could this be on the fence of false advertising

[ICF]

Anyone who's ever shopped at Menards knows that the "rebate" is a merchandise check.

We love Menards and shop there all the time.

 

[piccolopat]

As I posted yesterday, I don't know Menard's but based on what others posted here it sounds like the rebate is explained elsewhere in the ad. I've been thinking about this a bit more and I think there is some merit to the false advertising claim. When Menard's shows the "final price" of the item as $114.81 that is misleading. The final price FOR THIS SPECIFIC ITEM is actually $129 since you cannot use the rebate towards the purchase of THIS ITEM. I believe they should leave off the "final price" to be clear what you are ultimately paying for this specific item.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

As I posted yesterday, I don't know Menard's but based on what others posted here it sounds like the rebate is explained elsewhere in the ad. I've been thinking about this a bit more and I think there is some merit to the false advertising claim. When Menard's shows the "final price" of the item as $114.81 that is misleading. The final price FOR THIS SPECIFIC ITEM is actually $129 since you cannot use the rebate towards the purchase of THIS ITEM. I believe they should leave off the "final price" to be clear what you are ultimately paying for this specific item.

Again that's marketing.

Just for kicks here is the current ad for CVS-

What you pay in the store will be $3.49 if you have the extrabucks rewards card. You will earn $1.50 in extrabucks rewards for your next purchase. CVS uses the wording "It's like getting it for..." and for this ad they list $1.99. Notice how the $1.99 is very large and is in black background with white lettering whereas the others is white background with black lettering. The black background makes the $1.99 standout more.

The original issue was understanding how the ad worked. Well peeps have chimed in with how the ad works, how the rebate works, etc. However, if the true issue is the verbage on the ad well then I think a person is well within their rights to write to Menards about it. They are unlikely to change their rebate program or their advertisement layouts but at least you voiced your concern with how the ads are presented to people.

For the OP's freezer question it still won't change the fact that the product's cost is $129 in store (as long as it is still on sale)..the cashiers are not going to let you pay the $114.81 and walk out with the freezer because you point to the ad. The cashiers will just explain the rebate program and how it works.

 

[piccolopat]

Again that's marketing.

Just for kicks here is the current ad for CVS-
View attachment 226707
What you pay in the store will be $3.49 if you have the extrabucks rewards card. You will earn $1.50 in extrabucks rewards for your next purchase. CVS uses the wording "It's like getting it for..." and for this ad they list $1.99. Notice how the $1.99 is very large and is in black background with white lettering whereas the others is white background with black lettering. The black background makes the $1.99 standout more.

The original issue was understanding how the ad worked. Well peeps have chimed in with how the ad works, how the rebate works, etc. However, if the true issue is the verbage on the ad well then I think a person is well within their rights to write to Menards about it. They are unlikely to change their rebate program or their advertisement layouts but at least you voiced your concern with how the ads are presented to people.

For the OP's freezer question it still won't change the fact that the product's cost is $129 in store (as long as it is still on sale)..the cashiers are not going to let you pay the $114.81 and walk out with the freezer because you point to the ad. The cashiers will just explain the rebate program and how it works.

The CVS ad is very clear. Saying "it's like getting it for..." is different than saying "final cost". Saying "extra bucks rewards for NEXT purchase" is different than saying "rebate". I'm not saying that Menard's is guilty of anything since the issue of rebates is explained elsewhere in their ad. I do think they should consider taking a different approach to how it appears in their ads, perhaps something like what CVS is doing.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I'm not saying that Menard's is guilty of anything since the issue of rebates is explained elsewhere in their ad. I do think they should consider taking a different approach to how it appears in their ads, perhaps something like what CVS is doing.

But you think there is-

"some merit to the false advertising claim. When Menard's shows the "final price" of the item as $114.81 that is misleading"

It sure seems like you think Menards is guilty. The thing is Menards has explained their rebate process on their ads and online. They can't be held responsible should someone choose to not read the terms and conditions essentially. However, like I said if a person has an issue with how it's worded contact the company. The OP already told us they already know how the rebates work.....

