Otto, look at what you’ve done. I hope you’re satisfied. 
Oh, sorry. I did take the coupon. That’s how I have it for reference. I just never got around to actually using it. But, no, I absolutely do not think the coupon is intended for the person who buys the wine, because the friggin coupon says so!!! What’s to understand?
It almost makes me wish I hadn’t made this whole thing up.
I keed! I keed!
You’re right about that. I got carried away and was unduly disrespectful. Please accept my apology.
Oh, at first you said ‘its not something I do’.
Main Entry: pil·fer
Pronunciation: 'pil-f&r
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): pil·fered; pil·fer·ing /-f(&-)ri[ng]/
Etymology: Middle French pelfrer, from pelfre booty
intransitive senses : STEAL; especially : to steal stealthily in small amounts and often again and again
transitive senses : STEAL; especially : to steal in small quantities
:smack: 
This has been my point all along, thankyouverymuch.
Who gives a rip about Boca, it’s common sense and the courtesy for the next customer that matters here.
Fine, you don’t think it’s wrong. You have been told by a majority of the others in this thread that they do think it’s wrong. Isn’t that enough? Isn’t that what a social contract involves? The feeling that a majority of people would think that what you are doing is not entirely correct. Even if most people didn’t have a strong opinion either way that would still indicate a gray area. I think in this case if you suspect an issue to illicit a negative response from other people or is considered a gray area, you should maybe refrain from that activity.
If even a few people would be upset about you removing a coupon from this item wouldn’t you be considerate enough to not do it in the future? Seems open and shut to me.
Right, and if your activity pisses off the next guy that’s OK?
OK, two things here. Again, it’s not really about whether or not we’re affecting Boca’s sales, because we’re not, unless someone takes ALL the coupons off ALL the boxes and doesn’t end up using them. It’s about screwing the next shopper who may want the product but now there isn’t a coupon on it anymore.
Even the dispenser thing isn’t perfect. I’ve seen them next to the item and they’ve been empty. Clearly some clever customer thought they could rip off several of the coupons and use them at their liesure in the future. F the next guy.
Everyone;
If you think your activity will make for a less-than-pleasant shopping experience for the next guy, then don’t do it.
Well, the way that I see things:
Otto takes the coupon off.
Customer 2 either takes a box with a coupon, or takes the one that used to have a coupon on it.
If it’s the first, and every customer does this, eventually there are no boxes left with coupons, and the customers don’t know that there ever was one, and they don’t feel cheated.
If Customer 2 takes the box that used to have the coupon, he obviously doesn’t care much about it anyway, so it’s good that Otto got some use from it.
The “No purchase required” on the wine coupon reminds me of the “No purchase required” disclaimers for send-in-and-win and other contests. Does anyone know if a disclaimer of this kind is typical or required on coupons?
I’d really like to know too.
Surely, they would prefer for you to buy their product. And I firmly believe that’s why they put the coupon on it in the first place. I mean really, they are in the business of selling the product. Not to give stuff away out of the kindness of their own hearts.
So, as long as they never knew there was a coupon on it, it’s OK to ‘cheat’ them?
I suspect that the Meat Council has ponied up some advertising dough and gave some kickbacks to the wine manufacturer to place the coupons on their products. Someone picks up the wine and sees the coupon for meat and thinks, “Hey, these two sound like they would go good together, I think I’ll buy some meat.”
I wouldn’t be surpised if the action was reciprocated by the meat guys.
They’re not in direct compettition with each other so they can get away with this.
As far as the disclaimer goes (no purchase required), it’s probably some legal situation they are trying to avoid and it might be alcohol related.
Essentially, it’s purchasing real estate on another product to advertise something else, kind of like Holley, et al. do with a NASCAR stock car.
I used the word pilfer because YOU think of it that way. No me. Which I think I have made eminently clear. You haven’t given me a vocabulary lesson, dear, though the cut and paste dictionary entry is always clever and never goes out of style. :rolleyes:
In order to steal, don’t you have to be stealing FROM someone? Stealing from the person who theoretically might buy that product in the future is stuff for Pre-Crimes ala Minority Report.
