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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
