Honesty - extreme couponing

[NeuroTypical]

Saving a year's worth of food for a nuclear holocause is wasteful because the person storing the items will not survive such a disaster and could better spend the time in preparation to meeting their maker.

I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. In past times, our church leaders has counseled us to save two full year's of food. Just about anyone who has been LDS for a decade, has the phrase "year's supply of food" in their heads.

Examples:

When Disaster Strikes: Latter-day Saints Talk about Preparedness

Temporal preparedness starts with a year’s supply of food, clothing, and, where possible, fuel.

Painless Year’s Supply

Seven years ago our family started gathering a year’s supply of food by simply spending an extra $3.00 each time we shopped for groceries. Today our food storage area looks like the shelves of a supermarket.

Most Frequently Asked Questions … Food Storage

Each person and family should learn techniques of home canning, freezing, and drying foods, and where legally permitted should store and save a one-year supply of food, clothing, and, if possible, fuel.

Since around 2009-ish, our leaders came out with the new preparadness materials identifying priorities (3 months, then water, then financial reserve, then long-term storage).

Are you telling us, that our church leaders have been counseling us for the better part of a century to do something wasteful? Or are those preparing for nuclear holocaust the only folks being wasteful? What about a global famine? Or some sort of global disaster that disrupts the food distribution network for a year? Or people preparing against a long-term unemployment due to health or economy or just plain bad luck? Are they also being unwise?

I see you define hoarding as something bad, therefore hoarding and hoarders are bad. I didn't see that in dictionary.com, but hey, whatever.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[LDSJewess]

I think you are completely miss reading my post.

My point was that we shouild always use common sense.

I have met people personally that are indeed hoarders because they are gathering and collecting the wrong items for the wrong purposes and some have suffered serious consequences. Hoarding is a indeed a disease associated wioth OCD. Many hoarders buy items "on sale" to "save money" and the items they buy are completely useless even though they are convinced they may "need them in the future."

Anxiety Disorders Center/Center for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: Compulsive Hoarding - Hartford Hospital, Connecticut

Sicial services have actually removed hoarders from their own homes when their hoarding practices became a hazard to themselves and to their neighbors and community.

I NEVER said or implied that one should not prepare for disasters and did not say or imply that one should not store necessary items.

The OP of this thread was about couponing and my response was that couponing was not illegal and not being dishonest BUT it is not wise or prudent to just buy for the sake of getting a good deal on sale or buying for sport.

Not all people LDS or otherwise have the property or facilities to keep one or two years worth of food where it can be safely or efficiently be utilized for future use. If you have enough food to line the walls of a store that works for you perfect. Hopefully you use what is close to expiration and replace with what you use. Hoarders do not do this however, they just keep buying and storing.

I personally do not have room in my home for enough food to line a grocery store. If I stock piled anything of that magnitude in my home I would wind up feeding cockroaches and rats. Outdoor storage such as sheds etc: of any kind is not allowed in my deed restricted community. Neighbors who do not comply can have a lein put on their property and incur serious fines. Also in many areas including where I live, power outages are a greater imminent concern than a world famine, in which case a freezer is not practical. Electricity is the only source of power and people in many areas are not allowed to bring in gas tanks for storage or fuel or generators that can cause fire hazards to the communities.

I unsderstand the churches position regarding preparedness and food storage, but I also understand that no chuch including the LDS church would want anyone to create a junkyard of their property causing health and safety hazards to themselves and their neighbors just because they had a lot of coupons to buy stuff on sale.

[beefche]

That speaks of the fact that the manufacturers never intended them to be used that way in the first place. This is what a lot are having a hard time seeing.

HOW do YOU KNOW???? Please, give me a reference to show me the intent behind a coupon.

[Echo2002]

That speaks of the fact that the manufacturers never intended them to be used that way in the first place. This is what a lot are having a hard time seeing.

We should ask ourselves if everyone did it, would it continue? If, no, then it probably wasn't intended to be used that way.

It's not much of a "donation" if the food was obtained for free. It is really donated by all the people that pay full price for those items.