You are stealing from Boca.
That was explained in post #45 and again in post #49 after you indicated you still didn’t understand it. It was explained several more times, but at some point it just becomes clear that you’re just never going to get it.
To the people that are upset because you are taking the coupon away from the next person - there are a limited supply of coupons no matter where they are. Someday they are going to run out. Let’s say there are some boxes that have the coupon, and the shelf is then restocked with coupon-less items so that there are coupon boxes and non-coupon boxes sitting together. Do you leave the boxes with the coupon and use a non-coupon box because that would make the next person who comes along happy?
I say it does not matter where the freakin’ coupon is (unless it is inside the box or some such place that would mean destroying the box to get it.) If there is a pile of the exact same coupons on the shelf for people and you use one, you are still taking one away from the next person! The person who comes along and has no boxes with the coupon to use or the person who comes along after the pile of coupons is gone have both been harmed in the same way. Yet some say the reason it is wrong is because of where the coupon started out. Who cares if it is touching the box or not? My moral decision is not based on where the coupon is, it is based on what it says. If the coupon is good for “ALL Boca products” then I believe I will use it for ALL Boca products. Boca is ok with it, the store is ok with it, and it is not my moral responsibility to give up a coupon that I can use to leave more for others. Boca and the store want me to use the coupon! What if I leave it for someone else and no one else wants it! Now everyone is unhappy :).
I also do not believe it is morally wrong to go against the manufacturer’s hopes for every promotion they run. Heck, the manufacturer probably would rather that I pay full price for their item and not stock up when it is on sale too. But I stock up and use coupons because it benefits me, not the company. Am I wrong because I am not shopping the way they wish everyone would shop?
I don’t think it is wrong to use the coupon, even a little tiny bit. If you do, that is fine. More coupons for me.
Okay. This point, at least, I do understand.
I would say it’s not okay to take all the coupons, and I also wouldn’t take any coupons I didn’t intend to use on that very trip, but I would take the ones I was going to use right away and I’d use them for whatever products I wanted that were permissible to buy according to the terms of the coupon. If that’s screwing the next guy, well, so be it. I got here first.
If you came along and there was only one box left on the shelf, you’d take it and let the next guy go without, right? That’s the beauty of being there first.
No, I’m not. Boca gets the same amount of money no matter who uses the coupons. Your scenario is wholly made up BY YOU and therefore holds no water with me. Also, it doesn’t constitute stealing even as explained by you, so I think you need to reread your own post and think about what stealing is. Defying the intention of a coupon is not stealing, not that I think that you somehow know better what the intentions of Boca are than the man who stocks that section in my grocery store. I think I’ll go with his reassurances that neither Boca nor Wegmans care.
The only person who is “hurt” in this situation is the theoretical person who would buy the box with the coupon. Since that person is only a theoretical person, I’m not going to worry about it.
Hit REPLY too soon. The theoretical person would still be getting a box of Boca burgers, which is what he wanted. The coupon is a bonus that he’d be missing out on. That’s not theft, that’s first come, first served.
Are you saying that I made up the scenario that putting a coupon on a product is to stimulate sales of the product?
It is attached to the product, it is part of the product and removing it is stealing. EOS.
I think the purpose of the coupon is to stimulate sales. The net result would surely be to stimulate sales of the product to which it is attached, but Boca must realize that it will be used on ANY BOCA PRODUCT, since they wrote the coupon. I’m betting Boca really doesn’t care that much about which product is purchased with the coupon.
Even if I DID agree that the purpose of the coupon was solely to stimulate sales of that specific item, I STILL do not see how it’s stealing. Violating a company’s intention is not robbery.
Rude, I’ll give you. It may well be rude to take the coupon off a product that you don’t plan to buy. But wrong? Farting next to someone in the elevator is rude, maybe makes you less than appealing as a person during that moment, but I don’t think it’s wrong. Clearly YMMV, and it does, but this conversation has gotten to the point where dead horses are being flogged, IMO.