# Accused of theft at the grocery! **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 3, 2005, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accused-of-theft-at-the-grocery/315476 "2005-08-03T21:06:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Brynda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e79b87/32.png) [@Brynda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brynda)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2005, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accused-of-theft-at-the-grocery/315476/101 "2005-08-05T22:41:38Z")
Ok, here’s a thought. Imagine that a friendly Boca employee was standing by the bins of delicious Boca products. Bin A products have coupons, Bin B and C products do not. Do you still feel ok about taking a coupon off Bin A products and using it for B and C products? Would you feel a need to ask the FBE or even to comment to him about what you are doing? If so, then you know something is not kosher, and it isn’t just the Boca ham (which probably is kosher, now that I think about it). Geez, I love ethical questions. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accused-of-theft-at-the-grocery/315476/102 "2005-08-06T00:08:16Z")
> [@Brynda](#): > > Ok, here’s a thought. Imagine that a friendly Boca employee was standing by the bins of delicious Boca products. Bin A products have coupons, Bin B and C products do not. Do you still feel ok about taking a coupon off Bin A products and using it for B and C products? If the coupon is good for any Boca product, then yep. > [@Brynda](#): > > Would you feel a need to ask the FBE or even to comment to him about what you are doing? Nope. If the FBE then told me it wasn’t OK, I’d probably ask why and then abide by his or her statement. If FBE said nothing then I would take that as acceptance by Boca of the practice. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accused-of-theft-at-the-grocery/315476/103 "2005-08-06T02:14:23Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > If the coupon is good for any Boca product, then yep. > > Nope. If the FBE then told me it wasn’t OK, I’d probably ask why and then abide by his or her statement. If FBE said nothing then I would take that as acceptance by Boca of the practice. Sure they’ll find it acceptable. You’re still purchasing one of their products. The person you’re screwing in the OP is the guy that wants to buy the product that _used_ to have the coupon on it but doesn’t anymore. That’s the looser, the guy that pays the extra $.50 for it. Not Boca. ---
**Author:** ![uglybeech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/82dd89/32.png) [@uglybeech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/uglybeech)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accused-of-theft-at-the-grocery/315476/104 "2005-08-06T02:22:08Z")
**Otto** , just out of curiosity - how exactly did the accusation in the store happen? Did she make a big deal about it? Did she make a scene? Did she just casually mention that you shouldn’t? Because while maybe a majority here think that it’s (a minor) wrong - I’d be surprised if anyone would actually bother to stir up a confrontation. Seems a little odd. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accused-of-theft-at-the-grocery/315476/105 "2005-08-06T03:04:25Z")
She was standing near the freezer compartment where the Boca is kept, saw me peeling off the coupon and said I was taking the coupon and it didn’t belong to me. I don’t even know why I responded; normally I’d just ignore her. I said pretty much the same thing I said here, that I was buying Boca products in accordance with the terms of the coupon. She reiterated her position and then I ignored her, and she let it drop. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accused-of-theft-at-the-grocery/315476/106 "2005-08-06T04:32:56Z")
If the coupon is attached to the product, it is meant to stay with the product until you purchase it. Or you may be able to use the coupon as you purchase it. The coupon is used AFTER you purchase the product. You’re wrong. No doubt in my mind. It’s a little thing. But you are still wrong. No rationalization will save you here. You’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accused-of-theft-at-the-grocery/315476/107 "2005-08-06T05:55:08Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > If the coupon is attached to the product, it is meant to stay with the product until you purchase it. This succinctly sums up what many of us see as the crux of the matter. What the coupon is used for is irrelevant. Where the coupon comes from is the issue. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accused-of-theft-at-the-grocery/315476/108 "2005-08-06T06:40:33Z")
