Dunnes selling "free" items (Batteries)

TheIrishGrover

Was in my local Dunnes today looking for AAA batteries. They had 4-packs of energiser batteries for 4.49. Now we all know that energiser nearly always have these 50% or 100% free packs. Sure enough they had 4+4 free AAA battery packs. However these were priced at 8.99. Same battery brand and type (Ultra + I think they were called). I asked a manager there and he tried to say it was a christmas special or something. I told him that energiser are nearly always doing these promotions. To which, he had no answer.

And before anyone gets on to me about harassing the manager I wasn't. I just brought it to his attention politely and then put them back.

rubadub

Are you presuming they have the same wholesale price? I doubt they do.

leacy22

Yeah Duracell always have those offers on - bit cheeky trying to pass it off as a special deal!

Kenny Logins

rubadub wrote: »

Are you presuming they have the same wholesale price? I doubt they do.

...but if the pack states 4 + 4 free shouldn't it retail at the same price as 4 batteries?

Nody

Kenny Logins wrote: »

...but if the pack states 4 + 4 free shouldn't it retail at the same price as 4 batteries?

For starters most such deals is split cost in some way (i.e. the shop take part of the cost and the manufacturer takes part of it) and the shop can always set their own price.

rubadub

Kenny Logins wrote: »

...but if the pack states 4 + 4 free shouldn't it retail at the same price as 4 batteries?

I wouldn't automatically expect it to be, no more than I would expect some food item to taste better simply since the marketing BS on the pack tells me it's new & improved.

Lots of these things would have automatic margins on them. So if the wholesale costs for the ones with extra batteries is more the manufacturer is hoping you will decrease your margins and this will be offset by a higher amount of sales. But this is the manufacturer just hoping this happens, I doubt all shops are willing to change their whole system to accommodate this. They would probably be more willing to do it if there was a RRP price printed on the page.

Kenny Logins

Nody wrote: »

For starters most such deals is split cost in some way (i.e. the shop take part of the cost and the manufacturer takes part of it) and the shop can always set their own price.

Yeah, but as consumers we have no interest in those details. All we are interested in is the "4 free" batteries, which in this situation clearly isn't the case.

Nody

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Yeah, but as consumers we have no interest in those details. All we are interested in is the "4 free" batteries, which in this situation clearly isn't the case.

But there are no free batteries; that's the whole point as it's purely a marketing ploy by the manufacturer.

Kenny Logins

Nody wrote: »

But there are no free batteries; that's the whole point as it's purely a marketing ploy by the manufacturer.

..and this is accepted? Genuinely interested as whenever I see this, it just makes me think that the retailer is pulling a fast one, and I'm sure I'm not alone. That can't be good..

Bepolite

I suspect they would have to follow the same guidelines as sale items, namely having them on sale at a certain price in certain stores for a certain period of time. Unfortunately people are stupid and easily duped hence the need for regulation. The OP spotted it 100 people wont.

There is an advertising standards agency here, I forget the name - report them OP.

prettygurrly

mmm...all the posts above sound like retailers excuses. If the store has a packet of 4 batteries on sale at 4.49 and then has identical batteries in a packet which says 4 plus 4 FREE I really don't see how you can get away with charging 8.99 for them...I would have taken a picture and sent it to whoever is in charge of these things.

irish_goat

The shop can price them at whatever they want. If you're not willing to pay it, don't.

rubadub

Kenny Logins wrote: »

..and this is accepted? Genuinely interested as whenever I see this, it just makes me think that the retailer is pulling a fast one, and I'm sure I'm not alone. That can't be good..

This is the problem, far too often everybody blames the end man, shooting the messenger. The manufacturer is hoping to force them to sell at a certain price.

Usually its the UK vs irish price nonsense. Which is pretty similar to this, i.e. presumption that the wholesale prices are identical.

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2009/0204/113567-retail/

Retailers blame distributors for prices

Cormac Tobin, head of the largest pharmacy chain Unicare, claimed that some biscuits cost more than twice as much here as in Britain. He said McVities biscuits here cost 220% of what they would cost in Britain, while the price of a Colgate toothbrush was 74% dearer and Pampers baby wipes were 40% dearer.

