Misleading shelf labelling on meal deals

RefluentBeans

So a few years ago I made a formal complaint to Asda about something very similar - they had special offer banners on shelves but the products on the shelf were the same brand but a different size (eg 500g of Kenco Coffee when the special offer was for 333g of Kenco Coffee). My argument was that this was routine - every time I went in the rotating special offer stock routinely had missized products on that, to me, felt like it was there to confuse customers. I told members of staff every time, took photos, and kept a record. Eventually the manager of the store actually came down to see me (staff must’ve been fed up of me being annoying and wanted to pass me on to someone else) - he made a comment that customers should check the details of the special offer that they printed in tiny writing at the bottom of the label; and he was just following corporate policy. So I then complained to Asda head office, and since then the sizes matched. 

The point I’m making is that you have shown what clearly could be a mistake. Trading standards won’t investigate over what could be someone putting the wrong box somewhere. However if Co-Op is routinely placing the incorrect boxes in the included offer area, then you have a valid argument. As annoying as it is, retailers haven’t yet replaced everyone with robots, and I’m afraid people make mistakes. Complaining to head offices will lead to the complaint getting back to the store (and given that the shelf stackers won’t have an email - it’ll got to the management team) and I would just keep an eye out. 

To be fair to them though, looking at the picture, the price ticket clearly has which products are included in the meal deal as they have the snack on the blue box on the ticket. I don’t think it’s clearly deceptive practices; and I disagree with Lunatic. The fact I can clearly see which are included and which aren’t from a grainy photo means to me that they aren’t misleading. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RefluentBeans said:

To be fair to them though, looking at the picture, the price ticket clearly has which products are included in the meal deal as they have the snack on the blue box on the ticket. I don’t think it’s clearly deceptive practices; and I disagree with Lunatic. The fact I can clearly see which are included and which aren’t from a grainy photo means to me that they aren’t misleading. 

I watch a couple of dash cam channels on Youtube and sitting on the sofa you can see what's coming, granted hazard perception could be better but the point is the context is different, I agree it's easy to see what's not included looking at OP's photo but if you are in the store with things on your mind, late for work, have two kids pulling you in different directions, have poor eye sight, etc, etc it might not be so easy to notice. 

It's a poor set up and having a sizable group of items in a deal and throwing a few random items that aren't in the deal in the same display could on it's own be classed as a breach of the CPRs, add in the snack banner on the shelf edge I would hope if something like this went to court (doubtful but the only opinion that ultimately matters) it would be deemed as " likely to deceive the average consumer ". 

RefluentBeans

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RefluentBeans said:

To be fair to them though, looking at the picture, the price ticket clearly has which products are included in the meal deal as they have the snack on the blue box on the ticket. I don’t think it’s clearly deceptive practices; and I disagree with Lunatic. The fact I can clearly see which are included and which aren’t from a grainy photo means to me that they aren’t misleading. 

I watch a couple of dash cam channels on Youtube and sitting on the sofa you can see what's coming, granted hazard perception could be better but the point is the context is different, I agree it's easy to see what's not included looking at OP's photo but if you are in the store with things on your mind, late for work, have two kids pulling you in different directions, have poor eye sight, etc, etc it might not be so easy to notice. 

It's a poor set up and having a sizable group of items in a deal and throwing a few random items that aren't in the deal in the same display could on it's own be classed as a breach of the CPRs, add in the snack banner on the shelf edge I would hope if something like this went to court (doubtful but the only opinion that ultimately matters) it would be deemed as " likely to deceive the average consumer ". 

The point is the image quality is low here. I can easily see what is and isn’t included. I would hope someone would have better vision when actually seeing it in person. 

I don’t disagree it could be perceived as a potential breach of CPR’s. But it could equally be a short term merchandise issue which is being rectified. It’s also which hill to die on. 

Anyway, I know you’ll disagree with this. No point debating when two people are unwilling to change their minds. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RefluentBeans said:

The point is the image quality is low here. I can easily see what is and isn’t included. I would hope someone would have better vision when actually seeing it in person. 

Kind of missing the point You can easily see it because your brain has been told specifically what to look for, if OP had just posted the photo and asked what is wrong with this then you might not spot the problem so easily.

RefluentBeans said:

I don’t disagree it could be perceived as a potential breach of CPR’s. But it could equally be a short term merchandise issue which is being rectified. It’s also which hill to die on. 

A mistake is a defence against an offence, although the consumer would still have right to redress, doing something like this deliberately but temporarily due to logistics would still be a breach. 

If the staff and/or head office thought it was a mistake surely they'd say thanks for pointing it out and it will be changed? Even if they didn't want to admit to a mistake but it was I assume it will be changed and OP can update us next time they go in store. 

Vectis

You made a mistake, you picked up something which wasn't part of the offer.

I admit, I've done the same once or twice, but when I realised my mistake I changed the item for another. Why couldn't you have done that when you pointed it out to the staff?

DullGreyGuy

The nearest place to our office for a "meal deal" is an Amazon store. They too have been misleading in the past because they have a "meal deal" and "premium meal deal", the two have different colour banners. 

Most shelves are marked "meal deal" and a few are marked "premium", its not immediately obvious the basis of an item being one or the other as there are some £2 "snacks" in "premium" but some £3 snacks in standard. A couple of times I picked up items from the standard shelf but was charged the price of the premium. Given as Amazon stores work you only find out after but fair play to them they immediately refunded the difference and an extra little bit for the inconvenience. 

After the third time I went in I noted that whilst the shelf was marked as standard a single sandwich on the shelf had the silver/platinum square of premium rather than the red of standard. It is confusing, they did the customer focused thing of refunding but having looked more carefully now I avoid that option. 

