Retailer advertised 40% discount then a few days later increased original price by 25%

y3sitsm3

arthurfowler said:

y3sitsm3 said:

Money_Grabber13579 said:

suzyq2909 said:

So the standard price was £43 (give or take a few pence), sale started on 14th Jan, discounted by 40% so sale price was £25ish. I went in to buy yesterday (18th) only to find the standard price had now increased by almost 25% to over £56 so the new sale price was £34. Just feels like rather than saying it’s on sale at 25% discount they put the price up & say 40%. 

I guess it might also depend what happens after the sale finishes. If it goes back to £56 and stays there, it’s likely going to be difficult to take any action, particularly given we’re in a time of high inflation. However, if it then eventually returns to something close to £43, then that would seem to be indicative of a misleading practice.

It's a discount rather than a sale price.

The retailer is free to do as they wish as the discount remains constant.

They are not. There are guidelines which they must adhere to or they can receive huge fines for misleading consumers. 

As I said this is (at least according to the OP) a discount rather than a sale.  "Here's a 40% off code (PS we jacked up the base price)" is fine.  "Now 40% off (PS we jacked up the base price)" is not.

Companies are free to change their prices when they're offering an x% off code.  Perhaps the OP didn't mean it was a discount code and it was a sale, but I'm only going off what they said.  If I assumed the OP meant it was a sale I'd probably  have someone going for my throat for making an assumption.

Damned if you do...

Manxman_in_exile

Yeah.  I don't think the OP has been clear enough to determine whether there is anything questionable happening here or not.

suzyq2909

Oh gosh bit of a minefield. I’ll try to be clearer…. When the sale started the item had 40% off the “regular price” (their wording). Then about 4 days later, still on sale, the “regular price” increased by about 25%.   No discount codes.

does this help?

y3sitsm3

suzyq2909 said:

Oh gosh bit of a minefield. I’ll try to be clearer…. When the sale started the item had 40% off the “regular price” (their wording). Then about 4 days later, still on sale, the “regular price” increased by about 25%.   No discount codes.

does this help?

If they're not saying it's 40% off the regular price then I don't see it being an issue.  Perhaps a link to the actual site would be more helpful than everyone playing a guessing game.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Discount code or sale doesn't really matter, I don't think offering a general 40% discount code to everyone and then jacking the prices up for the period of the event would be acceptable either. If the OP had a one off code just for them I assume they wouldn't be asking the question.

Manxman_in_exile said:

But is it the case that anybody has been deceived or misled here?  The retailer appears to have been reasonably transparent about what has happened here, otherwise I don't see how the OP would have been able to deduce the following:

suzyq2909 said:

So the standard price was £43 (give or take a few pence), sale started on 14th Jan, discounted by 40% so sale price was £25ish. I went in to buy yesterday (18th) only to find the standard price had now increased by almost 25% to over £56 so the new sale price was £34. Just feels like rather than saying it’s on sale at 25% discount they put the price up & say 40%. 

If what suzyq calls the "standard" price has genuinely increased by 25% (and I can think of many valid reasons why it might have done) then if the sale price is still 40% lower than the "new standard" price, then I'm not sure that it's a problem.  And if the item remains at the new standard price after the sale ends, then it's definitely not a problem as you could have bought it during the sale at a 40% lower price than you could after the sale.

What I'm trying to say - perhaps not very effectively - is that the OP hasn't provided enough info to allow anybody to decide if this is dodgy or not.  All that's happened is the OP thinks "That doesn't sound right", but they don't know enough to be able to say whether it is or not...

I don't see much difference between jacking up the price the day before and then offering 50% and jacking up the price midway through a promotion and retaining the claim the consumer is still saving 50% despite paying more.

I think the question is did one item go up in price or everything, if it's one item then its likely that it has gone up naturally and the site software is just carrying on the 50% promotion with the new price. If everything has gone up then perhaps it would appear to be deceptive. 

Pricing used to be covered under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and there was a specific code of conduct which went in to a lot of detail, available here for anyone interested (info at the link no longer applies):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2705/made

Many have probably heard of the old rule that something had to be at a price for more than 28 days in the last 6 months for a comparison to be made but there was also intervening prices where you could make a series of reductions without the 28 day rule and instead have to show detailed info on prices, the highest price had to be shown as well as all intervening prices so consumers had access to all the info to make a fair decision (surprisingly, Argos were good at this and such info was on the product pages online). 

This has all been replaced with unfair trading regs which seem to cover everything rather than just prices but are less specific on each point.

For example the old code of conduct used to prohibit comparisons against RRP if that wasn't the price the item was commonly sold at. You'll now find a lot of items on Amazon (that they are selling) with a saving against an RRP, camelcamelcamel can show the item hasn't been sold at the RRP for at least a year, presumably Amazon will interpret the current laws to their advance until such time as it's challenged. 

This is perhaps an example of where consumers have lost some protections from the laws being updated. 

