Retail marketing expert Rick Segel shared this story about his retail shopping experience. With his permission, I'm passing it along here for my readers.
* * * * *
I am Mad as Hell and This Retailer's Behavior Disgusts Me
by Rick Segel
I
got suckered into a store over a very deceptive TV ad that ends up hurting
every retailer. I am especially annoyed because I traveled 43 miles each way to
go to this phony "make-believe sale". A chain of men's stores
advertised that if you buy one suit or one blazer or a leather coat or jacket,
you can get 2 other items of equal or less value for free. Now I have bought
things in this store several times and was always pleased with their selection,
their staff (very professional), and the value of the product. So it was
worth the drive.
I
got to the store at about 3:30 on Sunday and just from the look of the store
you could tell they had been busy. I was sure I was going to do well there
right after I tried on the first suit. It fit great and I loved the fabric. I
didn't focus too much on price because like I said, I had shopped there before
and the price range for suits was between $200 and $450 but the $450 range was
not the strong price point of the business. So I tried the suit without looking
at the price. When I went to the dressing room to put the pants on, I was
shocked to see the price of $995. Ya Right! This store never carried a suit for
$995 in their life. Then I noticed that the price tag had been altered.
There was a small piece of with tape covering the original price of $395.
I couldn't believe that any store could do that.
Then
I started to look at the prices of the other suits. They did not carry any suit
that was priced less than $595. So then I started to look at sport coats.
Navy blazers were all priced at $395 but someone messed up because they left
the previous sale tag on some of the blazers. They were all originally priced
at $159. So I asked what was going on and showed the difference in the
tags. The sales associate then replied, "Since they are buying 3 sport
jackets for the price of one, that means that the customer is paying
approximately $133 per jacket or a savings of about $28. That's pretty good in
this economy." HUH? Of course he had to add that, "Every
retailer does that and the customers know it." NO, they don't!
Then
it got worse. I went to look at shirts and spotted a great looking striped
shirt. The price was $59.95. Although the price was inflated, 3 shirts for $60
wasn't a bad buy so I picked out 2 more shirts from the same table and
proceeded to the checkout counter. I gave the cashier the 3 shirts and she told
me that I really should buy another one for the best savings. I didn't get it.
Then she showed me a sign that looked the same as the other signs but read,
"Buy one, the second one is free." Yet that was never mentioned on
the TV ad or in any other advertising at all. So I told the cashier that I
would only buy the 2 shirts.
I
bought the two shirts and said to myself that $30 a shirt was still not that
bad. They rang my credit card through and I was signing a credit card slip for
$80. I just assumed that they marked up all of the shirts to $59.95 but
my assumption was incorrect. Some of the shirts were priced at $74.95,
then with tax it became $80. Did I get ripped off? No, but I felt manipulated
and deceived. I don't care about every other store that does that. It is still
wrong and it will catch up with them. At a time when consumer confidence is at
an all time low, we don't need retailers playing shady pricing games. It hurts
the store and the industry.
You can fool some of the people some of the time but the ones you fool always seem to get back to you. Trust me, short cuts and deception never pay off in the long term. This store may have won a battle, but they are losing the war.
Skip Anderson is a professional speaker, sales coach, and the Founder of Selling to Consumers, a B2C and retail sales training and consulting company. Subscribe to the free Sales Tips newsletter.
That's the kind of thing that gives businesses a bad name.
Posted by: Hal Spence | 08 January 2009 at 09:41 PM