To the OP, Trading Standards would be the ones to take action but trying to get them interested in the matter is another thing.

HillStreetBlues

I agree it's misleading.
Would Which? be interested? As I remember them complaining about Tesco clubcard prices and how they were displayed and Tesco are now changing it.

Grumpy_chap

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

It's a poor set up and having a sizable group of items in a deal and throwing a few random items that aren't in the deal in the same display could on it's own be classed as a breach of the CPRs, 

I am interested in why that would be.
In particular, I was caught by a similar issue when doing today's shop.
I wanted some specific drinks.  The price varies rapidly and today's online price is £5 per pack.  Wholesale price would normally be cheaper, but I was in the supermarket so convenience has a value.
The supermarket price is £4.80 per pack with a prominent flash on every item bar one on the shelf "any 3 for £12" so I bought two packs of the drink I wanted plus took the opportunity to try a new variety also.  The multi-buy did not process at the check-out so I raised this with Customer Services.  We went back to the shelf together and then it was pointed out that one of the items I had was the only one on the shelf without the multibuy flash.
This was easy for a shopper to mistake, but I am unclear as to why that would be actually "wrong" against any rules.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

It's a poor set up and having a sizable group of items in a deal and throwing a few random items that aren't in the deal in the same display could on it's own be classed as a breach of the CPRs, 

I am interested in why that would be.
In particular, I was caught by a similar issue when doing today's shop.
I wanted some specific drinks.  The price varies rapidly and today's online price is £5 per pack.  Wholesale price would normally be cheaper, but I was in the supermarket so convenience has a value.
The supermarket price is £4.80 per pack with a prominent flash on every item bar one on the shelf "any 3 for £12" so I bought two packs of the drink I wanted plus took the opportunity to try a new variety also.  The multi-buy did not process at the check-out so I raised this with Customer Services.  We went back to the shelf together and then it was pointed out that one of the items I had was the only one on the shelf without the multibuy flash.
This was easy for a shopper to mistake, but I am unclear as to why that would be actually "wrong" against any rules.

I think it's very subjective which is sadly the problem with the CPRs. 

99% of the marketing fluff companies come out with could technically be classed as a breach but it seems certain things are accepted. 

With the OP, the meal deal is typically a specific area of the shop, I understand there are often other "to go" items in that area not in the deals but you'd expect some degree of sensible planning for a display such as this to separate where deal and non deal goods are on the shelves (unless your purpose is to actually mislead). 

With the drinks, I guess if it were the usual display and one simply wasn't on offer that might be OK, I'd assume staff can't pick willy nilly where to put stock so a supermarket would have some kind of record to defend a claim if someone like Trading Standards wanted to prosecute but if it were a summer bank holiday and there was pallets of drinks stacked by the front door (i.e not their usual place) and 15 options are on a 2 for £20 with big signs everywhere saying such but one plonked in the middle wasn't in the deal you'd have to ask why they would do something like that given the purpose of the display should be to upsell and ensure the customer walks away with 2 for the deal. 

The CPRs say

(1) A commercial practice is a misleading action if it satisfies the conditions in either paragraph (2) or paragraph (3).

(2) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph—

(a)if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful in relation to any of the matters in paragraph (4) or if it or its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in relation to any of the matters in that paragraph, even if the information is factually correct; and

(b)it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

I think 2(b) is pretty easy as you and the OP did (or nearly did) take a transactional decision you otherwise would not have and presumably you are both average people.

2(a) is the tricky part and again I guess a court would have to decide if such displays were deceptive. In the OP's case the "snack" banner on the shelf really goes against Coop's favour. 

When you look at the Tesco issue, they would have £4 - 28p/100g on the main price and then just £3 clubcard deal meaning you'd need some maths to work out the per g price on the deal. In such an example the supermarket could price a clubcard deal at more per unit than the next item on the shelf in the hope customer's are blinded by the deal and end up paying more per unit whilst the customer is thinking it's cheaper. With the tickets now showing the per g on the deal you can easily see how that 400g bottle on a deal compares to the 800g bottle at it's regular price.

It's also annoying when something like apples is x per kilo loose and x per apple packaged and things like Weetabix or washing tables are per biscuit/tablet on one item and then per 100g on the next and even if you argue such doesn't make much difference on the odd item it's the general psychology of making it as confusing as possible in the hope people simply stop trying to work it out and just fall for the pricing offers, shelf displays and other tactics the supermarkets use to get us to buy things we didn't go in store for.

This loops back to the OP in that a lot of people have effectively been trained by the supermarkets to shop blindly rather than study every single price ticket which just makes the whole thing more deceptive IMO.  

Grumpy_chap

Thank you @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

In the case of the meal-deals, I have often thought the arrangement is there to deceive (at worst) or just poorly thought out (at best).
I know my wife has been caught several times as she will pick a sandwich (main), orange juice (drink) plus pineapple (snack).  Then they stock two sizes of pineapple and the large pack is in the meal deal but (main) not (snack)...

The drinks were just in their normal shelf space but the promotion did encourage me to take a transactional decision I would not otherwise as I only really intended to buy one pack at £4.80 knowing I'd be at the wholesalers later in the week and secure the better price.  The "any 3 for £12" encouraged me to buy two of the intended product plus one pack of the new variety.  Then again, once the confusion was identified, I had the option to return all three packs or swap to packs in the promotion but did not do so.  It is an odd thing the "transactional decision not otherwise" as, having done that, the decision to reverse the transaction was not taken even though I then had clear knowledge...