Ultimately there are few times a discount is real, most of the time it's marketing nonsense that for some reason seems to work, the idea that'll we'll lose out encourages us to buy now rather than later even if we all know for example that the DFS sale will never end. 

jon81uk

pinkshoes said:

I thought retailers had to state how long a product had previously been on sale at a certain price before discounting? e.g. I've seen many sales where it states "product previous priced at £x between <date> and <date>. And I'm also thinking there was supposed to be a minimum time period that they offer goods for sale at the higher price before applying a discount??


This was to stop them bumping up the price then claiming a misleading discount. 

No those rules were removed because too many places were specifically pricing goods higher in one store between certain dates and then printing on all the posters "product on sale at X store between X and X at the higher price" as a get-out.
Now the rules are more generic about not trying to mislead as above.
This is about the removal of that rule No more "28 day" rule – pricing and promotions under the spotlight | marketinglaw (osborneclarke.com)

y3sitsm3

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Discount code or sale doesn't really matter, I don't think offering a general 40% discount code to everyone and then jacking the prices up for the period of the event would be acceptable either. If the OP had a one off code just for them I assume they wouldn't be asking the question.

Manxman_in_exile said:

But is it the case that anybody has been deceived or misled here?  The retailer appears to have been reasonably transparent about what has happened here, otherwise I don't see how the OP would have been able to deduce the following:

suzyq2909 said:

So the standard price was £43 (give or take a few pence), sale started on 14th Jan, discounted by 40% so sale price was £25ish. I went in to buy yesterday (18th) only to find the standard price had now increased by almost 25% to over £56 so the new sale price was £34. Just feels like rather than saying it’s on sale at 25% discount they put the price up & say 40%. 

If what suzyq calls the "standard" price has genuinely increased by 25% (and I can think of many valid reasons why it might have done) then if the sale price is still 40% lower than the "new standard" price, then I'm not sure that it's a problem.  And if the item remains at the new standard price after the sale ends, then it's definitely not a problem as you could have bought it during the sale at a 40% lower price than you could after the sale.

What I'm trying to say - perhaps not very effectively - is that the OP hasn't provided enough info to allow anybody to decide if this is dodgy or not.  All that's happened is the OP thinks "That doesn't sound right", but they don't know enough to be able to say whether it is or not...

I don't see much difference between jacking up the price the day before and then offering 50% and jacking up the price midway through a promotion and retaining the claim the consumer is still saving 50% despite paying more.

I think the question is did one item go up in price or everything, if it's one item then its likely that it has gone up naturally and the site software is just carrying on the 50% promotion with the new price. If everything has gone up then perhaps it would appear to be deceptive. 

Pricing used to be covered under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and there was a specific code of conduct which went in to a lot of detail, available here for anyone interested (info at the link no longer applies):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2705/made

Many have probably heard of the old rule that something had to be at a price for more than 28 days in the last 6 months for a comparison to be made but there was also intervening prices where you could make a series of reductions without the 28 day rule and instead have to show detailed info on prices, the highest price had to be shown as well as all intervening prices so consumers had access to all the info to make a fair decision (surprisingly, Argos were good at this and such info was on the product pages online). 

This has all been replaced with unfair trading regs which seem to cover everything rather than just prices but are less specific on each point.

For example the old code of conduct used to prohibit comparisons against RRP if that wasn't the price the item was commonly sold at. You'll now find a lot of items on Amazon (that they are selling) with a saving against an RRP, camelcamelcamel can show the item hasn't been sold at the RRP for at least a year, presumably Amazon will interpret the current laws to their advance until such time as it's challenged. 

This is perhaps an example of where consumers have lost some protections from the laws being updated. 

Ultimately there are few times a discount is real, most of the time it's marketing nonsense that for some reason seems to work, the idea that'll we'll lose out encourages us to buy now rather than later even if we all know for example that the DFS sale will never end. 

Bumping up the price and offering a discount code is fine. It's not misleading, the regular price (if you don't use a code) is now far higher than it was.  It's arguably sharp practice, but not legally an issue.

What is an issue (a dwhat the legalisation you are linking to was trying to stop) was people saying "On Sale, 25% off. Was £400 now £300" when it was never for sale at £400 anyway, or they literally bumped the price up for 3 seconds and then put in "on sale."

If the regular price stays the same (i.e like many things now it has increased due to inflation) then I don't see an issue. I don't think retailers are forbidden from increasing their prices in general just because there is a sale on, and it isn't misleading if the price has genuinely increased.

It's not really clear what the retailer has done her. If they simply increased the regular price and the sale price is the same and the % discount has changed to reflect the new current price I definitely don't see it being an issue.  If they're claiming a deeper discount due to the inflated price, that's probably cutting it fine.  If they're claiming it "Was" the new price and it's now the sale price then no, that's not OK.

That's why I asked the OP for a link to the site, we're going to go round and round in circles slowly teasing information out of the OP. It'll be a lot easier if we can actually see what the retailer is doing.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Genuine question rather than arguing  

Is a discount code any different to a was/now or a 50% off sale? Isn't this just a modern take on the practice, with the difference being that because it's not automatic some may not take the offer?

