[Merged] Reminder! Code of Practice: Scanner Price Accuracy

[bubble.tea]

Holy Smokes! That's awesome! Well done krs for sending that email off!

website and flyers would fall under this description

"(b) if the correct price of the product is higher than $10, the retailer will give the customer a discount of $10 off the corrected price."
Wow...you know I never knew what their policy was on that lol. So if it's $11, you get it for $1+tax .

Sadly, $10 off $500 isn't anything of note .

[krs]

"(b) if the correct price of the product is higher than $10, the retailer will give the customer a discount of $10 off the corrected price."
Wow...you know I never knew what their policy was on that lol. So if it's $11, you get it for $1+tax .

That part has always been very clear but a lot of people asked questions about that early in this thread.

I just look at it this way - you get $10.- off the corrected price, but you don't get any money back.
Comes to the same thing......
And yes, $10.- on a higher priced item is not a penalty that would cause a store to try to correct their problem with pricing.

[bylo]

And yes, $10.- on a higher priced item is not a penalty that would cause a store to try to correct their problem with pricing.

Again, remember the history behind SCOP. It was originally intended to help consumers develop trust with grocery store scanners that were replacing individual price stickers on every item. The concern was that with the removal of price stickers it would be impossible for shoppers to remember what the shelf prices were on every item in their cart when they checked out. Thus they'd be vulnerable to grocers who were slow to program their scanners to reflect sale prices. So with the price of most grocery items under $10, especially back then, the prospect of "free" groceries as a reward for catching cheating grocers was considered substantial. It was never intended to catch errors on $100, let alone $500, items.

Historical trivia: Another gambit that grocers tried at the time was to hand shoppers felt markers as they entered the store so they could mark the shelf price on every item as they put it in their carts, then refer to those markings at the cash register.

[EmperorOfCanada]

Just got this reply from the Retail Council:

Im not entirely sure I understand what he was trying to say there. He simply bolded a section of the code that many of us are fairly familiar with to begin with. Is he trying to confirm that yes they should honor it?

If so then that is very good for the consumer, perhaps a little unfair for the retailer, and Im not sure thats the right call. However if that IS how it is meant to be interpreted, then I suppose that is that.

KRS I would love a forward of any emails that confirms it (if that is okay) if so just send to emperorofcanada at hotmail.

[krs]

What I posted on rfd was all there was in the reply.

I think the reply is perfectly clear - the key part is not really the bolded part, that's just part of the code, but the interpretation which includes a company's website.
That was part of the reply as well. It's inside the quated section.

The only part I didn't include in a public forum was the persons name and phone number who sent the email.

I did send a reply back thanking them for the very prompt reply and also pointing out that the on-line store of many retailers have lower prices than their B&M stores.
Let's see if there is a reply to that............ (That adresses the "little unfair" you mentioned in your post.

[bylo]

pointing out that the on-line store of many retailers have lower prices than their B&M stores. Let's see if there is a reply to that............ (That adresses the "little unfair" you mentioned in your post.

It's possible that when HD's website says "Product sold in-store only" they really mean "Out of stock online." To a marketing person the former sounds a lot better than the latter (in the same way that "collateral damage" sounds better to a military person than "innocent civilian casualties".) If that's the case then $7.29 is the price they'd charge online if they had inventory. That doesn't excuse or exempt them from SCOP, but it might explain why something that's not available online nevertheless has a price and why that price differs from what's charged in-store.

In any case, when a website sells a product online and also offers to show inventory at local stores they need to be very clear to which a quoted price is supposed to apply. One of the purposes of SCOP is to provide a financial "incentive" to retailers to keep their scanner prices consistent with shelf labelling and product advertising. We can all make modest contributions to help HD achieve that goal by looking for similar discrepancies on HD's website on sub-$10 merchandise, then going to our local stores to get those products for free under SCOP

[redgrandam]

Thanks for the reply.

