Does dismissing it as unimportant make it morally acceptable? It seems like that is one of the most common ways of rationalizing unethical behavior as being OK. And like all rationales, it fails to do so.
I don’t care if Boca is the product of a merger of Enron and WorldCom.
What we’re “worried about” ( :rolleyes: ) is whether this is stealing or not.
The size of the bankroll of the wronged company has absolutely zero bearing on the discussion.
I wouldn’t do that because the purchase price of the item is clearly intended to include the cereal and the toy. The terms of the deal are that the toy has to go with the cereal. I don’t see the same terms applying to the coupon.
Now, if there were multiple toys on different kinds of cereals, and I could switch out a toy I didn’t like for one I did without rendering the other cereal box unsellable I’d do it, so figure that one out.
Ah. Here’s where we differ. I do think the “terms of the deal” is that the coupon has to go with the item purchased. That is why it is attached to the box. I am curious why you don’t see the same terms applying to the coupon. Do you not agree that the manufacturer intended you to buy the product to get the coupon?
As an aside, I don’t think those of us who think this wrong are “worried”, Rubystreak. I just see it as an interesting ethical question. IMHO, small issues like this tell a great deal about people.
It’s not stealing. No one is taking an item without paying for it. That’s why this is a tempest in a tea pot. There is no victim. But hey, if you want to judge me and Otto and whomever else does this and say we’re thieves, go crazy. You have failed to convince either of us of your moral rectitude and the error of our ways, and you’re going to rupture your ocular muscles if you keep rolling them like that.
Yes, indeed they do. Indeed they do,** Brynda**.
I think if the manufacturer expected that I would have to buy the attached product the manufacturer would specify that product on the coupon. I’ve seen other peel-off coupons which specify the particular attached product. Boca could have said “$1.25 off two of Product A” or “$1.25 off this and another Boca product.” Sure, Boca maybe wants me preferentially to buy Product A but I don’t consider myself bound by that intention if Boca, by the terms of the coupon, is saying I can buy something else.
To posit a hypothetical, let’s say the coupon is attached to a box which is past its expiration date, but the coupon itself is still good. Is it all right for a consumer to use the coupon on two different items, or does the supposed intent of the manufacturer require that it not be used?
Christ. My friends must all be debased, thieving ragamuffins. I cannot believe that taking a coupon from another product can even be construed as somehow morally unacceptable.
I’ve come across coupons on wine bottles that say “$1 off any purchase of beef.” These coupons are hung around the neck of the wine bottle. So, they’re clearly intended to be used in conjunction with purchase of said product, right?
Well, the fine print on the back of this coupon (as I removed it from the bottle, of course) says quite clearly, in small print: “No purchase of wine necessary.”
I don’t know what the Boca coupons say on the fine print, but at least one other manufacturer seems to think it’s OK to take coupons off of other products without purchasing them.
Gosh, some of y’all would make Gomer Pyle look like a corrupt libertine.
Eh. I suppose it probably violates the manufacturer’s intention. Whereas Boca’s intent would probably be for the consumer to buy Product A and potentially buy Product B or C with the attached coupon sometime in the future, the consumer instead is taking the coupon and skipping Product A altogether. I personally wouldn’t do it.
However, in the grand scheme of life, this is about the most minor issue I can imagine. Unless there’s strict wording on the coupon to the contrary, I can’t see how any law has been violated. I wouldn’t leave my wife if I found out she did it. And I sure as hell wouldn’t confront anyone in a supermarket for doing it.
I see it like those contests where companies are running some kind of sweepstakes in hopes of getting you to buy their product, but there is technically ‘no purchase necessary.’ They hope that most people will buy that product, but they have no reason to get upset if / when people don’t. If they wanted the coupon to only be used on that product, the coupon needs to specify that product. Another example would be a supermarket running a 2 for $1 special. They want you to see the promo and buy 2, but you are allowed to buy 1 for 50 cents and it’s not ethically wrong or anything, just not what the store hopes most people will do. There is a difference between stealing from or swindling a company and not following their promotion exactly the way they hope you will.
I think the worst thing that happened here is you went against the companies’ risk / benefit scenario or whatever they analyze to find out whether a promotion is worth running. No ethical dilemma or wrongdoing IMO.
.
