post

Office Depot Deceptive Advertising

Posted on January 29, 2010 ·

For being a netbook-fan I admit I am in the market for a super-slim lightweight laptop.  The market has evolved, the current slimbooks are only slightly more expensive than netbooks, and I find the 13.3” screen size an ideal compromise between portability and straining my eyes with the tiny screens.  So I was quite happy to see what I consider a good deal: a HP DM3 for $449 @ Office Depot.

office depot dm3

I found it on DealNews a few days ago, but it became impossible to purchase almost immediately. I tried it for a few days, most recently just minutes ago, but am always getting the same response: no inventory.

insuff stock

The other SKU is available though, for $150 more. It appears the be the same configuration, without the discount.  I tried to tweet up @OfficeDepot, but I guess they are busy handing out cookies.  Finally I had an online chat with Customer Service, which basically conformed my suspicion: the SKU that’s available is the same physical unit, just without the discount.  So here’s the beef (not cookie):

  • Office Depot is advertising a computer at $449
  • The price is listed as effective through Jan 30th, without mentioning any restriction on how many they are selling at this price
  • They do have available inventory
  • They refuse to sell it at the listed price

If this is not false advertising, I don’t know what is.

Finally, see the script of my Customer Service chat:

Office Depot Online Help

Chat Dialog

CSR Gary has entered the session.
Zoli: looking at item# 328626 – says no inventory. The same config available for $150 more under different SKU. But this one says price valid till Jan 30 – so how can I buy it?
CSR Gary: Thank you for contacting Office Depot , Please give me a moment, while I check that for you.
Zoli: thanks
CSR Gary: You are welcome
CSR Gary: Thank you for being on hold
CSR Gary: I am sorry item “328626” is no longer available for purchase
Zoli: Isn’t 808119 the same?
CSR Gary: yes it is the same
CSR Gary: may i have your zip code
Zoli: 94566
CSR Gary: item 808119 is available for purchase
CSR Gary: please do call our customer care
department @ 1-800-463-3768 and they will help you in
placing this order
Zoli: I see the availability online. but it is the identical product for $150 more then the other price, which claims to be valid till 1/30
CSR Gary: Yes
CSR Gary: We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused.
CSR Gary: Is there anything else I may assist you with?
Zoli: It’s not a matter of inconvenience. If your website claims it is avail for $449, and you do have inventory, then you should be sellign it for that price, not $599
Zoli: Otherwise this feels like deceptive advertising
CSR Gary: I am sorry the item is available until stocks last
CSR Gary: I will escalate this issue to the concerned department to remove the out of stock item from the website
Zoli: OK. Thanks.
Zoli: I’m blogging this as a case of deceptive advertising

Update – I guess I should not be surprised:  Office Depot Associates Routinely Lie about Notebook Stock – reported Laptop Magazine almost a year ago.

Update #2:  Did Office Depot really need this:

(Cross-posted @ CloudAve )

Filed Under: Marketing / PR · Tagged: , , , , , , , , , ,
post

Fiber One. Cardboard No (?) Deceptive Yes. Do They Think We’re Stupid?

Posted on July 19, 2009 ·

Fiber One has a risky tagline: Cardboard no. Delicious yes.

Why risky?  Because ..well, cardboard is indeed the first word that comes to mind when I taste it.  Oh, well, my Dad likes it.  Lucky for him, since he needs it for health: it’s hard to find this much fiber in half a cup of breakfast cereal elsewhere.  I assume that’s the reason for this product’s popularity, not taste…but wait, building on the base product’s success, there is now a whole range of Fiber One products, cereals, breakfast bars..etc.

They went mainstream. Translation: sweet, tasty, sugary, less healthy.  From 57% of your recommended daily fiber intake down to 20% in some cases.  But wait.. there’s one cereal likely a lot tastier and not that far from the original fiber content:

Forget the standard industry trick that the new box contains only 14.25 ounces instead of the original 16.2 for the same price… it’s almost as healthy and likely tastes better. Let’s check the small print:

Capture Capture1

At first glance the two products are close: 14g vs. 13g fiber.  But how come the tastier version is listed with 42g Carbs while the original had only 25?   And 160 Calories vs. 60?

Oh, there’s the trick: the ingredients are listed as per serving. However, the original serving size was half a cup, while the tastier Honey Clusters’ serving size is 1 cup.   I repeat:

General Mills, makers of Fiber One is using (almost) double the serving size to compare fiber content.  The true comparison would be on the same serving basis, which would show  a drop from 51% fiber content to roughly 25%.

This is an outrage: while technically correct, it gives false impression, especially since these products are typically placed right next to each other on supermarket shelves – and on the company’s website, for that matter.

Shame on you, General Mills for treating us as if we were stupid.

Filed Under: Business, Marketing / PR · Tagged: , , , , , , , , , ,
post

Why Do They Think Consumers Are Stupid?

Posted on July 6, 2008 ·

Jeff Nolan’s rant on the Grocery Shrink Ray just stroke the right chords with me: yesterday I picked up what may have been the last two 96oz pitchers of Tropicana Orange Juice at Raley’s.  Not that they are out of OJ; there’s a newly designed pitcher, so visibly streamlined that my very first thought was: it must be smaller.  Indeed it is, you get 7oz less for the same price.  But this is the really frustrating part: the try to sell it as a benefit.

Certainly not a rare case: there’s an entire thread on Consumerist about the Grocery Shrink Ray.    I absolutely agree with Jeff who says:

This is bad business for a couple of reasons, but mostly because it’s an attempt to trick consumers into paying more at the point of sale, but also bad because it presumes consumers are, well, stupid and don’t know this is going on. Prices are going up, that is no surprise to the average consumer who is paying $4.50′ish a gallon at the pump, so why would the average consumer not expect inflation at the market? It’s absolutely shameful that marketing people at food producers think that they have to slip in a price increase in this manner.

Personally, I would rather that the grocery store just raise the price honestly.

I’d go one step further: transparency works, deception fails in the long run.  Fire the deceptive marketing consultants, they don’t belong in this profession!

(This must be my Consumerist day: another rant on chocolate rip-off follows soon)

Filed Under: Business, Marketing / PR · Tagged: , , , ,