivory Dish Soap. In the Fall of 2009, Ivory downsized our bottles because our raw materials went up and instead of charging more to the stores to handle our products we changed the size of the bottles. “

Thanks to Paul P. for the photo. Incidentally, he says the price stayed the same at about $2.42.


Cheryl from Massachusetts submitted this picture of Pastene Wine Vinegar which was downsized from a full quart to just 25.4 ounces, but the new bottle was taller than the old one. She poured the new contents into the old bottle to demonstrate just how much vinegar was actually removed.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Lastly, Jerri Q. was dismayed to find her Hill Bros. coffee had been substantially downsized, while the price stayed the same.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Thanks to all the contributors who found these examples of downsized products.  As we always say, downsizing is a sneaky way to pass on a price increase.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Wal-Mart Claims Savings on Candy, and Everything Else in Your Life

Wal-mart likes to make savings claims, and few people would quibble that the company is known for discounts.

Example 1:

Just before Halloween, Wal-mart advertised on TV that its Halloween candy was on average 20% cheaper than other retailers.

What’s their proof?

*MOUSE PRINT:

They said they surveyed national retailers’ regular price of just four specific candies (Snickers, Reese’s, Skittles, and Butterfingers), and on a per ounce basis, their prices were on average 20% less. Others’ sale prices were apparently ignored.

It probably would not stand up to legal or statistical scrutiny to make a broad general savings claim about candy just based on the prices of four products, and apparently not necessarily even comparing the same size bags. 

Example 2:

In television commercials, and in their October 31 circular, on the cover, the company claimed:

Huh? Merely because Wal-mart exists, the average family saves $2800 a year no matter where they shop? Mouse Print* asked Wal-mart’s PR department for an explanation. The company responded:

“Walmart helps families save an average of $2,800 a year, no matter where they shop, based on the company’s impact on the economy, according to a study by IHS Global Insight (updated in 2010, to reflect data through the end of 2009). The study includes jobs, wages, prices, consumer buying power, productivity and gross domestic product. It details how Walmart’s presence translates directly into savings for consumers.”

*MOUSE PRINT:

Reading the Global Insight statistical research (which appears to be written in a language resembling mumbo jumbo) and speaking to the report’s author clarified little other than based on the 2010 study, Wal-mart asserts that the average family benefits from a cumulative reduction in prices of 3.2% per year because Wal-mart is driving efficiencies throughout the economy. To come up with the $2800 claim, they had to take 3.2% of something, and that something works out to $88,000, that the researcher says the average family expends a year on goods and services.  This number seems much higher than what the true average is.

The 2010 study omits an important finding from their 2005 study, indicating that while prices may fall because of Wal-mart, so do wages:

“… lower inflation levels in the economy with Wal-Mart put downward pressure on nominal wages, … wage rates are only 2.2% lower overall .”

I certainly can understand that other retailers lower their prices when there is a Wal-mart in the area, so even if you never step into a Wal-mart you can save SOME money just because of their presence. But I don’t buy the proposition that what you pay for rent, movies, airfares, cars, utilities, restaurant meals, tuition, and every other service is affected by Wal-mart to the tune of being 3.2% less than they ordinarily would be. So, take their $2800 savings claim with a big grain of [Great Value] salt.