I don't think this thread was ever about food storage ... not sure how it got off on that tangent. The only reason the number of items is discussed is to show that the person never intended to try it out and see if they might like it enough to pay full price for it later. They are not using the coupon in the manner or intended purpose for which the manufacturers print the coupons, which is to advertise and to introduce the product to new customers.

Someone in another post mentioned they didn't see the need to have a year's supply of food storage, so I was commenting on that. Just because some people on the show have a stock pile of stuff doesn't mean they are hoarders.

It's a 30 minute show, so how do you know that person is not using the products? I have 4 bottles of Dial body wash that I got for $1 each because the store was having a BOGO sale and I had a $1.00 off coupon. I've never used body wash before, but I use it now. I may not continue using it after I run out, but I did try the product.

I'm willing to bet the manufacturer's mark up their products so much that they don't loose much profit from people using coupons. If they did, they would quit sending out coupons.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I'm willing to bet the manufacturer's mark up their products so much that they don't loose much profit from people using coupons. If they did, they would quit sending out coupons.

If they get it for free I don't see how there is any profit.

[Seminarysnoozer]

HOW do YOU KNOW???? Please, give me a reference to show me the intent behind a coupon.

Okay, I'll buy the idea that you think there are various intents. You tell me what you think they are. You really think their intent was so they can give away their product for less than what it takes to make it?

Let's say everyone got the product for free by using the coupons in that way ... how long do you think that would last? If that was their intent, I guess they would have no problem with everyone doing it that way.

[Dravin]

Okay, I'll buy the idea that you think there are various intents. You tell me what you think they are. You really think their intent was so they can give away their product for less than what it takes to make it?

If a coupon is for off a great enough value that the reimbursement to the store is greater than the profit margin then such is quite obviously the intent unless you think the value printed on the coupon is a mistake.

As has been pointed out to you, it doesn't matter to the manufacturer what price the store is selling the product at, the coupon reduces profit margin by the value of the coupon plus a couple cents (they throw a little something towards the store because they have to process them) and that amount is the same if Kroger is charging $3.50 an item or if Kroger is having a $10/10 sale. Extreme couponers (and one is an extreme couponer by virtue of combining sales with coupons to receive large discounts it isn't inherent that one buys 150 of an item. One who uses 10 coupons to get their cereal for $0.25 a box when it's normally $3 is extreme couponing) combine store sales with coupons.

Picture this: One store has a sale on cereal that is normally $3, it's currently $2 a box and there is a coupon for $0.75 off out there. So one goes to the store and doubles the coupon and uses a 10% or $x receipt coupon from the store. The cost per box was $0.40 when all was said and done. Guess how much the manufacturer is out? $0.75, or the face value of the coupon (plus the 8 cent or what have you processing reimbursement). They're out just as much as if you'd come in and bought the same amount of product at full price.

And the store is right there quite aware of you making use of their doubling coupon policy, their sale ,and the receipt coupon. In fact some stores teach classes on how to do this kind of stuff. And in one case, a Wal-Mart, managers had to override the transactions to get the POS to accept them (they had to manually double so it freaked out over so many price corrections). So you have a store teaching people how to do such and managers quite aware that people are in fact doing what they're teaching them.

So to reiterate if them reimbursing the store $0.83 cents (I'm including the processing extra they give the store) moves the product below profitability than such is the rather obvious intent of the coupon considering it pretty much says right on there, "Give this to a store and we'll pay them $0.75 cents plus processing." And when there are coupons giving away product (unless it's something like buy 5 get one free) they are usually limited to one per customer or in some other way (there are one per household coupons out there), in which case the intent is to give away product consistent with the coupon.

[Seminarysnoozer]

So to reiterate if them reimbursing the store $0.83 cents (I'm including the processing extra they give the store) moves the product below profitability than such is the rather obvious intent of the coupon considering it pretty much says right on there, "Give this to a store and we'll pay them $0.75 cents plus processing." And when there are coupons giving away product (unless it's something like buy 5 get one free) they are usually limited to one per customer or in some other way (there are one per household coupons out there), in which case the intent is to give away product consistent with the coupon.

