Apparently, you AND the OP haven’t paid attention to details.
There are all kinds of ways that things can be priced.
SOME sale prices are ONLY for when you get the full quantity.
SOME other sales prices are per item, and they mark it as “Four for this, or five for that,” because they think it will excite more people to come to the store by advertising it that way. If you aren’t sure which it is by reading the price tags or the ads (it’s almost always clear to me), then you can ASK. Believe it or not, customers ARE allowed to ask for prices BEFORE reaching the checkout.
Yes, some vendors are more straightforward than others. It has always been that way. But if you want to be successful against the ones who actually ARE unscrupulous, you need to be RIGHT when you complain.
What this thread is about, is the original poster continuing to REFUSE TO THINK OR OBSERVE, and to demand to be able to continue to refuse. That kind of thinking ADDS to the reasons why people would want to continue and increase advertising things in misleading ways, because the more people who REFUSE to think, the less the HONEST vendors will be able to compete.
Thank you, nice to know I’m not in the Twilight Zone. As I said much earlier, another large chain in my town did exactly that — it advertised the same pop for the same price, 4 for $11, but it said “Limit 4,” so some restaurant or something can’t swoop in and buy them all out at a super low price. That’s what I’ve always seen, and that’s what makes sense, so that’s what I’ve come to expect. It makes no sense at all to charge more for 2 than for 4.
More per unit? Sure, within reason, so I wish people would stop posting as if I don’t see that. Less for a four-pack than four separate items? Absolutely, that makes perfect sense. But this was not a four-pack, it was four separate cases, and they charge six dollars less for the four separate cases than for three separate cases. I don’t care where who you are or where you’re from, if you think that makes sense, you’re nuts. IMHO.
And thanks to everybody who responded; at least I learned something about people.
By the way, minor thing that might help some people understand WHY some sales demand that you buy mass quantities.
In the retail business, it actually does cost the owners real cash money, to have and store merchandise for sale. When one of their vendors offers them a special deal (note: 99% of the time, when a store offers you a cheap price, it isn’t because they decided not to make a profit, it’s because the people who they buy things from to sell to you, have decided to run a promotion, and sold mass quantities TO the store, to sell to you in turn), if they take in the large shipment and then fail to move it, then they have to pay to store it.
Recognizing that, can help you understand why it really is necessary to charge you more to buy and take away less, because they will start to LOSE money if they don’t sell all the extra merchandise they got in preparation for the sale.
In short, they don't charge more for less because they are insane, or because they want to persecute you. They charge more for less, because it COSTS THEM MORE IF THEY DON'T.
So now you’ve moved on from age/disability discrimination to I don’t like the way the do business. Looks like someone must always be the victim. :rolleyes:
Not sure why you’re thanking me- although I didn’t use your specific example, my point is that I don’t assume the unit price involved in a sale is good for any quantity other than that mentioned in the sale- I don’t assume BOGO means that I will pay half price for one or three (although it might) , and I don’t assume that 4 for $11 means I can buy 12 for $33 (although it sometimes does) . Likewise, I don’t assume that 4 for $11 means that I will pay 2.75 each for one or two or six or ten.
If I want to buy a quantity other than the one mentioned in the ad, I check - either the ad itself, or a self-scanner or I ask an employee in the aisles, who is more likely to remember that the sale soda requires a purchase of 4 cases than the cashier is to remember the details of all the sales going on in the store.
I don’t get why everybody is jumping on TonySinclair so vehemently. I apparently shop at the same grocer he does, and like him, I would assume that 4 for $11 means $2.75 apiece, simply because that grocer has spent the last fifteen years training me that’s what they mean. At Dillon’s, BOGO means each individual item will ring up at half the “regular” price, too, and if you have to buy 5 to get the price, the sign always clearly states “$X off when you buy 5.” There’s plenty of other things I can complain about at that store, but sleazy or ambiguous pricing isn’t one of them.
Obviously, most of you shop at stores with different policies; you’ve been trained and conditioned to expect different ways of handling pricing. That means Tony was wrong for the particular store that his dad shopped at, but that’s all it means. Why blame him for “victimhood” merely because his experiences have shaped his expectations in ways that your experiences haven’t?
Because he can’t seem to understand that soda pop is NOT priced by the store, nor are they given leeway to pass the deal on to those not purchasing the required number for the promotion. Unlike all the other items in the store.
The soda companies are very powerful, they provide shelves, fridges, advert material, etc, all at no cost to the retailer. But the cost is compliance on pricing for promotions.
The dispute, however, is not about how the soda pop companies price product; it’s about how the STORE advertises prices and manages expectations concerning that pricing. The bottling company may well be paying for the advertising, but it’s the grocer whose name is in big letters on the ad, and on the grocer’s premises that the product is being sold. The OP’s dad’s transaction was with the grocer; why should he even be expected to know the details of the financial arrangements between the grocer and its suppliers?
Because he didn’t say " Oh, I guess this store does it differently than I expected " or " I guess different stores have different policies" or anything like that. Had he said done so , things would have gone differently. Instead, he said
It’s not cheating just because supermarket A has a different policy than Supermarket B.
Just wondering - did you ask your dad what price(s?) were listed on the store display? No matter how tiny the print in the ad, I suspect in the store it said something like $5.99 each, 4 for $11. If the store display said nothing other than 4 for $11, I think you would have a better argument for being upset.
If the correct info was provided at the point-of-sale, I’m not sure why a shopper shouldn’t have been expected to notice it and raise any questions if uncertain. Not sure how age/disability discrimination enters into it.
(My assumption is generally that if it says “2 for $x”, you have to buy 2 to get the lower price. I can recall having been surprised when my wife assured me you could get the lower price for fewer.)
Honestly, it sounds as though your dad simply wasn’t all that concerned about the price for the soda, and wasn’t paying very close attention. I’m often the same way, and realize I’m not paying enough attention when they ring things up. My wife assures me that they make mistakes quite often.
But it is cheating if Supermarket A has trained its customers to expect one policy, and then switches off without explanation. Do we know one way or another if that’s true in this particular instance?
The store did nothing wrong. The ad was written small on purpose but breaking no laws. The solution is this.
Contact corporate. Raise holy hell over the $6.50 you felt he overpaid. I suggest using social media as much as you can. Continue this until they get tired of listening to you and send you either a check for $6.50 or coupons in that amount.
Lesson learned is that a sale of x for $y, rarely offers that price for anything less than x amount of item. When they do it’s listed in just as small of text as when they say otherwise.
If Tony had simply asked “Hey, folks, what would you assume “4 for $11” means?” and maybe included a poll, this thread would have unfolded in a very different and perhaps more interesting way. People could have compared notes on their experiences, compared state laws, discussed the rationale behind bulk pricing, etc.
But no, Tony poisoned the well. He made it personal by telling us how upset his dad was, grandiosely characterized the store’s pricing as “age discrimination,” and implied that anyone who disagreed with him was either a sociopath or a refugee from the Bizarro Dimension. I learned a long time ago that if you start a Dope thread with “I’m really pissed about X! You guys agree with me, right?” then you’re probably not going to like the responses you get.
We don’t know. But stores are allowed to change their policies and even to have different policies at the same time for different sales without it being cheating. And what we do know is that the ad actually said “When you buy 4”, no matter how small the type may have been. We don’t know what the display in the store said or whether Tony really should get a pair of reading glasses or a whole lot of other things.
Somebody wants to never shop at that store again, fine. Complain to corporate and on social media about the policy? Also fine. But the store was neither cheating anyone nor discriminating against old people or people with bad vision - 4 for $11 means 4 for $11 until and unless you have reason to believe otherwise in the specific case.