The CVS ad is very clear. Saying "it's like getting it for..." is different than saying "final cost". Saying "extra bucks rewards for NEXT purchase" is different than saying "rebate".

But Menards is also very very clear about the pricing. Look at my screenshots (page 1 of this thread) of the website where it says "after mail-in rebate" and has final price where it explains what the final price means. The physical ad has same information that it's after the rebate.

This is the first page of the current Menards ad available online: It's pretty darn clear-

Here is a random item from the ad:



I really don't know how much more clearer you can get. The ad doesn't say anything about "Instant Savings".

Menards doesn't have to use CVS's words...nor does any company..they can say how they want it with fine print (which may or may not actually be in what is normally considered 'fine' print).

 

[piccolopat]

But you think there is-

"some merit to the false advertising claim. When Menard's shows the "final price" of the item as $114.81 that is misleading"

It sure seems like you think Menards is guilty. The thing is Menards has explained their rebate process on their ads and online. They can't be held responsible should someone choose to not read the terms and conditions essentially. However, like I said if a person has an issue with how it's worded contact the company. The OP already told us they already know how the rebates work.....

But Menards is also very very clear about the pricing. Look at my screenshots (page 1 of this thread) of the website where it says "after mail-in rebate" and has final price where it explains what the final price means. The physical ad has same information that it's after the rebate.

This is the first page of the current Menards ad available online: It's pretty darn clear-
View attachment 226765
Here is a random item from the ad:
View attachment 226766


I really don't know how much more clearer you can get. The ad doesn't say anything about "Instant Savings".

Menards doesn't have to use CVS's words...nor does any company..they can say how they want it with fine print (which may or may not actually be in what is normally considered 'fine' print).

All I'm saying is that if someone wanted to bring this to court, there is an argument to be made because you will never get the one specific item for the final cost shown.

 

[Jen and Ashwin]

All I'm saying is that if someone wanted to bring this to court, there is an argument to be made because you will never get the one specific item for the final cost shown.

I don't think this would go anywhere in court. The ad clearly provides the terms. There isn't anything misleading about it. If they neglected to mention that the rebate wasn't cash, but a store merchandise credit, then there could be a case. But no judge would seriously entertain a claim like that just because someone chose not to read the terms included on the ad.

 

[kydisneyfans]

I don't have a Menards locally but did drive 90 miles to one this weekend. I inquired about the rebate and thought it to be nothing different than CVS. I took the receipt, the rebate form, and mailed it for $65 off a future purchase. The terms are more than clear, I asked just to ensure as the distance to drive was an issue if I made a mistake.

 

[SharonZ]

Definitely not false advertising.

 

[maxiesmom]

All I'm saying is that if someone wanted to bring this to court, there is an argument to be made because you will never get the one specific item for the final cost shown.

Only an idiot would take it to court, sorry. Nothing unclear about it.

 

[crazylady]

we want to get our DS and DDIL a freezer

mennads had one in lst sundays paper written as


reg price 149.00
sale price 129.00
11% rebate -14.19
final price 114.81
________________
this make it look like when you send in for the rebate it will be for 14.19

not quite right you get a basically a coupon for 14.19 to come back and spend even more money

by them saying "final price" it makes it looks like thats what youll be paying
any thoughts

I get what you're saying. I don't think a coupon to use on a future purchase is a rebate by definition either. I don't think there is a winning case for false advertising because it is explained in the fine print but they should be using a word other than rebate.

 

[mom2rose&john]

I don't see anything false about it. The rebate isn't "instant" therefore it nets to final price of $114. The ad could of stated Store Rebate but nothing jumps out as false advertising.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I get what you're saying. I don't think a coupon to use on a future purchase is a rebate by definition either. I don't think there is a winning case for false advertising because it is explained in the fine print but they should be using a word other than rebate.

