Build a Bear

lucy03

quidsy wrote: »

Then surely the parent should be asking, is that included before little precious has a chance to decide?

Last time I was in our local one, last month to chose my sons bday bear the prices & add on were all clearly marked. Maybe I am more savvy than than other people because I never assume anything is free or included, especially when a trained sales person is doing the offering.

The secret is in the job title, Sales assistant. Their first & foremost job is the make more money for the company. And any one with kids knows it is up to us to play the "bad guy" on occasion & deflect the stuff these companies aim at our kids in order to open our purses.

I personally don't think the shop did any wrong, parents need to be more aware.

I disagree, and the poster who mentioned the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations is IMO correct. Or at least there is a strong argument that could be made against the retailer here in my view. The law gives protection to consumers in this area and retailers should be aware of it.

Children are classed as being, or potentially being, vulnerable in terms of these regulations. The regulations ask "Does my practice cause, or is it likely to cause, the average consumer to take a different decision about any products or related decisions". The average consumer here, in terms of the regulations, is the child if the retailer is communicating with them directly.

Even if a retailer puts in an advert "ask you Mum or Dad to buy this product" that's a breach of the directive, and it's named as being a breach. The guidance is long:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/cpregs/oft1008.pdf

and IMO there are potential breaches in a number of areas. However that would be a matter for the local Trading Standards office to pursue if they felt fit, and they'd probably just seek reassurances from the retailer.

hollydays

I've always thought the idea was a complete rip off, but what do I know?

Hintza

hollydays wrote: »

I've always thought the idea was a complete rip off, but what do I know?

Never set foot in the shop, often to much protestation ....lol

halibut2209

quidsy wrote: »

Then surely the parent should be asking, is that included before little precious has a chance to decide?

Many a time after a night out "relaxing", I've frequented a kebab shop and am always asked "would you like salad with that" and "would you like sauce with that". The price never changes. I find it extraordinary that you are so accepting of up-selling to children.

Hintza

halibut2209 wrote: »

I find it extraordinary that you are so accepting of up-selling to children.

Never too young to start your education on the ways of the world.

Or are you suggesting the shops sales tactics need regulated?

Parents can say NO!

lucy03

Hintza wrote: »

Never too young to start your education on the ways of the world.

Or are you suggesting the shops sales tactics need regulated?

Parents can say NO!

They can if the retailer directs their questions to them. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations would treat the situation very differently if the same questions are asked to the parents or their children, as there is a measure of vulnerability in the regulations.

Parents should not be placed in a position where they have to say no when the retailer is not acting fairly or within the law. There is a considerable difference IMO between telling a child they can't have a toy and having to tell them they can't have a toy which a member of the store's staff has given them and the child thought they could have for free. The same logic in my view applies to extras which are added to a toy which the child thought were free.

quidsy

The parents were there were'nt they? If a little kid walked in alone & they sold them all the extras then it would be unethical but in this case the parents were standing right there. probably ohhing & ahhing over all the pretty extras little precious was getting. Not once did they think to question the price.

We really need to move away from this issue many people have right now, how it is never their responsibility or fault. The parents were there, as the ones paying & as adults they had ample chance to question the price or tell the assistant to ask them if the kid wants extras.

RosiPossum

But they didn't mention it was an extra cost, they just asked the child "which smell would you like?" Reminds me of being in a restaurant and sauces with prices for steak aren't listed on the menu. If they ask if you'd like a sauce, then it's reasonable to think it may be extra. If they ask which sauce you want you;d reasonably assume it was included.

RosiPossum

quidsy wrote: »

The parents were there were'nt they? If a little kid walked in alone & they sold them all the extras then it would be unethical but in this case the parents were standing right there. probably ohhing & ahhing over all the pretty extras little precious was getting. Not once did they think to question the price.

We really need to move away from this issue many people have right now, how it is never their responsibility or fault. The parents were there, as the ones paying & as adults they had ample chance to question the price or tell the assistant to ask them if the kid wants extras.

Actually the person on the other forum who posted the original question realised that they might be extra and put a stop to them. It's a bit unfair to think everyone's all about their little precious child must get everything, when it's not.

lucy03

quidsy wrote: »

The parents were there were'nt they? If a little kid walked in alone & they sold them all the extras then it would be unethical but in this case the parents were standing right there. probably ohhing & ahhing over all the pretty extras little precious was getting. Not once did they think to question the price.

We really need to move away from this issue many people have right now, how it is never their responsibility or fault. The parents were there, as the ones paying & as adults they had ample chance to question the price or tell the assistant to ask them if the kid wants extras.

I personally don't see any relevance in the parents taking responsibility here. If the gift was a present I personally think it's entirely reasonable for them just to accept the additional items that the retailer has, arguably, deliberately sold to the child and not to them. The result might otherwise be a child that was upset and it seems a particularly inopportune time to teach them about life when they thought they were getting a present.

That they might afterwards query the selling practices of the business seem reasonable to me. And there is certainly an argument that the business is in breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulation.

It would be possible for Tesco to place staff in their stores giving children a chocolate and then saying to parents "that's £1 if your children want to keep it". For obvious reasons, they don't. I wouldn't consider those parents who let their kids keep the chocolate as at fault or seeing to blame others, but I would understand their irritation.

I've never encountered a retailer in toy-shops (or any other for that matter), when I've had children with me, that has acted in this manner. I personally can't see why the retailer can't say to the parent "would you like any extras?" so the parent can make the choice.