Right, the intent is to give the product out to one household or one customer to advertise the product or to allow the customer to try it to see if they might like it enough to purchase it on a regular basis. If an advertiser puts out a coupon in a Thursday newspaper (one coupon in each newspaper insert), for example, I think you would have a hard time saying that their intent was for a single person to get 150 of those coupons. Is that what you are trying to tell me?

In the example above, how much did the store pay the manufacturer for the product?

If the cost of the product ends up being less than what it takes to make the product, someone is getting short changed, either the store or the manufacturer. You can give me examples that only talk about the manufacturer cost or the store cost separately but it is simple common sense that a can of beans does not cost 0 cents to make and ship. Of course, they take the loss on some items for other reasons, to advertise or to bring in people to shop for other items. For the one person that is getting 5 shopping carts full of groceries for $5.00 the coupons did not serve their intended purpose. You really are trying to convince me that the intended purpose of the distribution of the coupons was to allow for a few select people to get their groceries for less than what it takes to make the product? If everyone did that, would it continue? If you say 'no' then that wasn't the intent, it may be a known loss to the store or manufacturer, but that is not the intent.

To the store or the manufacturer, I am sure it varies depending on what product you are talking about, there is a loss in that situation. There is a gain for the extreme couponer and there is a loss to the store (or the manufacturer, whatever). Wouldn't you agree? The loss is only temporary and equitable between those two parties if the couponer later comes in and buys regular price items or more of the couponed item. But that is not the case with the extreme couponer, they have no intention of buying anything for full price. (They say that on the show. "We don't buy anything without a coupon")

I had a friend who would crash wedding parties at a hotel downtown. She would go in with her date and eat the food and go dancing. There was no sign on the door that said only people invited or related to the bride or groom could come in. She never got kicked out. But, I still think that is dishonest. Is that the wedding party's fault because they didn't post a sign? They really intended for anyone to come in and take what was given? I think there are some things in life that are just common sense but require a realization of the fact that nothing (of commercial value) is really for free in this world. If one gets it for free, it was given at a price and for a specific purpose.

The other example, that in some respects is similar is the vacation deals if one goes and listens to the sales pitch to purchase the timeshare. If one takes advantage of that deal and absolutely has no intention to purchase a timeshare and can't even afford it in the first place, I think it would be dishonest to take the deal and sit through their pitch just to get the discount. From an LDS standard, that is dishonest, in my opinion. I guess I look at extreme couponing the same way, there is no intent on the customer side to buy the product at regular price, trying to get something for an unfair return. To get something for an unreasonable return is not being "honest in all your dealings". A reasonable return for the coupon use would be to honestly be interested in purchasing the product at full price.

[NeuroTypical]

Disagree with just about every judgement of dishonesty you're leveling here. I don't have much more to say about it, than I've already said in this thread.

[Dravin]

Right, the intent is to give the product out to one household or one customer

If the coupon stipulates such. Most don't have such a limit on them, thus the intent is not one per household or other such limitation that they didn't put on it.

In the example above, how much did the store pay the manufacturer for the product?

If the store can't make money off of $2 per box sales or from doubling coupons they shouldn't be doing it. If a store offers something at an unsustainable price it's not smart business (unless they think they can compensate in another area such as when using loss leaders) but it isn't somehow dishonest to purchase it. Nobody is misrepresenting themselves. The intent of the manufacturer is to give you the discount and the intent of the seller is to give you the discounts.

You seriously think stores are sitting there surprised, "Wait, if we double coupons that cuts into profits? If we have a sale on an item it reduces our profit margin on those items! That was never our intent!"?

For the one person that is getting 5 shopping carts full of groceries for $5.00 the coupons did not serve their intended purpose. You really are trying to convince me that the intended purpose of the distribution of the coupons was to allow for a few select people to get their groceries for less than what it takes to make the product? If everyone did that, would it continue? If you say 'no' then that wasn't the intent, it may be a known loss to the store or manufacturer, but that is not the intent.