Mr Tobin said had tried to persuade Irish distributors to cut prices following the fall in the value of sterling, but most had refused. He believed the only way prices would come down was when retailers named and shamed the distributors responsible for the high prices.

Retailer group RGDATA told the committee a tin of baby food - SMA Gold - made in Dublin costs a retailer €11.24 - but it can be bought in England for €8.72. Jim Marshall, a director of the group, said other prices here were also much higher.

He said a packet of Mach 3 razor blades cost €9.88 from the Irish distributor - but can be bought for €6.87 abroad.

John Foy, president of RGDATA, said he had been buying bottles of 7Up - which is produced in the Republic - in the North for 40 cent a bottle cheaper than he could get here. But he claimed the supply was cut off after the Northern agent came under pressure for selling into the Republic.

Bepolite wrote: »

I suspect they would have to follow the same guidelines as sale items, namely having them on sale at a certain price in certain stores for a certain period of time.

I doubt it falls under this, it is a different packet with a different barcode. I doubt any price or claims on the packets are taken into account by the law, they are free to charge more than a price listed on packs.

Retailer

this happens all the time to me.

I have yet to buy wholesale, a 4 pack of, for example, batteries at the same price as a 4+4 free pack of batteries.

What I usually have to do is sell a 4pk at €4 and a 4+4free pack at €5 or €6 depending on cost to me.
Manufacturers do this as a promo for themselves, but don't pass on the promo cost to the wholesaler/retailer. Maybe they reduce the price a small bit but not significantly.

Of course, as a retailer and the only point of contact to the customer, the only people they will blame is me.
In a lot of cases I would be better off not selling the '100% extra free items' as its purely a marketing term.

Kenny Logins

irish_goat wrote: »

The shop can price them at whatever they want. If you're not willing to pay it, don't.

Yeah, yeah, we all know that, but thanks for the advice.

Kenny Logins

Retailer wrote: »

this happens all the time to me.

I have yet to buy wholesale, a 4 pack of, for example, batteries at the same price as a 4+4 free pack of batteries.

What I usually have to do is sell a 4pk at €4 and a 4+4free pack at €5 or €6 depending on cost to me.
Manufacturers do this as a promo for themselves, but don't pass on the promo cost to the wholesaler/retailer. Maybe they reduce the price a small bit but not significantly.

Of course, as a retailer and the only point of contact to the customer, the only people they will blame is me.
In a lot of cases I would be better off not selling the '100% extra free items' as its purely a marketing term.

That's what I'm interested in, this can't be good for business if the punters think you are the one cheating them out of their 'free batteries'.

prettygurrly

So what we're saying is that because the barcode is different it's not the same product? pwish, most law is written before barcodes came in...surely the product description matching is enough for it to be the same item...the term "FREE" is what is the problem...they're not FREE, they're not even slight discounted. In fact you're paying 1c more if you buy the 4+4 packet than if you buy two 4 packs! This makes absolutely no sense.

Retailer

Kenny Logins wrote: »

That's what I'm interested in, this can't be good for business if the punters think you are the one cheating them out of their 'free batteries'.

i have to say it's probably only ever been mentioned to me by customers a handful of times. in most of these cases the customers were saying it in a 'jokey' manner.

Once i explain to them, it seems ok.
There are some products, mainly confectionery, that do actually offer a correct 100% extra free and allow me to sell at the same price. these are rare enough though.

It would be in my interest to sell an 8pk of duracell AA batteries at €4 and not €5 or €6 as they would 'fly off the shelves' particularly in the run up to Christmas. But it's just not possible, despite what the manufacturers claim on the packaging.

Maybe there are some (larger) retailers that get it for the same price?

Bepolite

rubadub wrote: »

I doubt it falls under this, it is a different packet with a different barcode. I doubt any price or claims on the packets are taken into account by the law, they are free to charge more than a price listed on packs.

It's unlikely to be based off the barcodes or SKUs. However we're all here speculating on this, the only way to know is to make a complaint.

p15574

Always very annoying.

Take a photo of the two packs beside each other, with the Dunnes logo obvious, and send it in to Broadsheet.ie or the Indo...it might get picked up.

