I’m continuously amazed by people who’ll bend over backwards to defend something as long as it’s being done by a big corporation. A company lies to its customers? Well, it’s the customers’ own fault for believing the lie.
I wish I could go back in time 50 years and put the whole “American Public vs Blockbuster” epic into a 200 page sci-fi novel. People would STILL be reading it in grade 9 as it came eerily true in 2005. A bloated American public dressed in sports caps, big bellies, gold chains and cellphones wrestles with a giant faceless corporation over who will decide the new value system in a world where people have to run home every Friday night and watch a “DVD” device otherwise they will DIE. Blockbuster is the faceless corporation that controls the vital "DVD"s but they want the public to “pay” with their “bank cards” but the public refuses! And then everyone is obliterated by a 12 year old girl genius from Panama.
This is the whole same demographic that needs extra cheese hidden in the crust of the pizza and has to get the new Beyonce CD at Walmart because they will save .88 cents on the credit card bill that they’re never going to pay.
Hey, I hate corporations as much as the next guy and rent all my movies from the corner video store. But I also worked for a long time at Blockbuster and actually have a clue as to what goes on there. They are as big and evil as it gets- I’ll tell you all you want to hear about their strongarm tactics with movie studios- but the reasons why most people consider them big and evil just arn’t true.
You’re being disingenuous. Do you think it’s reasonable for people to believe that they can rent out an in-demand movie for five bucks and keep it indefinitely with zero penalty, taking into consideration that they are dealing with a business that exists to make money? Come on. There is no free lunch, caveat emptor, and so on.
It is a customer’s job to be knowledgeable about the places they are patronizing.
When I worked at BB, we were bringing the new No Late Fees policy into effect and freely shared all information about it, including the restocking fee, with anyone who asked. What’s more, pamphlets detailing the new policy were handed to every customer, and we had signage posted that explained it in both official languages. We were never cagey or coy about it.
It’s not “customer’s fault for beleuving the lie”, because there was no lie. Where the customer’s fault lay, was in expecting an impersonal business to act as their nanny.
I am reminded of the sign at Subway that shows a soup, sandwich and drink along with the figure " $0.99". This meant that you could add soup to a combo of a sandwich and drink for ninety-nine cents, not that you could have all three for just ninety-nine cents. In Ottawa, I saw a customer try and accuse the Sandwich Ninja behind the counter of “false advertising” based on this, and a customer next to him turned to him and said; “Come on. Did you really think you could get all that for a dollar? You’re being ridiculous.”
Even the other customers got it.
I don’t care if it’s a fee to cover the cost of cocaine for the CEO’s mistress. It is a fee that is charged when a movie is brought back late. The fact that it goes into a different pot from the one in which they used to put “late fees” is just an accounting trick; I still pay it to the same guy behind the counter at Blockbuster.
I have the same problem when a product is advertised as “ABSOLUTELY FREE! 100% FREE!”, with only a $19.99 shipping and handling charge. And yes, I have a problem with the “CHIPS AND DRINK $0.99!” if they make it anything less than crystal clear that this is true only when you purchase a sandwich. (I remember McDonald’s doing this once, advertising their Bacon Egg and Cheese Biscuits for only 49 cents, with no mention in any of the signage that you had to buy one at regular price first. A friend and I went to get a couple, and we were pissed–not at the cost, since it still wasn’t a bad deal, but at the fact that the girl in the drive-thru was the first person to bring this up.)
You’ll see in my post above that I think their policy is way more than reasonable; in fact, it might get me back into a Blockbuster (since the other movie stores around here blow). I don’t think anybody here is arguing that the $1.25 itself is unreasonable or that BB shouldn’t charge late fees; they just shouldn’t charge fees for movies that are returned late and then trumpet “NO MORE LATE FEES!” from the treetops.
Wow. On a message board devoted to fighting ignorance, the amount of staggering stupidity on this topic remains beyond all belief. It amazes me how some people here insist on wallowing in the filth of their own ignorance despite having the truth of the situation explained to them again and again and again. How these people manage to work a mouse, or type, is beyond me, considering the vast amounts of remedial arithmetic that these people so desperately need.
For those morons that still think BB is getting away with murder: Which is less – $23.94 or $1.25? Please explain your answer. Use a #2 pencil. Do not look at your neighbor’s worksheet. When you are finished, raise your hand so that a teacher can collect your test. When your test is collected, proceed to nap time. Milk and cookies will follow.
And you’re bitching about the lack of reading comprehension in this thread? Nobody is bitching about Blockbuster’s policy! If you read my post just above yours, you’ll see that I think it is more than reasonable, and I’m thinking about going back to Blockbuster just because of it.
The only thing people are bitching about is the way the policy was advertised.
As long as we’re making snarky quizzes, I’ll make yours true or false:
T F Blockbuster ran a huge ad campaign based on the fact that they would no longer be charging late fees.
T F If you take a movie back to Blockbuster after a certain date, you will be charged a fee in addition to your original rental price.