The regs on unfair trading stipulate the price or the manner in which the price is calculated, a discount code does form a part of that manner. 

I think if a retailer was (for example) doubling prices for a week and offer a 50% discount code for that week and then returning the prices back to normal when the code expires this would unfairly alter the average economic behaviour of the consumer as they haven't really benefit from a discount code at all but have been led to believe they've saved 50% and must buy before the code expires.

Manxman_in_exile

y3sitsm3 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Discount code or sale doesn't really matter, I don't think offering a general 40% discount code to everyone and then jacking the prices up for the period of the event would be acceptable either. If the OP had a one off code just for them I assume they wouldn't be asking the question.

Manxman_in_exile said:

But is it the case that anybody has been deceived or misled here?  The retailer appears to have been reasonably transparent about what has happened here, otherwise I don't see how the OP would have been able to deduce the following:

suzyq2909 said:

So the standard price was £43 (give or take a few pence), sale started on 14th Jan, discounted by 40% so sale price was £25ish. I went in to buy yesterday (18th) only to find the standard price had now increased by almost 25% to over £56 so the new sale price was £34. Just feels like rather than saying it’s on sale at 25% discount they put the price up & say 40%. 

If what suzyq calls the "standard" price has genuinely increased by 25% (and I can think of many valid reasons why it might have done) then if the sale price is still 40% lower than the "new standard" price, then I'm not sure that it's a problem.  And if the item remains at the new standard price after the sale ends, then it's definitely not a problem as you could have bought it during the sale at a 40% lower price than you could after the sale.

What I'm trying to say - perhaps not very effectively - is that the OP hasn't provided enough info to allow anybody to decide if this is dodgy or not.  All that's happened is the OP thinks "That doesn't sound right", but they don't know enough to be able to say whether it is or not...

I don't see much difference between jacking up the price the day before and then offering 50% and jacking up the price midway through a promotion and retaining the claim the consumer is still saving 50% despite paying more.

I think the question is did one item go up in price or everything, if it's one item then its likely that it has gone up naturally and the site software is just carrying on the 50% promotion with the new price. If everything has gone up then perhaps it would appear to be deceptive. 

Pricing used to be covered under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and there was a specific code of conduct which went in to a lot of detail, available here for anyone interested (info at the link no longer applies):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2705/made

Many have probably heard of the old rule that something had to be at a price for more than 28 days in the last 6 months for a comparison to be made but there was also intervening prices where you could make a series of reductions without the 28 day rule and instead have to show detailed info on prices, the highest price had to be shown as well as all intervening prices so consumers had access to all the info to make a fair decision (surprisingly, Argos were good at this and such info was on the product pages online). 

This has all been replaced with unfair trading regs which seem to cover everything rather than just prices but are less specific on each point.

For example the old code of conduct used to prohibit comparisons against RRP if that wasn't the price the item was commonly sold at. You'll now find a lot of items on Amazon (that they are selling) with a saving against an RRP, camelcamelcamel can show the item hasn't been sold at the RRP for at least a year, presumably Amazon will interpret the current laws to their advance until such time as it's challenged. 

This is perhaps an example of where consumers have lost some protections from the laws being updated. 

Ultimately there are few times a discount is real, most of the time it's marketing nonsense that for some reason seems to work, the idea that'll we'll lose out encourages us to buy now rather than later even if we all know for example that the DFS sale will never end. 

...

What is an issue (a dwhat the legalisation you are linking to was trying to stop) was people saying "On Sale, 25% off. Was £400 now £300" when it was never for sale at £400 anyway, or they literally bumped the price up for 3 seconds and then put in "on sale."

If the regular price stays the same (i.e like many things now it has increased due to inflation) then I don't see an issue. I don't think retailers are forbidden from increasing their prices in general just because there is a sale on, and it isn't misleading if the price has genuinely increased.
...

I think I agree with that.  If it's a "genuine" increase in the regular price (which could legitimately happen) then I don't see a problem.

If I were the OP I'd keep a check on the regular price after the 40% off offer ends.  If the new, higher regular price stays at the same higher level, then there's no issue.  But if the regular price reverts back to the original one, it looks very dodgy.

(Crikey.  This is the third time in a couple of weeks I've agreed with you.  I must be seriously ill ... )

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

If your prices are going up, due to inflation for example, it does pose a question as to how you can afford to offer 40% off what would be the normal cost of the goods. 

In the OP's pricing example the company should reduce the discount to 20% off of £43 so they can sell it for £34 and then put the product up to £56 when the current sale ends. 

Worth noting Arthur's example, ASDA could have said the cost of the cereal had gone up so the 3 for £3 was still an advantage for the customer despite it being 97p previously but the ASA decided it wasn't the usual selling price and so upheld the complaint that it was misleading. 

@suzyq2909 can you link to the product in question?