Similar issues in the UK were reported on earlier today by Sky:

Kenny Logins

Which reminds me - Spotted in my local Londis.

rubadub

prettygurrly wrote: »

So what we're saying is that because the barcode is different it's not the same product? pwish, most law is written before barcodes came in.

What law are you even talking about here, if its the one about displaying sale signs this doesn't even come into this situation, the shop is not saying its a sale, or reduced price or anything.

And barcodes are out ages, long before that 28 day law came out.

Bepolite wrote: »

the only way to know is to make a complaint.

Or look simply look at the law, its come up loads of times before in other threads.

Once i explain to them, it seems ok.

If it was my shop I would have signs up explaining stuff like this. Saying they are priced at the exact same margin, I would actually be very open about my profits, I would love to go into a shop which was.

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Yeah, yeah, we all know that, but thanks for the advice.

from the replies its obvious people do not know this, it has come up in many other threads too, many people invent all sorts of laws they think should exist.

Kenny Logins wrote: »

That's what I'm interested in, this can't be good for business if the punters think you are the one cheating them out of their 'free batteries'.

First you are coming off with this "sure everybody knows that" attitude, and now straight after you appear to presume most do not know about varying wholesale prices.

If a shopowner went up in the cash & carry and asked why the 100% free pack was more expensive, they would look at him like he was taking the piss.

Shooting the messenger, as is so common.

Kenny Logins

rubadub wrote: »

W

First you are coming off with this "sure everybody knows that" attitude, and now straight after you appear to presume most do not know about varying wholesale prices.

If a shopowner went up in the cash & carry and asked why the 100% free pack was more expensive, they would look at him like he was taking the piss.

Shooting the messenger, as is so common.

Read what I quoted -

irish_goat wrote: »

The shop can price them at whatever they want. If you're not willing to pay it, don't.

rubadub

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Read what I quoted -

Yes, I saw that, you said" we all know that", which seemed to be speaking for all the other posters, as though he was stating something blatantly obvious. But you had said that after these posts

Kenny Logins wrote: »

...but if the pack states 4 + 4 free shouldn't it retail at the same price as 4 batteries?

which read like you might have thought it was a legal issue, i.e. legally having to sell at the same price.

Bepolite wrote: »

There is an advertising standards agency here, I forget the name - report them OP.

They certainly thought it was a legal issue. i.e. that - The shop can price them at whatever they want. - was a legally incorrect statement.

prettygurrly wrote: »

.I would have taken a picture and sent it to whoever is in charge of these things.

This quote also sounded like they may have thought it was a legal issue.

prettygurrly wrote: »

In fact you're paying 1c more if you buy the 4+4 packet than if you buy two 4 packs! This makes absolutely no sense.

In tesco its quite common to see twin packs of 2L coke for a higher price than single bottles, and often he twin pack has a sign proclaiming its an offer, while the single might have nothing declaring its an offer. I like the fact they do this since I bother to pay attention, so the people blindly buying offers are in effect subsidising my deals, i.e. tesco can get higher profits and afford to sell other things cheaper. Family size tins of peas or curry sauce are also very often more expensive per kilo. In a previous thread someone actually thought this was illegal.

p15574 wrote: »

Similar issues in the UK were reported on earlier today by Sky:

I don't think any of those examples are similar. If dunnes had put their own label on the 8 pack saying 100% free, while being double the price, then it would certainly be similar.

Kenny Logins

rubadub wrote: »

Yes, I saw that, you said" we all know that", which seemed to be speaking for all the other posters, as though he was stating something blatantly obvious.

Eh? It is blatantly obvious - we know don't have to buy them, and there was no need for irish_goat remind us.

kc90

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Eh? It is blatantly obvious - we know don't have to buy them, and there was no need for irish_goat remind us.

Nor was there there a need for you to reply as you did Double standards?

Kenny Logins

kc90 wrote: »

Nor was there there a need for you to reply as you did Double standards?

Reading back now I see that I probably read the tone of the post wrong, and if I did, I apologise to irish_goat.

Bepolite

rubadub wrote: »

Or look simply look at the law, its come up loads of times before in other threads.

Care to cite this? A link to even the statute book will do.