A few weeks ago--the day of the hailstorm, when we went to see Star Trek--we decided to pick up some movie treats before hitting the theater. I'm a big fan of eating junk food at the movie theater, but as a former movie-theater employee, I object to the outrageously high prices that theater companies charge at the concession stand. Some companies are worse than others, and the theater near us is not among the worst offenders, but still...if lower-priced options are available, we owe it to ourselves to investigate them.
I thought I remembered seeing boxed candy at Michael's, and I was correct. B was let down because they didn't have the treat that he wanted--Goobers. He read somewhere that Raisinets outsell Goobers by a factor of something like 10, and he wanted to show his support for what he thinks is a superior candy. (We both decided that chocolate-covered peanuts are better than chocolate-covered raisins, but the embarassment associated with ordering a candy called Goobers is the reason for the skewed candy data.)
My candy of choice--peanut-covered M&Ms--was in stock (of course). Peanut M&Ms are similar to Goobers but have the bonus of the candy-coated shell. Also, they don't come with the bitter off-note ending that characterizes their naked Goober cousins. (Perhaps there is more to the situation than the naming...?)
The peg that held the Ms read $2.79, but the Ms bag that I picked up (and every other bag on the peg) was marked $2.49. I prepared myself for a potential battle as I walked up to the register.
Many minutes later (there was a line), my Ms and I reached the front of the line, and sure enough, they rang up as $2.79. "They're marked $2.49," I said. In general, I try not to make cashiers' lives more difficult than they need to be, especially over $.30, but I was having a principled day and didn't want to pay a higher price without offering a token objection.
The cashier left her register, walked around to the Ms display, and called to me, "The peg is marked $2.79," as if hers was the final word on the matter. As if it were legal to charge people a higher price than the price that appears on the item. (It's not.)
I weighed my options and decided that I couldn't let the issue go. I tried once again: "But this package is marked $2.49."
"Well, the candy prices went up recently, and the peg says $2.79, so they're $2.79," she replied. I'm sure her self-righteous attitude grew out of dealing with penny-pinching customers on a daily basis; however, adopting such an attitude while breaking the law is misguided and inappropriate. I decided that the Ms and I would part company at the register, though I tried to leave some helpful advice behind: "You might want to check the tags on the candy bags because they're all marked $2.49," I offered. I suspect my advice was not helpful to her because she once again repeated her refrain about the peg.
I am going back and forth, trying to decide if this incident is enough to place Michael's on my Do Not Shop list, but I've decided that it wouldn't be fair, especially because I didn't get a manager involved. Surely the manager of the Micheal's would have known that you can't charge customers a higher price than the price that marks the item, and I'm sure that he or she would have corrected the situation. However, while I felt principled enough to put up a 30-second fight over a 30-cent mistake, calling a manager over seemed over the top for a single bag of candy.
I ended up spending over $3 to buy the movie-theater bag of Ms, but I was ok with the premium because I didn't feel like I was being cheated. There might be an interesting psychological study here--a willingness to pay more if it means that you feel like the transaction is more honest? We human beings are complex, and transactions that feel unfair - even if you come out ahead financially - rub us the wrong way.
To try to avoid this unfortunate candy situation in the future, we picked up 2 boxes of Ms and 2 boxes of Goobers at the grocery store recently. The price was cheaper than both Michael's and the movie theater, and we both got to have our favorite candy. Restraining ourselves from eating them has been a challenge, but it was great to know that our candy situation was under control this weekend when we went to see The Hangover, which was memorable, unique, and entertaining.
And we didn't come home to ripped screens and a damaged car (well, no more damage than before), so the experience was an improvement in several ways over our Star Trek outing.
3 comments:
We humans do have strange consumer behavior, huh? I once read a study that said people were willing to drive 20 minutes to get a clock for $20 if the local store had it for $30, saving themselves $10, or 33% off the normal price. The same people, however, were NOT willing to drive 20 minutes to get a TV for $290 if the local store had it for $300. They said that saving 3% wasn't worth it. However, the article said this was failed logic...that what you really needed to measure was whether the 20 minute drive was worth $10. Interesting. I have been big into spending more lately to save time...I just don't have time to run all over the place some days!
A contractual obligation is only entered into after the buyer and seller have agreed upon the terms of the transaction, so stores don't have a legal obligation to sell you their goods at the price marked on the item, so long as the error was not intentional. For example, if a newspaper insert advertises an item incorrectly in order to get people to come to the store, the store can be held liable for items that are incorrectly marked, but if the store makes a legitimate mistake (like a printing error), they will not be held liable if they make a good faith effort to rectify the situation (like posting a message about the mistake at the store entrance).
By the same token, if a store sells you the goods at a lower price than marked, they can't ask you later for more money, because the transaction is already completed.
All that said, most retail outfits will give customers the benefit of the doubt over a difference of thirty cents, because the goodwill is worth much more than that. Unfortunately, many floor workers either aren't given the authority to make that decision, so getting a manager involved is the only way to rectify the situation.
Other states probably have looser laws, but in my state, item pricing law says that price labels must be changed on a product every time the price changes. If the store doesn't comply and is caught violating the law, they are fined because they are breaking the law. Since the cashier mentioned a recent price change on candy, Michael's was obligated to sell me the candy at the price with which it was marked.
I do agree that asking for a manager certainly would have cleared up the situation, but even though I was right, I really dislike putting customer service people in uncomfortable situations. Having her manager tell her that she was wrong in front of a customer who had repeatedly disagreed with her was more discomfort than I wanted to inflict on anyone that day.
Post a Comment