It's not a coupon. It's a merchandise credit check that can be applied to a future purchase only at Menard's.

 

[Monykalyn]

I get what you're saying. I don't think a coupon to use on a future purchase is a rebate by definition either. I don't think there is a winning case for false advertising because it is explained in the fine print but they should be using a word other than rebate.

Yes-Kohls and Target does this but clearly states that you will get "kohl cash" or a target gift card.

The rebate isn't "instant" therefore it nets to final price of $114. The ad could of stated Store Rebate but nothing jumps out as false advertising.

But it isn't the "final price" you have to go back and purchase something ELSE to "save" the $14. The actual price is $129. It is misleading, sure, but they do have it covered in fine print...

FYI-
re·bate1
noun
ˈrēˌbāt/

1. 1.
   a partial refund to someone who has paid too much money for tax, rent, or a utility.
   synonyms: refund, partial refund, repayment; More
   • verb

rēˈbāt,ˈrēˌbāt/

1. 1.
   pay back (such a sum of money).

Most "rebates" seem to be cash vs a "coupon" for future purpose...

 

[MomToOne]

What hits me is how large the "11% REBATE" portion is vs. the much smaller print that states it's a credit towards a future purchase.

Maybe it's not false advertising in the legal sense, but I do believe it is designed to sucker at least some people into buying something thinking they can get a cash rebate. Younger people not so schooled in life yet, elderly who maybe can't read that tiny print, etc.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

What hits me is how large the "11% REBATE" portion is vs. the much smaller print that states it's a credit towards a future purchase.

Maybe it's not false advertising in the legal sense, but I do believe it is designed to sucker at least some people into buying something thinking they can get a cash rebate. Younger people not so schooled in life yet, elderly who maybe can't read that tiny print, etc.

Uhh...I just have to point out...in what world do you think Menards is the ONLY places to do this. Take a look at all of the ads you get in the paper or the ads you see online heck watch TV commercials for all sorts of things: cars and phones are big big ones with the fine print for their deals but there are so many more.

It's called advertisement (ETA: and marketing) and it's been done for many years now. And it is in no way related to age. Sorry but IMO you really can't say "younger people not so schooled in life yet" and "elderly who maybe can't read that tiny print" as a rationale why a company can't/shouldn't have fine print.

 

[MomToOne]

Uhh...I just have to point out...in what world do you think Menards is the ONLY places to do this. Take a look at all of the ads you get in the paper or the ads you see online heck watch TV commercials for all sorts of things: cars and phones are big big ones with the fine print for their deals but there are so many more.

It's called advertisement (ETA: and marketing) and it's been done for many years now. And it is in no way related to age. Sorry but IMO you really can't say "younger people not so schooled in life yet" and "elderly who maybe can't read that tiny print" as a rationale why a company can't/shouldn't have fine print.

I think you need to reread what I said - I NEVER stated that Menard's was the only one to use fine print. But Menard's does seem to push it compared to what I've seen in other places, by using the word "rebate". The FTC guidelines for fine print include: "Nor can advertisers use fine print to contradict other statements in an ad or to clear up misimpressions that the ad would leave otherwise." One could argue that using the word "Rebate" in large print, and then only stating that the rebate is actually a credit towards future purchases in fine print is attempting exactly that: they are trying to clear up a misimpression using the fine print. For that reason, I think what Menard's is doing in in fact questionable.

And the reason the FTC guidelines for fine print exist is because it has so often been used to mislead consumers, especially the groups I identified.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I think you need to reread what I said - I NEVER stated that Menard's was the only one to use fine print. But Menard's does seem to push it compared to what I've seen in other places, by using the word "rebate".

I read your post but you had said:

What hits me is how large the "11% REBATE" portion is vs. the much smaller print that states it's a credit towards a future purchase.