If you yourself will read more clearly, you’ll notice that I was responding to Little Nemo in post 41.
True. And thusfar, they have not charged any late fees.
True, but only in the obtuse way in which you have phrased the question. It is not a fee for returning the movie late, it is a nominal fee for refunding the purchase price of the movie that you by default purchased (at a greatly reduced price) becaused you couldn’t be arsed to return the property, within 12 days, that you had promised to return within 4 days, and yet were given 42 days to deal with. If you refuse to pay this nominal fee, you then have purchased a movie for a price that would have equalled, in the past, roughly the amount of the rental plus 2 days of late fees.
If you insist on bitching and moaning that it’s still technically a “late” fee, hey, knock yourself out. Call it a “spanking by a French whore” fee for all I care. But when you insist that this is more Big Business chicanery, you just make yourself look like a conspiracy nut.
I like Hollywood Video’s system better, at least the one in my town. I pay ten bucks a month and get every movie rental at half-price ($2) for five days. if I go over the five days, I get charged another $2 for the next five days. Since I rent 40-50 movies a month, it’s a very reasonable deal, and very straightforward.
I’m not saying that I don’t understand the Blockbuster deal, I do, but I’ve been long soured on their two day only rental, and the two days are monitored down to the second.
I do think that the No Late Fee campaign has been misleading, but I don’t think that Blockbuster should have had to pay for anything more than making the terms clearer. If someone offers you a great deal, it’s a given that you should read and understand the fine print.
One thing I’ve learned on this board is that one of the most foolish things I could do would be to assume I’m smarter than the other person in a debate. But that’s just me. You undoubtedly have the potential to do much more foolish things than I could imagine and it might be wiser in your case to never assume you’re the smarter person in any situation involving a second person.
Here’s one for you: Which is more - the zero charges they say they’re going to charge or the $1.25 they actually charge? I know, they promised you there wouldn’t be any math problems. So let me phrase it this way: If a video store promise its customers it’s not going to charge them a late fee and then charges them a fee for returning videos late, explain how they can do this without telling a lie? Uh-oh, can’t think of an answer? Looks like no milk and cookies for you.
Apparently they were. From the article:
I have to admit I’m baffled as to how anyone could believe they could keep it “as long as they wanted”, without ever having to give it back. 10 years? 20 years? Surely it would have to occur to people that there was some sort of limit on it. 
If I wanted to, I could keep a Netflix movie for sixty-seven years.
Yes it is up to me to know what’s going on at the place I rent movies, except what happens when they change the rules? I’ve rented 4-5 movies since the new policy has gone into effect, and not once have I either been told the policy, nor given a pamphlet like your store did. So exactly how am I supposed to know what the policy is? As I said before they have just recently put up a sign stating the policy, except it’s on the exit door. Now how the hell am I supposed to read a sign on the exit door, when other people are trying to get out?
I could care less if they change their policy, but they damn well better let me know about it besides some stupid commercial that doesn’t tell me exactly how it works.
This is in response to a post of mine that contained 72% snark, 18% sarcasm, and 10% insoluble fibers. You’re right, it was foolish of me. I plead “hot button.”
Fuck it. I don’t drink milk and should cut back on the cookies. So there.
But here’s the thing – the $1.25 is not a late fee. It’s a restocking fee. You might as well claim that money you paid to get your car serviced is proof that the dealer lied about the sticker price.
I don’t get the whole “assume it’s the same as Netflix” thing, either.
Let’s say I’m Joe Customer, and I walk into Blockbuster, where they have a sign that says, “no more late fees”. I scratch my head and wonder what the details of that policy are. I say to myself, “Maybe it’s like Netflix, where you can keep it as long as you want but you can only keep one movie out at a time.” (At least that’s how it was described in this thread.)
At what point do I go from “Maybe it’s like Netflix…” to “I’m going to ASSUME it’s like Netflix, not bother to ask, and just keep the film out as long as I feel like”, and why?
Common-sense would tell you that you can’t just take out movies forever. If you know they have some sort of system in place to prevent that, why would you just assume that it’s “like Netflix”?
And BTW, can I really rent a DVD from Netflix for under $5 and keep it forever?
I don’t know if they have an under $5.00 a month plan, but I can rent 3 DVDs from Netflix and keep them forever- as long as I keep paying my 17.99 a month.
Well, I would think that after a week, it’s not late, it’s sort of stolen. So they charge you for it. If you want to bring it back after that, you don’t get a “full refund.” “Late fees” are for people who are still renting, not stealing.
April Fool.
I don’t get the analogy here so for now I’ll ignore the part about my car.
I also don’t care what blockbuster calls this fee. Late fee, restocking fee, or negative rebate it’s still money they want out of me. If their ad said “lower late fee” or “renamed late fee” then no one would have a problem.
For all of you voicing the “caveat emptor” argument, I wish every financial transaction of yours would have as many rules and as much fine print as a blockbuster agreement. Then you might understand why letting companies pull this crap is a bad idea.