Except that you have no idea if this is the case or not. You are making up a possible scenario that Boca may or may not have played out. I can give you 10 other possible scenarios that may have happened at Boca that show a different intent. You keep stating that people don’t get it. We get it fine, we just don’t agree with you that there is only ONE possible situation going on here.
Here’s an alternate scenario:
Boca people: We want to get these coupons out to people that are good for any Boca product. Should we put them in the Sunday paper?
Marketing exec: No, let’s put them directly on the boxes. That way, people don’t have to clip them and won’t forget to bring them to the store.
Boca people: Good idea. Should we attach them to product X, Y, or Z?
Marketing exec: Our lines happen to be shipping a lot of product X today. Let’s put the coupon on that one, but make it good for any product so the customer can choose other ones too.
:::scene:::
Why is yours situation any better than this one? Do you see that some of us understand what you are saying but simply disagree with you?
Another note to the vandalism idea some are putting out. Not all coupons leave that frame. I have used peel off coupons that leave no trace behind at all.
Ditto right back at ya, for the reasons Velma posited. We’re not idiots. We understand what you’re saying. I just don’t think it’s necessarily correct.
I couldn’t get too far into this thread because that statement gave it aways as a strictly hypothetical case with no basis in reality whatsoever. Where’s the puking smilie when I need it?
In my moral weltanshauung, there is absolutely no problem with this. I don’t feel I’m rationalizing. Except for the wine-meat coupon I mentioned, I don’t engage in this behavior myself, mainly because I simply don’t use coupons and don’t buy items that are not on my shopping list. I just don’t think it’s stealing; I don’t think it’s wrong at any level.
If that actually is their scenario, then they should bloody well put “Save 50 cents when you buy this RIGHT NOW” on their coupon. I have seen this coupon and used this coupon, so I know it ain’t hard.
But we’re talking about a coupon that says “Save 50 cents on any our products” stuck on the outside of a box. If it’s not limited to the item it’s attached to, it’s up for grabs, and the company knows it.
If it’s on the box, that implies to me that you need to buy the box before you can use the coupon. Then, at another visit to the store, you use the coupon on ‘Any Boca product’.
Boca’s reply to Rubystreak -
The incentive to purchase the product is that the coupon is suposed to come with the product.
Actually, no. These are known as IRCs (instant redeemable coupon) in the industry. They are supposed to be redeemed at point-of-sale or saved for later use.
The passion is because this thread isn’t about coupons at all. It is about how we treat each other–the social contract, as someone said up thread. It is about whether you believe that “you have to look out for #1” or “treat others as you want to be treated.” Small issues like coupons are interesting because that is where you see differences between how people think about their behavior.
See, I don’t think it is even questionable behavior so I am not trying to rationalize it to myself at all because I don’t need to. I think the burden in this case would lie to someone to show my why it COULD be wrong. It’s just we are approaching this differently. I have no moral qualms about it at all. I would have moral qualms about doing something like sampling the bulk candy. I would also have moral qualms about embarassing a person by chastising them in the grocery store over use of a coupon.
I’ve heard this ‘better to play it safe’ line of argument before in many situations, and I just don’t think it’s a good reason to base moral decisions on. IF I am wrong about this…then it’s worse than being wrong about that kind of thinking. Some people use it to justify their belief in God, for example - “If I am wrong and He doesn’t exist, then I am no worse off. If you don’t believe and you are wrong… you are in trouble, so better to believe… blah blah”. By following this type of argument you have to believe in all kinds of scenarios just because being wrong about the alternative would be worse.
Example: I believe plants don’t have conscious thought or feel pain, so it is ok to rip them out of the ground and eat them. But what if I am wrong? The alternative is horrible, so I should ‘play it safe’ and not do anymore weeding in my garden. (I understand the 2 situations are not completely analagous, but I am using it to show why this ‘play it safe’ logic does not always lead to the best conclusions.)
I am not trying to make this thread into more than it already is! (If that is possible) by bring up God, etc. I am just giving an example of why I don’t use the “If I am wrong” line of reasoning to come to decisions. I don’t think any less of people who would not choose to use the coupon for reasons stated. I also don’t think it is the moral litmus test that some are making it to be. I do have others’ interests at heart and I look out for other people as I believe it is a good way to live and that I am called to do so. I just don’t think this is a scenario that anyone should feel bad about one way or the other.
You could read that into it, I guess. I was saying that the customer doesn’t feel cheated because he didn’t know that there ever was a coupon on it. Like for instance:
I go to the store, and there were 100 coupons on the first 100 boxes of product X. Otto took a coupon off of a box. I don’t know anything about it, and I get there when there aren’t any coupons left. From my POV, I just went in, bought Product X and left, like I normally would have. From the store’s POV, they just gave 100 discounts on Product X. From Product X Corporation, they moved 100 boxes of product at a ridiculous margin, and made money.
I went to the grocery store today and was irresistably drawn to the Boca aisle-not because of the coupon debate, but rather because all the Boca witnessing earlier in this thread made me decide to try Boca.
I bought the Italian sausages and the cheezy Lasagne.
If I don’t like them I’m going to blame everyone.
Oh yeah, the coupons here were in a dispenser(cut to me standing by the Boca, giggling like a crazy woman).
Interesting how you then go on to describe a situation where someone is harmed.
The customer now has to pay more than her or she shouldn’t have to. There’s some monetary harm there. You can twist and turn and try to rationize it away, but someone is getting hurt here (however slight).
I saw this as a matter of someone taking something that wasn’t rightfully theirs to take, the idea being that the coupon as described was not offered separately but only with the purchase of the box it was attached to.
However, given the failure of Boca to confirm this, the insight into coupon marketing some posters have offered, and the apparent encouragement of (at least some) grocery workers to go ahead and take it, I don’t see a compelling argument for that notion.