And I responded that you should take a look at the ads for places. And my whole point I was trying to make in my comment to you is the entire marketing/advertisement industry is designed to entice consumers into buying or thinking about the amazing deal of x,y,z. That's why I said it's not only Mendards that does this. What I find very interesting is people are appearantly willing to ignore all the things they see around them and concentrate so much on how Mendards formulates their ads.

Here's a snippet of JCP's current ad-


Notice how the "extra 25%" is so big? Look at the fine print there.....it's only with your JCP Credit Card plus exclusions

Here's a snippet of Home Depot's current ad-


Here's the fine print that relates to the symbols you see next to the word "installation"-


Notice how the word "FREE" is large. There also is only certain restriction listed just below the "Home Carpet Installation" part. You would need to go to the fine print to see the rest of the exclusions.

And in direct relation to rebates here's Lowe's ad and is regarding riding lawn mowers for the first one and battery operated yard tools on the second one-




You have to flip through multiple pages in the ad (as they say "Details on inside back cover") to see this information regarding rebates-


At least with Menards the fine print is on the first page with the 11% part and is a lot easier to find than Lowe's one.

The FTC guidelines for fine print include: "Nor can advertisers use fine print to contradict other statements in an ad or to clear up misimpressions that the ad would leave otherwise." One could argue that using the word "Rebate" in large print, and then only stating that the rebate is actually a credit towards future purchases in fine print is attempting exactly that: they are trying to clear up a misimpression using the fine print. For that reason, I think what Menard's is doing in in fact questionable.

At least IMO (so take that I suppose with a grain of salt), I don't really think one could argue that the word rebate in large print is an issue in comparison to the fine print.

Look you/we/whatever may not like that Menards chooses to have the 11% so large but not liking something doesn't equate to false advertisement (which yes I know you said it wouldn't necessarily in the legal sense). But yeah it is designed to grab your attention and there are reasons for that..blame the human mind for that one really.

Here would be a violation of the FTC guidelines- so Costco uses the wording "Instant Savings" in their advertisements. Now if their fine print actually said "Savings in the form of rebate/coupon to be used for future use" then yeah that would violate the FTC guidelines because "Instant" and "Future" are in contradiction to each other.

And the reason the FTC guidelines for fine print exist is because it has so often been used to mislead consumers, especially the groups I identified.

Nah the rules are out there to protect everyone not just the ill-informed/less life experience youth or the vision-challenged seniors (which is basically what you described). TBH that's kind of an insult (though I don't think you actually meant it that way though) to imply that majority who would have trouble understanding the ad are youths and elderly. Should we ask the OP what age category they fall into?

 

[maxiesmom]

I get what you're saying. I don't think a coupon to use on a future purchase is a rebate by definition either. I don't think there is a winning case for false advertising because it is explained in the fine print but they should be using a word other than rebate.

It is a rebate. You have to fill out a form and send it back in order to get the credit. It is not a coupon. If they advertised it as a coupon people wouldn't get they had to fill out a form and send it in.

And I don't buy the age excuse at all. All stores have tiny print. Half the ads show on TV have it too. There are some basics you need to understand to shop at any place, and reading is one of them (unless you are fortunate to run into braille someplace).

To paraphrase: Ignorance of the rule doesn't excuse you from following the rule.

 

[marcyleecorgan]

I know how mennards rebates or should I say store credit goes. What I don't like is in the ad it says final cost is 114 after 11% rebate. To me it's not right your still paying 129 and you'll get 14 off your next purchase thanks for the replies

Whether it's a promotion that fits your needs or not, it cannot be "misleading advertising" if they told you how it all works in the fine print. They did meticulously explain it all in the screenshots posted. If they DIDN'T, and you were expecting a small cheque to arrive in the mail to use on cereal or whatever else you wanted, but were handed a Menard's rebate certificate, that would be misleading advertising. This just sounds like a "Spend XXX in store, get a gift card" to me. If you don't want to shop at Menard's, this is not the promotion for you.