Because it very clearly makes the offer to CURRENT members instead of saying to ALL members, which suggests that only current members are eligible for this deal, and thus new members are not.
Apparently the 15% pay-by-the-year discount is part of the normal pricing structure available to all, as evidenced by to OP getting it for years.
No it doesn’t.
I don’t see how this could possibly be true.
If a restaurant puts a sign in the window that says “Steak Dinner for $11.99,” among the multiple valid interpretations are that they’re offering a 6 oz sirloin for $11.99, a 20-oz T-bone for $11.99, or all the steak you can eat for $11.99. Are they obliged to honor the most generous of these interpretations?
Now, I’ve not seen the flyer or the setup, so it may be that Ivylass is just easily confused, but if any reasonable person would see that, and believe that that mean that they would receive 20% off the price they are currently paying, then they need to honor that understanding.
Where does the “15% discount” come from, that you are already getting?
If it’s no more than “paying for the whole year at once is 15% less than paying 12 lots of 1 month in a row” then I would argue the ad is totally misleading, verging on false advertising. The product ivylass is paying for is an annual membership, and it’s $490. The fact that some other people are paying monthly memberships, and if they stay all year they’ll have paid $600 shouldn’t be relevant to her. It’s a different product.
If they sell all three, and they are stupid enough to put that in the window with no qualifications, then yes.
Otherwise, you go in there, expecting to get a 20-oz steak, and they offer a 6-oz, then that is the very definition of bait and switch.
I can’t figure out how anyone would think that 20% off was meant to replace some 15% off on paper unless they have themselves chosen to be that misleading in real life. The statement says that current members will get 20% off. Without any other language, that inherently means “20% off the current price.” It does not mean “20% off this fictional price that no one actually pays.”
Yes, businesses pull these shenanigans all the time. But that’s why they have the fine print. The idea is that they can say misleading things in their ad to catch your attention, but that you will read the full info later. There it might say something like “Offer valid on full price only. Other discounts do not apply.” Granted, this isn’t quite as clear as I would like, but at least it would be there.
This is a misleading ad. I don’t know if it’s illegal, but it should be. But, if you’re going to be willing to pay anyways, I doubt you’re going to sue. So he probably will get away with it.
No, I’d say this is different. “Steak” is not a term that means the same thing as ribeye. And “steak dinner” is not a term that means “all-you-can-eat steak.” But “20% off” means “20% off the current price.” That’s just what the term means. It does not mean “20% off this fictitious price that you do not actually pay.”
That said, I’d expect even that ad would mention somewhere what the actual steak was, either in fine print, or something about there being details inside. Such things are done with an abundance of caution.
I make all of my ads for my business, and I do so with an abundance of caution to make sure that they are straightforward and unambiguous. Then I run them by some of my employees and clients, to make sure that there is no misunderstandings to be had. This is important, as there are in fact laws that govern advertising, and if you make a mistake and make an advertisement that is ambiguous, you can be required to give the more generous of interpretations.
That is not to say that all ads are made with an abundance of caution. Many small businesses, and even large businesses, don’t have time or ability to parse their ads as thoroughly, and end up making mistakes that cost them.
So, yeah, if an ad simply states “Steak Dinner $11.99”, then that is ambiguous. Steak does mean ribeye as well as sirloin. If the restaurant does offer an all you can eat steak dinner, then it would apply to that as well, though obviously, if they did not offer that option, then it would not be applicable. You could not walk in and demand that they serve you something that is not actually on the menu or advertisement.
What a restaurant would do would be to say “6-oz Sirloin Steak Dinner $11.99”, or even “Steak Dinners, starting at $11.99”, or if in an ad where fine print can be added “Steak Dinner $11.99*” with a “* Applies only to the 6-oz Sirloin Steak Dinner”
Advertising laws are made specifically to prevent advertisers form using misleading or ambiguous ads to mislead the customer. If an ad is ambiguous or misleading, then it is the law that the customer gets the better deal.
Now, as far as enforcement goes, meh. Most states have a consumer fraud division you can contact, and they may do something, or they may not, but given that word of mouth is usually more important than any other form of advertising, especially the way social media works these days, it seems that’s a better avenue anyway. Businesses don’t really like to have negative stories about them misleading customers, so will generally go ahead and give the customer what the customer thinks the ad says, just to keep good relations.
