John Lewis - 'Never Knowingly Undersold' - untrue?

Doc_N

Treevo wrote: »

That only works if you think an organisation is one being. In reality, that's clearly not the case.

It also only works if you think an organisation can be trusted to keep its promises.

In reality (certainly with John Lewis) that's clearly not the case either.

And it isn't, as you suggest, a case of 'bashing' them - just wanting them to deliver what they promise. John Lewis has, or at least had, a reputation for fair trading. This is blatantly dishonest trading.

markwilkinson

I should have bailed out of this thread early on.

That's a minute or so of my life wasted.

prowla

Treevo wrote: »

That only works if you think an organisation is one being. In reality, that's clearly not the case.

It's one brand and one slogan.

If they can't implement it, then they should ditch it.

Doc_N

The Guardian: John Lewis: never knowingly undersold?

For 85 years John Lewis has proudly promised to refund the difference. But with the famous pledge quietly diluted, it's not easy to claim now


http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/feb/05/john-lewis-never-knowingly-undersold

And Martyn Hocking, editor of Which? says: "John Lewis is known for its great customer service, so the change to its never knowingly undersold policy is very disappointing. Customers would naturally expect any price matching policy to relate to the up-front cost of a product, excluding the value of added extras such as warranties and guarantees. As such, we feel that the amended policy is misleading and will lead to frustration for many shoppers."