I Don't Get Stores Sometimes...

[monkeybug]

I did not say that the customer would fore go other stores forever more. I said that the customer would be won over.

Why do we return to WDW so often? It certainly isn't the cheapest vacation destination. Customer service is the key to winning over repeat customers in retail markets - not pricing.

Again, it shouldn't be expected, but this was a missed opportunity to build a relationship with a consumer...

 

[C.Ann]

I've seen intentional "bait and switch" systems like this - particularly in supermarkets - where they will have a big sign indicating "12 oz. such and such $1.50" - and they will fill that spot with the same "product" - BUT it's the 20 oz size that then rings up for $4.99 or some such thing.. They're "banking" on the fact that the customer either won't notice - or will go ahead and buy the larger size at the higher price anyhow..

Having said that, if the cans were in the proper place, I would not have expected the store to give me the cheaper price..

 

[freepixie]

ugh this is SO annoying..coming from a cashiers stand point there is nothing more obnoxious than a person who couldn't be bothered to check the sign and then expect the price to be changed. Im sorry but if every customer wanted a discount the store would go out of business. I do agree it was poor service that the manager didn't bring the other brand to you for the option to purchase the sale item.

ITA! I think everyone should take some time in their life working as a cashier - it really opens your eyes!! I spent last holiday season at Best Buy, and you would not believe the things I saw and heard! Ever since then I have become a more humble shopper, and I have nothing but the highest respect for our cashiers!!

 

[kaytieeldr]

It STILL would have been GREAT customer service if when I said I didn't want them, he said I could have them at the sale price to make the sale. I mean, it was only $0.42 for crying out loud!

"Only" $0.42 is over FORTY PERCENT of the retail price - 43.75%, to be exact. Not such a small amount after all. Probably the beans cost Meijer's more than $0.89 per can; I'm not sure I see any reason why they'd want to sell even one can at a loss, never mind four - i.e. four times the loss.

As for not bringing you the other beans, it's generally assumed that the customer has selected the brand they want - brand loyalty, with price being a bonus. And I'm not sure I get the point about the manager walking to the bean section to check the price - how else would you suggest it be checked? Page someone from grocery? Would have taken at least as long. Scan? That's what the register did.

At the same time, and this man even said the shelving WAS confusing, if every customer says, "I don't want it", and the price difference is so low, they are losing out on WAY more SALES than they are by taking the smaller loss and gaining a loyal customer.

You don't have any idea that/if every customer is getting confused, or picking up the wrong item, or saying "no".

Well the whole point of "the customer is always right" isn't that you side with the customer when they are actually right, and not when they are wrong. It's that you side with the customer when they are wrong (with in reason)

Understood - but based on my numbers above, this probably wasn't 'within reason'. No way other purchases any time any where any how could ever make up for loss on these four cans IF the store had done as the OP thinks they should.

The OP was wrong. She should not expect a "freebie" due to her not reading the signs correctly.

Wouldn't have, technically, been a freebie. Four cans at $1.19 each = $4.73; four cans at $0.89 each = $3.56. Difference is $1.17 - so that 'free' can would have actually cost $0.02.

 

[kellyg403]

As a manager at a grocery store, I would have definitely given the customer the beans at the sale price. However, had I seen you again with the same problem, I would have most likely brought the sale priced beans to the counter and let you choose.

Customer service is number one in the industry. Where it gets a little muddy are those customers who are constantly looking for the freebies. I have a repeat customer who buys a sale item that says on the tag mix and match. The mix and match is for the particular product..lets say Dixie paper plates. All the plates are on sale in the Dixie line. You can mix and match. So customer decides to mix and match with Hefty and Dixie. Then explains to methe tags are confusing and misleading. I couldn't for the life of me explain to her that I was not understanding how it was misleading as the entire line of Dixie had the same mix and match tags. So, I ended up giving it to her as requested. Not because she was 'right' but because of customer service and loyalty. The very next day she came in with THREE of her friends and did the exact same thing...we had to remove all mix and match wording because they went around the store. It was a total nightmare. It was obvious. If Breyers Ice Cream is on sale, all varieties have the mix match it is those on sale you can mix and match. But, the final outcome is we honored those 4 women AGAIN because of honoring it the day before.

In the OP's case, I would have given the discount but I also understand the store's policy. Its kinda of a no win situation.

Kelly

 

[monkeybug]

"Only" $0.42 is over FORTY PERCENT of the retail price - 43.75%, to be exact. Not such a small amount after all. Probably the beans cost Meijer's more than $0.89 per can; I'm not sure I see any reason why they'd want to sell even one can at a loss, never mind four - i.e. four times the loss.

As for not bringing you the other beans, it's generally assumed that the customer has selected the brand they want - brand loyalty, with price being a bonus. And I'm not sure I get the point about the manager walking to the bean section to check the price - how else would you suggest it be checked? Page someone from grocery? Would have taken at least as long. Scan? That's what the register did.

