TESCO...Is this discrimination??

sadielu

vuvuzela wrote: »

We all understood your point, and it was wrong Tesco are not being discriminatory in any fashion by pricing items differently.

thanks that's all I wanted to know, was it discrimination or not, unfortunately some posters chose to make a fool of me in the process.

I'm happy that others can see the unfairness however especially as the link currently being pulled up reflects the changes they made to the website after I complained. Both bikes were £80 last night although different in store, which suggests Tesco may be aware that this is unfair(if not illegal). The tech spec of the bikes are identical, both are blue, one light, one dark. My daughter is old enough to know the difference between masculine and feminine and in fairness so would any boy presented with the light blue one. It was tesco that chose to market the difference in gender and have since tried to amend the information on the website.

I will speak to trading standards though, to be clear.

dmg24

sadielu wrote: »

I will speak to trading standards though, to be clear.

Why did you bother to post if you were going to ignore all advice given?

arcon5

Even more shocking is Tesco value baked beans are 28p Tesco baked beans is 30p

As already pointed out though, the products are not the same. You can choose to buy one in colour X at £160 or a different one in colour Y at £80. The cheaper one has been slashed in half, so rather than bickering about one being more expensive, maybe thank the for offering a similar type of bike with a whopping £80 off ?

The fact one colour type has been reduced is a good thing and clearly due to it not selling as well.

For all we know, its more expensive to make the girls bike and this is reflected in the fact they are not willing to reduce their margin on it!

Also, they don't have to justify how much they charge for the different products, you see what price they want, if you don't like it then you don't buy it.

sadielu

dmg24 wrote: »

Why did you bother to post if you were going to ignore all advice given?

I posted because I thought that this forum would be the place where I would find sensible advice on this topic, it seems clear though that while some posts have provided me with the info that I needed others have amused themselves at my expense. I expected a less hostile response, so then it would seem sensible that I look for that elsewhere.

Tesco have amended the website since last night and in fairness I saw both bikes in store last night.

I highlighted this issue because it is unfair that someone should have to pay more for what is the same product when the only distinction is gender. I am surprised that people are prepared to be treated differently and accept this willingly. I would have hoped that Tesco would be motivated to treat ALL their customers fairly but TBH I'm now not surprised given the amount of people on here who don't seem to mind.

dmg24

sadielu wrote: »

I posted because I thought that this forum would be the place where I would find sensible advice on this topic, it seems clear though that while some posts have provided me with the info that I needed others have amused themselves at my expense. I expected a less hostile response, so then it would seem sensible that I look for that elsewhere.

Tesco have amended the website since last night and in fairness I saw both bikes in store last night.

I highlighted this issue because it is unfair that someone should have to pay more for what is the same product when the only distinction is gender. I am surprised that people are prepared to be treated differently and accept this willingly. I would have hoped that Tesco would be motivated to treat ALL their customers fairly but TBH I'm now not surprised given the amount of people on here who don't seem to mind.

So why do you still feel the need to contact Trading Standards? The true distinction between the bikes is colour, there is nothing stopping a boy buying a girl's bike, and vice versa.

danothy

sadielu wrote: »

I posted because I thought that this forum would be the place where I would find sensible advice on this topic, it seems clear though that while some posts have provided me with the info that I needed others have amused themselves at my expense. I expected a less hostile response, so then it would seem sensible that I look for that elsewhere.

Tesco have amended the website since last night and in fairness I saw both bikes in store last night.

I highlighted this issue because it is unfair that someone should have to pay more for what is the same product when the only distinction is gender. I am surprised that people are prepared to be treated differently and accept this willingly. I would have hoped that Tesco would be motivated to treat ALL their customers fairly but TBH I'm now not surprised given the amount of people on here who don't seem to mind.

I think there may be a slight fallacy here in that the bikes are distinguished on gender. If they are the same (in the literal sense) but one is labelled as a boys bike and one as a girls then there's nothing to stop anyone buying a boys bike for a girl or vice versa and any price differential is both unjust and idiotic (as it can be circumvented, thus removing any discrimination).

If they are different (e.g. in functional or artistic design) then there's no reason they should be the same price, as it's the market that governs the price (in terms of popularity (demand issues) or cost to produce (supply issues)) rather than a discrimination against one of the genders for no discernible reason.

I suppose I am curious as to whether or not the two bikes are identical (as is the impression I get from the use of the phrase "same product") or if they just equivalent in terms of what features a bike has. If they are the same then it's bizarre but not a problem as a girl would be getting something indistinguishable if a boys bike was bought, but if they're different then there's no gender discrimination as such, they just need to shift more boy's bikes for some reason.

dmg24

danothy wrote: »

I think there may be a slight fallacy here in that the bikes are distinguished on gender. If they are the same (in the literal sense) but one is labelled as a boys bike and one as a girls then there's nothing to stop anyone buying a boys bike for a girl or vice versa and any price differential is both unjust and idiotic (as it can be circumvented, thus removing any discrimination).

If they are different (e.g. in functional or artistic design) then there's no reason they should be the same price, as it's the market that governs the price (in terms of popularity (demand issues) or cost to produce (supply issues)) rather than a discrimination against one of the genders for no discernible reason.

I suppose I am curious as to whether or not the two bikes are identical (as is the impression I get from the use of the phrase "same product") or if they just equivalent in terms of what features a bike has. If they are the same then it's bizarre but not a problem as a girl would be getting something indistinguishable if a boys bike was bought, but if they're different then there's no gender discrimination as such, they just need to shift more boy's bikes for some reason.

They have the same technical spec, but are different colours ... Brooker Dave has posted the links earlier in the thread.

sadielu

dmg24 wrote: »

So why do you still feel the need to contact Trading Standards? The true distinction between the bikes is colour, there is nothing stopping a boy buying a girl's bike, and vice versa.

Because I believe that they will log my question, investigate it and respond politely and courteously however ridiculous they think my question is and that is more than I can say for some of the posts on here.

I really don't understand what pleasure people get out of being unpleasant for the sake of it, being nice costs nothing, surely if you think someone is in the wrong you can say it nicely. Or you can say nothing and avoid making someone feel bad for your own amusement.

So I will go to TS now and in the future and leave you all to be unpleasant to someone else.

dmg24

sadielu wrote: »

Because I believe that they will log my question, investigate it and respond politely and courteously however ridiculous they think my question is and that is more than I can say for some of the posts on here.

I really don't understand what pleasure people get out of being unpleasant for the sake of it, being nice costs nothing, surely if you think someone is in the wrong you can say it nicely. Or you can say nothing and avoid making someone feel bad for your own amusement.

So I will go to TS now and in the future and leave you all to be unpleasant to someone else.

So you acknowledge that you know the answer to your question, but still intend to waste the time of Trading Standards?

danothy

dmg24 wrote: »

They have the same technical spec, but are different colours ... Brooker Dave has posted the links earlier in the thread.

I suspect as much as the alternative is, as I said, bizarre, but the OP still says they are the same (possibly a semantic thing), so I err on the side of caution when it comes to speculating on the precise bikes in question.