WARNING coca-cola glasses are dangerous!

scoobygirl

Ive had 2 shatter this week oddly enough you only have to feel them to know they aren't the best quality. At the end of the day they are glass and are likely to break.

arcon5

With all due respect, if having read my simplified explanation, you still can't comprehend the basic principles, and you still believe that a corporate gives anything away for free, then you are not even remotely qualified to pass off your opinions as fact.

If for example the standard price of a large meal costs £3.89 (and hasn't been artificially increased to take in to consideration a future promotion)...
Then a promotion begins... Free glass with every large meal, price £3.89.
The difference in price is zero, therefore it is free from charge for the consumer.

So how can you argue that this isn't 'free'?
Many companies will manipulate prices to be able to throw around such headlines, but this is not the case here.

The idea is to encourage customers to visit the restaurant more often and to help cola increase their own sales.

Many companies will issue free samples also to acheive the same results, again genuinely free to the consumer.

Then of course loss leaders, often used by supermarkets to get people in store.

RandyRos

goater78 wrote: »

There is a strong assumption that the OP is after compensation. Based on the fact that they have made a complaint, are not happy to wait 5-7 days for a callback and have instead decided to send pictures and a letter to coca-cola. I may be cynical but it sounds like they are after something.

If it was just a warning to coca-cola about their products then that has already been done.

I DONT want compensation, I want the offending articles out of circulation & that is exactly what I have asked the Uk branch to do in the letter I just wrote.

What on earth could compensate me and my daughter for such an incident happening? Nothing is going to erase the memories we have & the trauma we suffered. My aim is to avoid it happening to anyone else and that means action h as to be taken FAST, not in 5-7 working days!

System

RandyRos wrote: »

I DONT want compensation, I want the offending articles out of circulation & that is exactly what I have asked the Uk branch to do in the letter I just wrote.

What on earth could compensate me and my daughter for such an incident happening? Nothing is going to erase the memories we have & the trauma we suffered. My aim is to avoid it happening to anyone else and that means action h as to be taken FAST, not in 5-7 working days!

They are not going to withdraw all glasses because one glass smashed. It is an unrealistic aim and a massively over the top response.

gee_cee

the same sort of thing happened to my wife , she was washing up and the glass broke as she was washing it slicing her hand open.
She ended up with 2 stitches in her hand

pulliptears

I was peeling some potatoes once and a knife cut me. Can we ban those too? I'm sorry but it's a complete overreaction to want glasses banned because they break. There is nothing any more dangerous with the Coke glasses than any other, the difference being more people have that brand of glass than any other.

Can you name any other glass brand specifically? Other than IKEA probably not and I'm sure if a thread was started on their glasses you'd get similar replies.

Calling posters here scum because they don't throw their hands in the air and think of the children is despicable op and actually says more about you than them..

Glasses break. Its that simple. coke glasses are probably the most popular in the UK because of how they are given away so it's hardly surprising more break, not because they are dangerous but simply because there are more of them!

Hmm71

RandyRos wrote: »

My youngest (11) was drinking out of a free glass from Coke Zone (collect codes from coke bottles) last night just before bed. It was the first time the glass had been used and it SHATTERED in her mouth as she tipped it up to drink.

She has been left with 2 small cuts to her cheek and a cut on her bottom lip, which bled profusely. Apart from that, the poor child was terrified and (for now, at least) refuses to drink out of glasses. Thankfully the injuries are minor and she didn't swallow any glass.

This is not the first time. An Olympics coke glass we got from McDonalds also cracked after only a few uses, thankfully no-one was using it at the time.
We have now put all coke glasses out to go to the bottle bank and I am warning everyone I can of the danger.

I phoned Coke Zone UK and was put through to America, where a woman with the voice and compassion of a robot took my complaint, gave me a ticket number and said it'll be 5-7 working days before someone contacts me. !!!!!!???

I'm going to write to Coke Zone uk (who do have an office in the uk) and send the pics I've taken, along with a complaint.

Have you taken the glasses to the bottle bank yet? If not I'd take them out and keep them somewhere out of harm's way. When/if Coke one get back to you insist that they test your glasses to see what the problem is. There obviously is a problem with them as they shouldn't shatter. I do hope your daughter will be okay. Is she okay drinking out of plastic tumblers? Incidents like that, especially in a very young child, can set up phobias for life.

chou_123

arcon5 wrote: »

If for example the standard price of a large meal costs £3.89 (and hasn't been artificially increased to take in to consideration a future promotion)...
Then a promotion begins... Free glass with every large meal, price £3.89.
The difference in price is zero, therefore it is free from charge for the consumer.

So how can you argue that this isn't 'free'?
Many companies will manipulate prices to be able to throw around such headlines, but this is not the case here.

The idea is to encourage customers to visit the restaurant more often and to help cola increase their own sales.

Many companies will issue free samples also to acheive the same results, again genuinely free to the consumer.

Then of course loss leaders, often used by supermarkets to get people in store.

I think the point that the other poster is trying to make is that anything 'free' that requires you to purchase something to get that 'free' item is not free.

Regardless of whether or not you were going to purchase a McDonald's meal - you are not getting the glass for free - all you are doing is getting more for your money - ie you get a glass as well as a meal for your £3.90.

The example of free samples is totally different as no purchase is necessary to get these - and therefore there is absolutely no cost to the consumer (unless you count the cost of handing over personal details).

System

chou_123 wrote: »

I think the point that the other poster is trying to make is that anything 'free' that requires you to purchase something to get that 'free' item is not free.

Regardless of whether or not you were going to purchase a McDonald's meal - you are not getting the glass for free - all you are doing is getting more for your money - ie you get a glass as well as a meal for your £3.90.

The example of free samples is totally different as no purchase is necessary to get these - and therefore there is absolutely no cost to the consumer (unless you count the cost of handing over personal details).

No i don't think this was the point they were making. The point they were making was that nothing is free because the cost of the product is built into the companies costs which are passed onto the consumer.

Free samples were not mentioned by the poster but I believe they would also claim they were not "free" because they still cost the company something to make and give away. This cost is then passed onto the consumer (although not necessarily the same consumer).

Its a very simplistic view on business and I don't agree with the argument. As in real terms to the consumer these glasses are free.

Calmdown

goater78 wrote: »

No i don't think this was the point they were making. The point they were making was that nothing is free because the cost of the product is built into the companies costs which are passed onto the consumer.

Free samples were not mentioned by the poster but I believe they would also claim they were not "free" because they still cost the company something to make and give away. This cost is then passed onto the consumer (although not necessarily the same consumer).

Its a very simplistic view on business and I don't agree with the argument. As in real terms to the consumer these glasses are free.

I'm a new poster on here but have been reading the forum for some years.

As a retired businessman I thought I should make a comment here.

The argument over 'freebies' and whether they are free has been going on for years/decades/centuries :undecided. It has, generally, been accepted that any 'giveaways', discounts, bonuses etc are at a cost to the consumer - but not an obvious one.

The cost of all these things usually come into the categories of 'advertising', 'promotion' or 'publicity'. In which case, they affect the headline price. In effect, they don't appear to cost the consumer but actually do so - however minimal.