Actually stores routinely sell items a at a loss. They are called loss leaders.
When I worked for Albertsons almost every package of diapers I sold, I sold at less than they cost me to order. The reasoning was that if you were lured to the store for cheap diapers, you would probably buy other stuff there. And if you got excellent customer service, from well trained and friendly employees, than you might become a loyal customer, and then the store wins really big.
It's that whole service profit chain thing.
There is also very good reason to bring an alternative can of beans to the customer (other than keeping her happy, which is a big one). My profit percentage on private label was generally 60% or more. In my store if a customer was hesitant to purchase our store brand, we offered to let them try it for free. Even if the private label wasn't cheaper than the sale can, by offering the customer an alternative, you are offering them the chance to still purchase an item. Then you make money, and making money is good business.
As an example private label tylenol cost the customer 4.99, it cost me like .60. If I give a customer the private label, and they see for themselves that it works the same, then they come back and continue to buy it at 4.99 I make money. A lot more than if they had bought name brand Tylenol to begin with, not to mention it makes them feel like they are getting special attention, and people like to feel special.
.42 (even if it is 40%) is a drop in the bucket of what the stores allotted "shrink percentage" probably is. If that unhappy customer never returns to your store because they don't feel you value their business, you lose out on hundreds or thousands of dollars.

 

[maxiesmom]

I did not say that the customer would fore go other stores forever more. I said that the customer would be won over.

Some customers may be "won over". And some would see it as an invitation to take advantage of the store. Unless you have recently worked retail, you cannot grasp how often customers lie and "misread" signs, insist a sale sign says one thing when it says something else. People will try anything to save a few bucks, and if the company bends a little they take full advantage of it.

Most people are not loyal to one store. They go where the prices are cheapest.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Actually stores routinely sell items a at a loss. They are called loss leaders.

But this wasn't. And while, even without meeting her, I feel comfortable saying the OP wouldn't then bring in a gaggle of friends the next day claiming the same "confusion" to the point the manager ends up giving them all the non-sale, non-loss leader item at the same price he charged the OP, the typical scammer WOULD. In fact, it's not unlikely that the average ethical shopper might take similar advantage of generosity.

When I worked for Albertsons almost every package of diapers I sold, I sold at less than they cost me to order

Preplanned/prearranged/normal store (chain?) procedure - NOT due to customer misunderstanding.

There is also very good reason to bring an alternative can of beans to the customer (other than keeping her happy, which is a big one). My profit percentage on private label was generally 60% or more.

We don't know that the sale item was the store/private label brand, just that it wasn't Bush's. Sure, if it was the store brand, switching the customer over is good and the manager made a mistake (maybe other things distracted him during that five minute walk.

A lot more than if they had bought name brand Tylenol to begin with, not to mention it makes them feel like they are getting special attention, and people like to feel special.

I have an opinion of people who spend unnecessary money on name brand non-food items that are exactly equal in quality and effectiveness to generics. Ditto for food. In many of the former cases, not only is the item identical, the private label is manufactured by the name-brand company (sure, sometimes it's not true - Shaw's equivalent of Garnier shampoo ROTS in comparison to the real thing... AND the price difference is only $0.30). But food is different. The quality, IME, is often vastly different.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

But this wasn't. And while, even without meeting her, I feel comfortable saying the OP wouldn't then bring in a gaggle of friends the next day claiming the same "confusion" to the point the manager ends up giving them all the non-sale, non-loss leader item at the same price he charged the OP, the typical scammer WOULD. In fact, it's not unlikely that the average ethical shopper might take similar advantage of generosity.

Preplanned/prearranged/normal store (chain?) procedure - NOT due to customer misunderstanding.

What, in the OP's post, would make you think that she was a "scammer"? We are talking about this incident, not some ficticious event that you seem focused upon. Bring in a "gaggle" of friends the next day to save a few cents? Seriously?

 

[monkeybug]

But this wasn't. And while, even without meeting her, I feel comfortable saying the OP wouldn't then bring in a gaggle of friends the next day claiming the same "confusion" to the point the manager ends up giving them all the non-sale, non-loss leader item at the same price he charged the OP, the typical scammer WOULD. In fact, it's not unlikely that the average ethical shopper might take similar advantage of generosity.

Preplanned/prearranged/normal store (chain?) procedure - NOT due to customer misunderstanding.

No, but my point is that stores don't have an issue selling things at a loss from time to time if it makes a customer happy.

I find it hard to believe that there is such an epidemic of scammers that stores can simply no longer give anyone the benefit of "the customer is always right" The truth is that most people don't want to waste their time, and there are plenty of times when a customer ends up paying more than they should be because they don't want to bother checking if they are right (this is me. The last thing I want to do when I'm at the store with my two kids is wait for somebody to check the price, call for an override, and all that junk. Unless it's dollars difference, I just don't care enough to bother) The commissary makes money on me probably every other time I shop. I swear they hang tags drunk, because they are never right! (and I know how to check, so it's not me being confused) But it's cheaper to begin with anyways, and everyone there moves at a snails pace, so I'm not waiting 15 minutes for .50 off my toothpaste.