Definitely they like any attention their products get. They may be hippies, but they’re hippies who want to turn a profit (and they’re not even real hippies it seems, they’re kraft hippies. which means they probably ride sports utility unicorns that run on oil squeezed from baby elves or something). I hope, that if or when they answer, they won’t pull that ‘the customer is always right’ stuff. I once wrote to Celestial Seasonings and got back a real, straightforward answer-- since then, nothing but sucking up from companies. Ah, the good old days.
Now I see why things might sound wonky-- we weren’t on the same wavelength regarding the coupon’s form. I was imagining the kind of coupon that leaves behind a sort of frame where the coupon used to be. You can’t remove those frames without damaging the box, so either the coupon is obviously missing or there’s a torn patch, both of which make them more difficult to move. If it were a coupon that was just stuck on with that boogery type of glue, then 99% of what I said about the product losing value because of damage goes flying out the window.
It makes much more sense now. Otto’s coupon pilfering goes from slightly worse than sticking one’s tongue out, to just about even. I still think you ought not tamper with that which you don’t intend to purchase, though. I’m very much about following rules and respecting boundaries and such. I didn’t discover the color grey till I was nearly thirty!
- 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:
That made me chuckle.
Well, what’s wrong with the customer being right? If I take their coupons, I want to buy their products. In fact, I am a pretty faithful Boca customer. Their burgers rock. A coupon either way doesn’t overshadow that fact.
Yeah, I guess that might deter some people from purchasing the box, esp. if there’s another box with the coupon. Ultimately, though, there will be no coupons left, and then people will buy the box with the frame on it, no? Since according to Boca, those boxes are good for like, 2 years.
I’m all about breaking rules and disrespecting boundaries… well, not really, but I do like coupons. Do you get aggravated at people who taste samples of the produce, like a grape or a cherry, or who eat a jelly bean or three out of the bulk candy? 'Cause I do that too. I almost always buy the stuff after I sample it, though.
Heck no, don’t eat the grapes! But that’s nothing to do with rules. Besides being all sticky; I grew up in an ag. community and I know what goes on out in the fields. Hint: Among other things, not everybody wants to walk all the way over to the port-a-potties.
Even if they get all the pesticides and other ‘gunk’ off from the fields, people in the stores put their unwashed hands all over them. But if I were willing to risk the grubbies, I’d take from my own bag. I regard fruit-buying as gambling, and since I don’t play the lotto, where else am I going to get my thrills?
And there’s nothing wrong with the customer being right, when they actually are. **ChaoticDonkey’s ** post is a prime example of the customer not being right and so many brown-nosed businesses just let 'em get away with it.
Rubystreak, you seem to think that I consider it to be grand theft. I don’t. Nor do I lose any sleep over it. But it’s still not right to do. A small evil act is still an evil act. So calling it unimportant does not equate to saying it’s an OK thing to do. Yes, it’s unimportant. No, no one is going to hell over it. Yes, that lady who bitched about it in the store was over the top and going off on something that wasn’t worth the effort. But, that doesn’t make the coupon swiping OK.
Evil? Now coupon swiping is evil? 
Obviously, there’s a slew of moral grey area here, because I really have no idea where you “taking off the coupons from a product’s box” people are coming from. For me, it’s not a question of being so unimportant as to be OK. It is OK. There is no degree of theft involved.
(I should also add that I have no moral horse in this race. I’ve never been one to use coupons much and have never taken them off a product, except for the aforementioned wine/meat coupon, which clearly stated such action was OK.)
How is there “no degree of theft involved”?
Either you believe that Boca intended for that coupon to be removed and used for any product. (*)
Or, you don’t believe that removing the coupon from the package that Boca intended to incentivize is stealing. (**)
Or, a third thing that I’m missing.
Which is it?
(*) I’m assmuing that it was equally easy for Boca to put the coupon on ANY of their products, but they deliberately chose that one product to put it on.
(**) Maybe you just don’t understand that Boca is trying to get a certain profit from this marketing scheme and by subverting that, you are cutting into their profits. Or maybe you don’t consider that stealing.
Yeah, but it did make an impression!
Or, they had coupons to give out which were usable for any of their products, so they put them on some boxes of their products, the specific boxes not being important since the coupons were good for all.