MSE News: Tesco fined £300,000 for strawberries 'sale' offer

Doc_N

geordie_joe wrote: »

Yes, it changed it's name to Signet Group and is now the world's largest specialty retail jeweller.

But in the process of changing its name and corporate structure it lost a huge sum of money and had to write off substantial assets.

Signet may be successful, but despite (not because of) Gerald Ratner.

geordie_joe

Doc_N wrote: »

But in the process of changing its name and corporate structure it lost a huge sum of money and had to write off substantial assets.

Signet may be successful, but despite (not because of) Gerald Ratner.

You missed the point completely, didn't you.

In response to Tesco being fined a very small (to them) amount of money for mispricing strawberries, Broadwood was bragging that he/she had been predicting the fall of Tesco for some time. Implying that this strawberry episode would be there downfall and citing Ratners as an example of what happens when the penny drops with Joe Public.

I was merely pointing out that Ratners didn't fall, they changed their name and came back bigger and stronger than before.

Maybe they did lose what you and I would think of as huge sums, but it didn't even slow them down. It didn't bring the company down and it didn't stop them acquiring a large number of other jewellers and becoming the biggest retail jeweller in the world.

And I don't think being fined £300,000 will bring Tescos down. As I said earlier, they will just add a penny to a few items and get the money back in no time.

They may even have got lazy and just stuck 13p onto a packet of value pasta and got the money back before lunch time!

Broadwood

geordie_joe wrote: »

Yes, it changed it's name to Signet Group and is now the world's largest specialty retail jeweller.

Edit: Just thought, you didn't think it had gone down the pan just because the word Ratners disappeared from above a few jewellers shops, did you?

No "boss" I didn't. Maybe you missed my point.

I do remember that the public lost confidence in the Ratners brand. Perhaps Tesco will morph into something else and relaunch "Under New Management". All empires eventually collapse or break up.

Broadwood

geordie_joe wrote: »

In response to Tesco being fined a very small (to them) amount of money for mispricing strawberries, Broadwood was bragging that he/she had been predicting the fall of Tesco for some time. Implying that this strawberry episode would be there downfall and citing Ratners as an example of what happens when the penny drops with Joe Public.

I was merely pointing out that Ratners didn't fall, they changed their name and came back bigger and stronger than before.

1. I didn't brag about anything.

2. I will "merely" point out that Ratners (as a brand) did fall.

Also if you want to pretend you know everything better than anyone else it's "their" downfall (belonging to) and not "there" downfall. "Their" name is correct. Lucky guess? :rotfl:

P.S. I'm male not he/she.

geordie_joe

Broadwood wrote: »

1. I didn't brag about anything.

It sounded like bragging to me.

Broadwood wrote: »

2. I will "merely" point out that Ratners (as a brand) did fall.

You didn't say "remember what happened to Ratners (as a brand)......" to begin with. You only changed it to the brand after I pointed out that ratners didn't fall.

Broadwood wrote: »

Also if you want to pretend you know everything better than anyone else it's "their" downfall (belonging to) and not "there" downfall. "Their" name is correct. Lucky guess? :rotfl:

Well that's a bit childish isn't it. Someone says one thing that shows you are wrong and you start accusing them of pretending to know everything better than anyone else.

That just shows you know you are wrong and can't win, so like a child, you try to drag everyone else in to help you by trying to make them think I am saying something against them too.

Broadwood wrote: »

P.S. I'm male not he/she.

At the time of writing I didn't know what you were, so the use of he/she was correct.

mo786uk

Who really cares wha tthe wannabe smartarses would do - its well established that pricing promotions affect consuemr behaviour and I find it baffling that anyone is even considering TS for taking this case - which took 2 years and racked up bills of £65,000 which they could have easily lost if they lost the case (and alluded to cases are often not risked because big companies will try every trick to win on a technicality).

The judge probably thought 300k was a big fine even though Tesco probably still profited. The only good thing is that if they are caught again they will get a much bigger fine.

The doutbers may well have their way as it is probably less liekly a case like this will be taken on as budgets have been cut bigtime since 2011.

Money-Saving-King

Broadwood wrote: »

I've been predicting the fall of Tesco for some time.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/51426869#Comment_51426869

I predict you'll be wrong!

Lynsey

joolzred wrote: »

For the people posting and making comments in the media elsewhere along the lines of 'caveat emptor' and 'people aren't stupid & should know when a price is fair' - I would ask them to consider the shoppers who may be learning disabled or impaired and actually cannot make the savvy choices we all take for granted. Most of these shoppers are on a small income to start with & I regard the action by Trading Standards in Birmingham as at least protecting people who can't make the 'obvious' budgeting decisions.

Thank you for posting this.
I think I'm a pretty "savvy" shopper and indeed like taking on the supermarkets (especially the BIG 4). I have set max prices and consider even some half-price BIG 4 offers as "normal" prices at best.

The constant manipulation of prices are there to create confusion and the "illusion" you are getting that bargain.
Some, and indeed many, can see what they are doing and at times it even has "comedy value".
Sadly though, the vulnerable ones will/can/do get caught out.
I don't think it's the intention of the BIG 4 (and others) to just hit the vulnerable, but the issue is there.

Do prices really need to change (double, then half, then double again, then 1/3 off etc?). If the answer is yes, then why don't the likes of Aldi/Lidl change the prices of their own stuff week after week? These prices are pretty constant, although they do go up and down a little. Farmfoods/Home Bargains/B&M Stores often sell the same items cheaper than when the BIG 4 promote their "half-price" offers.

Anyway, my view only. But thanks to joolzred for posting.

*** It's not just supermarkets who try to "hoodwink" you, I remember my earliest experiences of this with probably MFI. Carpetright, DFS etc, etc, etc. - when did they last not have a sale on?

Lynsey

richardw

Lynsey wrote: »

...The constant manipulation of prices are there to create confusion and the "illusion" you are getting that bargain....

Exactly. It's all about creating price confusion and fogging price knowledge.

Broadwood

geordie_joe wrote: »

It sounded like bragging to me.

Well that's a bit childish isn't it. Someone says one thing that shows you are wrong and you start accusing them of pretending to know everything better than anyone else.

That just shows you know you are wrong and can't win, so like a child, you try to drag everyone else in to help you by trying to make them think I am saying something against them too.

Where is the evidence? Non existent. 2+2 will never equal 7.

To me you appear an expert in Chinese Whispers, you sound like an arrogant bullying know-all who refuses to debate an issue, and you seem to be siding with Tesco against consumers.

So.....going by your rules.....you must be guilty as charged.:D

"You expect me to talk?".........
"No Mr Bond, I expect you to die !":rotfl:

P.S. You started this with post #60.