I suspect the real reason why customer service "just ain't what it used to be" is that in tough financial times, when you are selling less product, or making less profit, what's the one thing effecting your bottom line that you have total control of? Labor! Less people, doing the same amount of work, and with less training= more mistakes, more confusion, and more grumpy and disgruntled employees.

 

[monkeybug]

But this wasn't. And while, even without meeting her, I feel comfortable saying the OP wouldn't then bring in a gaggle of friends the next day claiming the same "confusion" to the point the manager ends up giving them all the non-sale, non-loss leader item at the same price he charged the OP, the typical scammer WOULD. In fact, it's not unlikely that the average ethical shopper might take similar advantage of generosity.

Preplanned/prearranged/normal store (chain?) procedure - NOT due to customer misunderstanding.

We don't know that the sale item was the store/private label brand, just that it wasn't Bush's. Sure, if it was the store brand, switching the customer over is good and the manager made a mistake (maybe other things distracted him during that five minute walk.
Actually some food is exactly the same. When I lived on the coast of oregon there were huge tuna warehouses, with stacks and stacks of canned tuna. Those cans were sent out to major company s (starkist, chicken of the sea) and private label companies. All the same tuna, just different labels.
I agree though that some things are not as good, but that's we always offered the customer to give it a try (if we were out of their brand, or they asked about our product) Minimal loss to us if they decided they still liked their brand better.

I have an opinion of people who spend unnecessary money on name brand non-food items that are exactly equal in quality and effectiveness to generics. Ditto for food. In many of the former cases, not only is the item identical, the private label is manufactured by the name-brand company (sure, sometimes it's not true - Shaw's equivalent of Garnier shampoo ROTS in comparison to the real thing... AND the price difference is only $0.30). But food is different. The quality, IME, is often vastly different.

Right, and as I said, even if the store brand wasn't the sale item, the manager still lost out by not bringing up an alternate choice. He had a chance to sell the sale brand, but instead he sold none.
Actually some food is exactly the same. When I lived on the coast of oregon there were huge tuna warehouses, with stacks and stacks of canned tuna. Those cans were sent out to major company s (starkist, chicken of the sea) and private label companies. All the same tuna, just different labels. The trolley drivers used to tell all the tourists to just buy what ever can of tuna was cheapest, 'cause chances were it all came out of the same warehouse anyways.
I agree though that some things are not as good, but that's we always offered the customer to give it a try (if we were out of their brand, or they asked about our product) Minimal loss to us if they decided they still liked their brand better.

 

[kaytieeldr]

What, in the OP's post, would make you think that she was a "scammer"? We are talking about this incident, not some ficticious event that you seem focused upon. Bring in a "gaggle" of friends the next day to save a few cents? Seriously?

I thought the way I wrote my post, it was clear I DON'T think the OP is a scammer. That was the point of starting by saying

And while, even without meeting her, I feel comfortable saying the OP wouldn't then bring in a gaggle of friends...

and then bolding the word scammer. Bolding, instead, the word "typical" would have understandably implied I thought the OP to be the type of shopper described in post # 45.

 

[BRDof3]

4 pages on a can of beans? This must be a heck of a fun bunch to sit next to at a party.

 

[monkeybug]

4 pages on a can of beans? This must be a heck of a fun bunch to sit next to at a party.

Well the last thing I'm going to do at a party is sit
So in that sense, you may be right.

 

[kaytieeldr]

4 pages on a can of beans? This must be a heck of a fun bunch to sit next to at a party.

And I don't go to parties, so...

 

[wdwfan16]

I totally agree! He came back without them, and I was like

It STILL would have been GREAT customer service if when I said I didn't want them, he said I could have them at the sale price to make the sale. I mean, it was only $0.42 for crying out loud! LOL! As much as I HATE Target and their policies, they are very, very, very good at adjusting the price, within reason, to whatever you "think" it is. Maybe that is why they are so huge!

If 42 cents is not big deal then why did you not just pay it and not make a trip to Walmart?

 

[Stitchfans]

I wouldn't expect the manager to give you the sale price if the brand you picked up was not on sale, but it would have been nice for him to bring the sale brand up to the register to see if you would like those instead. That to me would be good customer service.

This is what I was thinking also.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Just occurred to me - there may not have BEEN any of the $0.89 beans left on the shelf! The OP seems to have gone grocery shopping on a Saturday afternoon - i.e. in most chains, the last day of the sale. It's possible the sale item was sold out by then.

 

[MichelleVW]

All I know is that I would have been annoyed if I had been behind the OP arguing about .42 and probably would have just gave her a dollar to hurry up and finish checking out!

 

[Jennasis]

ugh this is SO annoying..coming from a cashiers stand point there is nothing more obnoxious than a person who couldn't be bothered to check the sign and then expect the price to be changed. Im sorry but if every customer wanted a discount the store would go out of business. I do agree it was poor service that the manager didn't bring the other brand to you for the option to purchase the sale item.

I agree.


Also, If it was "Just $.42" why couldn't the Op just fork over the measly $.42???