> [@Gary T](#): > > This succinctly sums up what many of us see as the crux of the matter. What the coupon is used for is irrelevant. Where the coupon comes from is the issue. Then explain to me why, praytell, I have a coupon for a $4 coupon for meat that was ATTACHED to a bottle of wine, yet that coupon says specifically on it “Purchase of wine not required.” It’s labelled Julio & Gallo. It seems like it requires the purchase of a Gallo wine. It’s attached to the damn product. Yet the coupon itself says quite clearly that the purchase of the wine is not required. Everybody has seemed to gloss over this example. So, no, I don’t think it’s obvious that manufacturers want you to necessarily purchase the product the coupon is on. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accused-of-theft-at-the-grocery/315476/109 "2005-08-06T06:48:11Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Then explain to me why, praytell, I have a coupon for a $4 coupon for meat that was ATTACHED to a bottle of wine, yet that coupon says specifically on it “Purchase of wine not required.” It’s labelled Julio & Gallo. It seems like it requires the purchase of a Gallo wine. It’s attached to the damn product. Yet the coupon itself says quite clearly that the purchase of the wine is not required. > > Everybody has seemed to gloss over this example. So, no, I don’t think it’s obvious that manufacturers want you to necessarily purchase the product the coupon is on. It is a good counterexample, and obviously the viewpoint I’ve been supporting does not apply in this case. However, that doesn’t mean that all coupons that come with a product fall into the same category. I am operating under the assumption that the coupon in the OP did not have such a disclaimer, and was intended by the manufacturer to go the purchaser of the of the product that contained the coupon. ---
**Author:** ![chaoticbear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@chaoticbear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chaoticbear)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accused-of-theft-at-the-grocery/315476/110 "2005-08-06T13:13:17Z")
> [@chaoticdonkey](#): > > 1. As a wal-mart cashier for barely 2 months, that’s my record for number of items I’ve had someone come through with. We can’t tell them to go somewhere else, either. :mad: New record yesterday: 156. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accused-of-theft-at-the-grocery/315476/111 "2005-08-06T13:17:34Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Everybody has seemed to gloss over this example. So, no, I don’t think it’s obvious that manufacturers want you to necessarily purchase the product the coupon is on. “No purchase necessary”. That phrase seems to be included on every two bit contest and coupon. I suspect it is some sort of legal loophole. Just like the redemption value of .02 cents. Does anyone really believe that out of the goodness of their hearts, they want you to save money buying meat, and it doesn’t matter to the company if you buy their wine as well? Bunk. More rationalization for something that you know you shouldn’t do. > [@otto](#): > > On some of the boxes there were peel-off coupons good for money off any Boca product. The coupons don’t happen to be attached to the products I want to buy, so I peel off a couple for use with the products I do want to buy. The intent is clear. Buy this product and use the coupon **attached** to this product to get some money off on this, or your next purchase. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accused-of-theft-at-the-grocery/315476/112 "2005-08-06T14:06:20Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > “No purchase necessary”. That phrase seems to be included on every two bit contest and coupon. I suspect it is some sort of legal loophole. Just like the redemption value of .02 cents. It’s not just “no purchase necessary.” It’s very specifically: “No alcoholic beverage purchase required to redeem this offer” on the front and “Purchase of Gallo and Sonoma NOT required” (emphasis in original) on the back. I don’t necessarily think it’s a legal loophole. I think Sonoma must have some sort of partnership with the American beef industry and they must get money from them somehow out of all this. > [@](#): > > Bunk. More rationalization for something that you know you shouldn’t do. a) It’s not rationalization. b) It’s not something I do. c) The coupon VERY SPECIFICALLY SAYS ITS OK. It even EMPHASIZES the point with capital letters. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accused-of-theft-at-the-grocery/315476/113 "2005-08-06T14:14:33Z")
> [@Gary T](#): > > It is a good counterexample, and obviously the viewpoint I’ve been supporting does not apply in this case. However, that doesn’t mean that all coupons that come with a product fall into the same category. I am operating under the assumption that the coupon in the OP did not have such a disclaimer, and was intended by the manufacturer to go the purchaser of the of the product that contained the coupon. To be fair, it’s the only time I’ve ever seen such specific wording on a coupon (not that I really read the wording on coupons), and one example doesn’t mean all other manufacturers play by the same rules. However, my point was that I don’t think you can ascertain with moral certitude whether snagging a coupon from a product is theft. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accused-of-theft-at-the-grocery/315476/114 "2005-08-06T14:39:13Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > “No **alcoholic beverage** purchase required to redeem this offer” Bolding mine. That, right there, screams legal loophole to me. > [@pulykamell](#): > > I don’t necessarily think it’s a legal loophole. I think Sonoma must have some sort of partnership with the American beef industry and they must get money from them somehow out of all this. They might. If Gallo had such a great deal with the beef industry, they might as well mail everyone a coupon. No? Or they may loose money to the beef industry in the hope of making it up on wine sales. And if you use the coupon with out buying the wine they lose out on a purchase, and the next person that would buy the wine loses out on the deal. It’s all about intent and dealing in good faith. It’s amazing to me that people will rationalize away their integrity just to save a buck. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2005, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accused-of-theft-at-the-grocery/315476/115 "2005-08-06T15:41:04Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > b) It’s not something I do. Why? Vegitarian? ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accused-of-theft-at-the-grocery/315476/116 "2005-08-07T01:25:47Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > It’s amazing to me that people will rationalize away their integrity just to save a buck. Yep. I have no integrity. I lost it all over coupons. Maybe I’ll find a half price ticket to hell someday on a box of Cheerios. 😃 Don’t you guys have something really important to get outraged about? Or do you have a limitless supply? I don’t get it. ---
**Author:** ![MaddyStrut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/dbc845/32.png) [@MaddyStrut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaddyStrut)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accused-of-theft-at-the-grocery/315476/117 "2005-08-07T02:16:45Z")
I don’t think it’s stealing. I’ve worked in marketing for many years, and I would bet Boca had legions of MBAs analyzing the promotion ahead of time and they calculated into their projections that some people would do what Otto did. Most likely, attaching the coupon to product A meant the vast majority of coupons would be used on product A and that was Boca’s preference. However, they certainly would have data showing that some people would use it on other products (it’s not like it’s anything new), and that was okay too. If it wasn’t, they would have stated so on the coupon. It’s not like coupons are that expensive to print. Why not have one of those dispensers in front of all their products? Likely because that wasn’t projected to produce as many incremental sales of product A as attaching it to that product. Even if Boca didn’t plan the promotion well and didn’t intend for people to use the coupons on other products, it’s still not “stealing.” Taking advantage of a marketing blunder, yes. But that would be Boca’s fault. If I had run that promotion I would have admitted it was my own fault for poor planning. I certainly wouldn’t think the buyers were doing anything wrong. Hey, we do enough with things like coupons to try and manipulate–err–entice customers into buying. It’s not stealing if they call us on our blunder. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accused-of-theft-at-the-grocery/315476/118 "2005-08-07T03:15:08Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > Don’t you guys have something really important to get outraged about? Or do you have a limitless supply? I don’t get it. You asked. See post number one. I guess you got your answer. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accused-of-theft-at-the-grocery/315476/119 "2005-08-07T03:43:16Z")
> [@MaddyStrut](#): > > Most likely, attaching the coupon to product A meant the vast majority of coupons would be **used on** product A and that was Boca’s preference. However, they certainly would have data showing that some people would **use it** on other products (it’s not like it’s anything new), and that was okay too…Even if Boca didn’t plan the promotion well and didn’t intend for people to **use the coupons on other products** , it’s still not “stealing.” Bolding mine. The issue isn’t, and never was, what products the coupons were **used on**. The issue is what product the coupon is **attached to** and how one **acquires** (not uses) said coupon. Sorry, **MaddyStrut** , but since it seems you missed the key point here, I’m not even reading your post twice to think about it. It’s irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2005, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accused-of-theft-at-the-grocery/315476/120 "2005-08-07T04:28:02Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > To be fair, it’s the only time I’ve ever seen such specific wording on a coupon (not that I really read the wording on coupons), and one example doesn’t mean all other manufacturers play by the same rules. However, my point was that I don’t think you can ascertain with moral certitude whether snagging a coupon from a product is theft. If the coupon says it’s OK, then it is OK. Without knowing what the coupon says, the default assumption is that it isn’t OK. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accused-of-theft-at-the-grocery/315476.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accused-of-theft-at-the-grocery/315476.md?page=7)