I totally agree. I don’t care if you’re giving the store away, don’t f*ck with the customer.
I unsubbed from their email posts. I have enough stores to buy from in the Bay Area who don’t pull that kind of crap.
I totally agree. I don’t care if you’re giving the store away, don’t f*ck with the customer.
I unsubbed from their email posts. I have enough stores to buy from in the Bay Area who don’t pull that kind of crap.
Corey Miller:Sure it’s a bit tricky, but it’s not thaaat deceptive. They’re not lying about what they’re going to charge you. Either you’re willing to pay the offered price, or you’re not. If not, don’t buy it. With wine-searcher it’s pretty easy to figure out if it’s a good price or not. Everything else is marketing fluff. People who get sucked in by the “OMG IT’S 50% OFF!!!” are, well, suckers.
Yeah, but if it’s not 50% off, then don’t say it’s 50% off! Is that so hard?
And, yes, we all agree that of course a business needs to prosper, but who want to enter into each and every commercial transaction assuming that your counterparty is trying to play you for a sucker? Is that really the marketplace we want?
I’m a cynic. Unless I have a good reason to believe otherwise, I generally assume everyone (at least in a business transaction) is trying to play me for a sucker. Nevertheless, that’s not always the marketplace we get, because many markets are repeated games in which there are strong incentives to act honorably.
Look, I agree they’re being a bit shady. I just don’t see the harm. When it comes to obnoxious retailer practices, I’m going to save my energy for complaining about the ones that have actual negative impacts.
Plus some of the prices are really good prices, well below market. Should you turn down a good offer because the seller is claiming it’s 50% off when it’s really only 20% off? I’d rather they run their stupid sale and smart customers can get good deals, even if the deals aren’t quite as good as they claim.
As an aside, I represented a major Florida corporation many years ago that was sued by the state attorney general for deceptive trade practices, consisting of advertising sales of 30%-50% off of prices that were allegedly inflated for the sale (some products allegedly had the prior, lower sales sticker under the alleged sale price sticker), and then later for using “going out of business” sales signs when the business was in fact, not really going out of business (allegedly). It did not go well for us. It is out of business, now.
Soooo…they were sued for giving too much advance warning?
Frank Drew: Corey Miller:Sure it’s a bit tricky, but it’s not thaaat deceptive. They’re not lying about what they’re going to charge you. Either you’re willing to pay the offered price, or you’re not. If not, don’t buy it. With wine-searcher it’s pretty easy to figure out if it’s a good price or not. Everything else is marketing fluff. People who get sucked in by the “OMG IT’S 50% OFF!!!” are, well, suckers.
Yeah, but if it’s not 50% off, then don’t say it’s 50% off! Is that so hard?
And, yes, we all agree that of course a business needs to prosper, but who want to enter into each and every commercial transaction assuming that your counterparty is trying to play you for a sucker? Is that really the marketplace we want?
I’m a cynic. Unless I have a good reason to believe otherwise, I generally assume everyone (at least in a business transaction) is trying to play me for a sucker. Nevertheless, that’s not always the marketplace we get, because many markets are repeated games in which there are strong incentives to act honorably.
Look, I agree they’re being a bit shady. I just don’t see the harm. When it comes to obnoxious retailer practices, I’m going to save my energy for complaining about the ones that have actual negative impacts.
Plus some of the prices are really good prices, well below market. Should you turn down a good offer because the seller is claiming it’s 50% off when it’s really only 20% off? I’d rather they run their stupid sale and smart customers can get good deals, even if the deals aren’t quite as good as they claim.
well said Corey.
Corey Miller: Frank Drew:Yeah, but if it’s not 50% off, then don’t say it’s 50% off! Is that so hard?
And, yes, we all agree that of course a business needs to prosper, but who want to enter into each and every commercial transaction assuming that your counterparty is trying to play you for a sucker? Is that really the marketplace we want?
I’m a cynic. Unless I have a good reason to believe otherwise, I generally assume everyone (at least in a business transaction) is trying to play me for a sucker. Nevertheless, that’s not always the marketplace we get, because many markets are repeated games in which there are strong incentives to act honorably.
Look, I agree they’re being a bit shady. I just don’t see the harm. When it comes to obnoxious retailer practices, I’m going to save my energy for complaining about the ones that have actual negative impacts.
Plus some of the prices are really good prices, well below market. Should you turn down a good offer because the seller is claiming it’s 50% off when it’s really only 20% off? I’d rather they run their stupid sale and smart customers can get good deals, even if the deals aren’t quite as good as they claim.
well said Corey.
I guess I disagree. I try to buy things from people who I feel act ethically. I don’t have anything bad to say about Crush (the few dealings I have had with them have gone quite well), but people who take shortcuts tend to take shortcuts. You either have ethics or you don’t.
Richard T r i m p i: scamhi:Bought the 2010 Drouhin Mouches red for $59.98 today at Crush. Good price.
Don’t be angry, if you don’t like the pricing don’t buy.I see where Suzanne is coming from. Bought 3.
The pricing for the wines purchased was “reasonable” but certainly not -50% from anyone’s normal retail. The Zachy’s-like blowout hype is annoying and not too hard to see through.
If you stop in or normally deal with Crush, you should be able to recognize that it’s a good store and missing Zachy’s customer service purgatory as well as the unpredictably profound shipping/storage disconnects.
RT
RT
Agree. They are usually a class act and should rethink the new progressive sale promotion pricing.
I agree. From what I can tell, this sale was only really for a fairly limited number of bottles of wine. Why risk a sterling reputation for this? Doesn’t seem worth it.
I guess I disagree. I try to buy things from people who I feel act ethically. I don’t have anything bad to say about Crush (the few dealings I have had with them have gone quite well), but people who take shortcuts tend to take shortcuts. You either have ethics or you don’t.
I guess I just don’t see this is as particularly unethical. If you’re going to boycott anyone who ever engaged in a bit of harmless marketing puffery (which is what this is to me), you’re going to run out of places to buy from and things to buy pretty fast. Of all the things in the wine world people could get up on their high horse about, this one seems pretty low on the list.
Howard Cooper:I guess I disagree. I try to buy things from people who I feel act ethically. I don’t have anything bad to say about Crush (the few dealings I have had with them have gone quite well), but people who take shortcuts tend to take shortcuts. You either have ethics or you don’t.
Of all the things in the wine world people could get up on their high horse about, this one seems pretty low on the list.
But Corey - what else would people do with their days if they can’t complain about something completely harmless like an ‘aggressively retail priced progressive sale that when all is said and done winds up having some good deals?’