Failure To Forecast Properly, Or Just Bait And Switch?
from the seems-like-the-latter dept
Over in the UK, it appears that a computer retailer put out an advertisement for a cheap laptop -- and when people took them up on it, the firm ran out of stock. Instead of giving those who came later a raincheck, they instead said those users had to buy the same laptop for more money online -- which seems like a classic bait and switch policy. UK consumer protection laws may be different, but it would seem fairly standard that if you promise a certain price during a promotion without saying something like "while supplies last," then you should be required to deliver on the promise. That's why it's odd to see that the retailer's defense was that they had tried to properly forecast demand, but had failed. That may be true, but it shouldn't matter. If you're going to offer a discount, you need to be prepared to live up to it no matter how many people take you up on it -- even if your forecasting ability is dreadful. Of course, that didn't even matter in this case, since the Advertising Standards Authority said they didn't see any evidence that the company even tried to forecast demand. In other words, they put out this promotion without even thinking about how many people would take them up on it, sold out a few machines, and then told people they needed to spend a lot more money to get the computers. If they got away with it then any company could put out an ad, forecast just a few sales, and then tell people they need to spend more.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Implied "while supplies last"
If they intentionally limited supply then it's sleazy, but we don't seem to have any reason to know that they didn't recieve a grossly disproportionate reaction.
In a related example, people seem to have finally accepted that just because there is a typo on Amazon.com that spreads like wirefire doesn't mean that Amazon has to be held to selling a 42" Plasma TV for $24.99 instead of $2499.00. The example is obviously very different, but it also supports the idea that just advertising a price doesn't mean that you have to be held to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Implied
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Implied
He walked out with 2 of them for 69.99 a piece - I believe after coming back with his lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Errors and Omissions Excepted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UK contract to buy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]