I missed pointing out in my initial post that the item in question is clearly noted on the HD website is a "Product sold in-store only". While I see your point about web vs. B&M and that they could use or deem their website to be a seperate store, the website is also used for advertising and displaying their price similar to a flyer, especially when the web store doesn't even sell the product. So I don't see your example of "Store A has it listed at $XX & Store B has it listed as $XXX so I want it free from Store B due to SCOP" as being similar to what I am asking.

Thanks.

A few years ago they had a clearance item online, same thing, sold in store only. Of course I went to buy it and it came up full price. A little discussion later and they gave it to me at the clearance price, I didn't bother with SCOP as it clearly said prices in store may vary. I was a little annoyed that they advertise it online, with a price, say to go to the store to get it, then it's more money... If they are going to put stuff online you can't buy online then they need store specific pricing on their website..

[EmperorOfCanada]

What I posted on rfd was all there was in the reply.

I think the reply is perfectly clear - the key part is not really the bolded part, that's just part of the code, but the interpretation which includes a company's website.
That was part of the reply as well. It's inside the quated section.

The only part I didn't include in a public forum was the persons name and phone number who sent the email.

I did send a reply back thanking them for the very prompt reply and also pointing out that the on-line store of many retailers have lower prices than their B&M stores.
Let's see if there is a reply to that............ (That adresses the "little unfair" you mentioned in your post.

I completely stopped reading after I saw the A) B) part of the post because I was already familiar with the code, seems there was more to his reply at the bottom that I missed and your right his response was very clear.

Interesting response!

[Cartman]

I got denied $10 off a bottle of cough medication that rang in at 13.49 that was advertised on the shelf at 12.99. When the cashier called her manager for clarification she was told OTC medication does not apply. The policy at the counter stated that "certain medications" are not applicable to this Act. So far as I can tell, only prescription drugs dispensed by a pharmacist are not applicable. This happened at a pharmaprix/SDM location in Quebec. Has anyone else run into this OTC excuse before? I'm pretty sure I have cause to go back and get my bill adjusted.

[krs]

SCOP as such, ie a voluntary code, doesn't apply in Quebec.
Quebec actually has consumer laws that are essentially the same as SCOP but of course a store cannot opt out or not participate as is the case with SCOP.

So in your case you should call the Quebec Consumer Affairs ministry (or whatever they are called) and see what they say.

http://www.opc.gouv.qc.ca/Webforms/N...uction_En.aspx

If this is over the counter medication as you stated I really don't see why the Quebec equivalent of SCOP should not apply, but it all depends what is in the legislation.

[Cartman]

If this is over the counter medication as you stated I really don't see why the Quebec equivalent of SCOP should not apply, but it all depends what is in the legislation.

Thanks for the link. I neglected to take down the telephone number stated on the pricing policy figuring I would easily find it with a search; not really the case. I've been trying to locate the specific Acts pertaining to this legality and any included definitions.

[bylo]

I've been trying to locate the specific Acts pertaining to this legality and any included definitions.

A lot of stores seem to think they can minimize their exposure to things like SCOP (and price matches, etc.) by inventing rules. They hope you, like most people, will simply give up at that point.

A friendly suggestion. When a store clerk denies SCOP on some flimsy-sounding grounds like "OTC medication does not apply" ask them to show you where in the SCOP rules (or relevant QC legislation) it says that. If they can't produce the words or if try to dismiss your gambit out of hand, jot down the details of your encounter, e.g. date/time, store, name of clerk, etc., then send that to the people who run SCOP.

[jane22]

Grrrr! I got duped at RCSS! I got a $3.50 item free but the cashier told me that I have to pay the taxes. So I paid 0.30. Doh. Thanks for the info. Ill know for next time.

They just got me too - I even went to CS desk to ask but the young man didn't know and told me to come back.

[owenx]

lol this worked on a non scanned item.6 bagels rung up at 4.02,i said it's 4 in the flyer and mumbled price accuracy she called her manager and got them for free.

[krs]

lol this worked on a non scanned item.6 bagels rung up at 4.02,i said it's 4 in the flyer and mumbled price accuracy she called her manager and got them for free.

Sorry - how was this a "non-scanned" item?
Did the cashier not scan the bar code on the bagels to get the price? Or did she mistakenly type $4.02 into the cash register?