My first foray into advertising, I left myself a bit open on interpretation, my ad had two coupons, one said, “25% off bath services.”, the other “10% off grooming services.” Though I felt it was pretty straightforward, as grooms include a bath, many insisted that the bath coupon should apply to grooming as well. I ended up honoring that deal for those who asked about it, even though it cost me money (I make a much better margin on baths than on grooms), because not doing so would lose me clients, reputation, and possibly get a fine for false advertising.
If the OP wants to make a deal of it, it seems just threatening to cancel your membership over it should get them running to make good on their offer, even if they explain that it’ll only be for this year. Some money is better than none, especially if combined with poor word of mouth and possible social media complaints. If you really want to get into it, threaten to contact your state attorney general’s division of consumer fraud, though to be honest, that’s almost a bluff, as unless they get alot of complaints, it is unlikely that they will act. Still, nobody is really going to want to take the chance of having state officials coming in and auditing their operations. Don’t bother threatening to call the BBB, they are a joke these days, and business owners know that.
It’s misleading in the way most advertising is misleading. But misleading doesn’t mean untrue. The advertisement was accurate, it didn’t say 20% off of what the OP was already paying. There’s no reason to assume that it would be anything but 20% off of the standard price, that would be wishful thinking not a reasonable assumption.
But what’s the Standard Price?
According to the OP, memberships are $48 a month or (to the nearest dollar) $490 for a year.
If you paid for 12 monthly memberships in a row, that would be $576, and $490 is indeed 15% less than that. But you could as easily view the yearly price as “standard” and the monthly price as “paying a premium” (for the ability to walk out at any time) as the monthly price “standard” and the yearly price “discount”
If my local supermarket sells 1 litre bottles of juice for $2 and 2 litre bottles for $3, and they put up a sign saying “50% discount on juice when you buy two litres” then I wouldn’t be impressed to get to the cash register with my 2 litre bottle and be charged $2 for it. And I’d be **really **unimpressed by an argument that went “well, the standard price for juice is $2 a litre, and this 50% discount is replacing the 25% discount you normally get for grabbing a 2 litre bottle”
It would be fair to say:
Regular price for 1 year: $576
Existing members who prepay 1 year get 20% off!
Then I would assume that existing members would pay $460.80 regardless of their current rate.
But if you just say the second line without stating what the 20% off applies to, then it would be natural to assume that an existing member gets 20% off what that member is currently paying.
Ergo, ivylass, show us the flyer.
I’d want to see not just the flyer but also whatever contract or invoice or list of prices says that the regular annual membership fee is $489.60.
It is natural to assume that the standard price on which discounts apply is the maximum price for the goods or services. It is an advertisement, even if you live on some remote barely inhabited island like New Zealand you should realize that advertisements are meant to portray products in the most favorable possible way while leaving out or hiding any negative information.
You had me at this. 
And yeah, their offer was deceptive. It should’ve said up front that the 20% was off existing full-price memberships only, and was not in addition to any existing discounts.
If no one is actually paying “full price” for a membership, then their “deal” smells even more.
I’m afraid that I’m with TriPolar. I can understand how ivylass was surprised by not getting as big a discount as she thought she was going to, and she should certainly have the right to immediately cancel and get a full refund, but ‘20% off standard price’ is a much more reasonable expectation from that kind of offer than ‘20% off whatever already discounted price you’ve paid previously’.
What I quoted above is the whole flyer, excluding the part about the valid days (Jan 1-31)
I’m agreeing with the side that says this isn’t a misleading offer, although it could be improved, since it’s ambiguous.
The fact that ivylass (totally reasonably) forgot that her normal annual fee was already discounted doesn’t mean that this other discount has to be stacked on top of it. Having multiple discounts apply to a single purchase is not standard.
Here’s an example:
Not long ago, Audible.com had a sale, where the banner ad promised “50% OFF ALL AUDIOBOOKS.” The page describing the offer clarified that “Sale price reflects 50% off Audible.com’s regular price (an additional 20% off on top of the 30% off member discount).” Since the sale was open to Audible members only, and since members already get a discount off the “regular price,” nobody was actually saving 50% over what they would have otherwise paid. Misleading? Maybe, but at least the website clearly indicated what the deal was, and the exact dollar amount you’d have to pay for any particular audiobook under the sale.
IMHO ivylass’s gym had an obligation to let her know the exact dollar amount they’d be charging her before she made the final decision whether or not to pay that amount. But it’s not so clear to me whether they did anything wrong in wording the flyer the way they did.
All advertisements are blatant lies nefariously designed to part you from your money. Know this, internalize it, live it. There are no exceptions.