The intent is to offer a discount per coupon. That many people don't take advantage of it is rather irrelevant. That they may assume many won't take advantage of it and plan according doesn't mean particularly anything. One nice for business aspect of mail in rebates is that many people wouldn't bother but it lets you lower the advertised price with a nice little asterisk, that if everyone did take advantage of the mail in rebate meant they'd have to adjust their business model does not make taking advantage of mail in rebates dishonest nor does it mean the intent of the manufacturer was not to give $x amount off per rebate.

Right now Netflix is increasing their prices. Netflix is having to adjust it's business plans and pricing it is immoral to have gotten Netflix all those years under the old price structure because they must have intended the new pricing structure all along? I call bunk. They had a pricing plan and business model that was working but due to a change in market conditions they had to change their business model (we'll see if coupons change), but that doesn't mean the original offer wasn't intended.

Another analogy would be a restaurant that offers your meal free if you can eat the massive burger in under an hour and the restaurant finding that too many people can actually do it and consequently they reduce the time to a half hour. That doesn't mean their intent was that all those who ate it in 45 minutes prior to the change in the challenge pay for the meal. It means they found their offered and fully intended business practice needed to be adjusted. Those who polished it off under the old plan are not dishonest for going against his new hypothetical 'intent', and those who finish it now in 29 minutes are not dishonest for going against his hypothetical intent when he further readjusts to 20 minutes.

That a business makes an offer and then has to readjust the offer does not mean they never intended the original offer.

There is a gain for the extreme couponer and there is a loss to the store (or the manufacturer, whatever). Wouldn't you agree?

Actually if the store isn't governed by the idiots you assume they are there is a gain to both parties. Stores don't offer sales or doubled coupons out of the kindness of their hearts, or even accept coupons (you do realize stores are not required by law or anything to accept coupons don't you?). They do it because they perceive a gain in some way.

The store is rather irrelevant to this whole thing because by using coupons, unless they are doubling them, that you are using coupons doesn't matter to them. They don't care that you are getting $0.75 cents off because they are being reimbursed for it so they are getting the sale price (and I'd argue doubling of coupons, if it is your policy, is part of the sale price). And the manufacturer doesn't care that you are getting it for a total of $0.50 because they were already paid the going rate for their product so the equation that matters to them is wholesale price - coupon, which is the same regardless of what sales the store is holding.

If double coupons wasn't considered beneficial in some way by the store they wouldn't do it. If offering non-limited coupons by the manufacturers wasn't considered beneficial in some way by the manufacture they wouldn't do it. If sales weren't considered beneficial by the store in some way they wouldn't do it. If allowing you to compound the deals wasn't considered beneficial in some way they wouldn't do it. If being able to use a dozen or more of the same coupon to buy a dozen or more of their product was something they didn't want you doing they'd put a limit on the coupon just like they do when such is the case. There are plenty of coupons with limitations and stores with policies limiting stacking discounts or even coupon use at all when there intent is that you not do so.

You have constructed a scenario in which all parties involved are getting what they put forth and it's somehow dishonest. The manufacturer is getting what they put out there, X off per coupon, the store is getting what they put out there, the sale price minus doubling (if applicable), and the customer is following the rules and policies put in place by the other parties. Yet somehow this is dishonest because you say so because somehow the manufacturer doesn't intend a discount per coupon and the store doesn't intend the sale price.

I think there are some things in life that are just common sense but require a realization of the fact that nothing (of commercial value) is really for free in this world. If one gets it for free, it was given at a price and for a specific purpose.

Some things are common sense, like if they didn't want you to use multiple coupons they'd put limitations on the coupons like they do in those instances where they do want and put limitations on the number you can use. It's not like restricting coupons or the combining of offers is a novel concept that businesses just haven't heard about. When coupon manufacturers want to place a limit on the number of coupons used they already do so. When stores don't want you to combine manufacturer and store coupons they make policy disallowing it, and when they don't want double coupons because it cuts too deeply into profits they remove the policies allowing it.

What you're doing is akin to stopping at every unsigned intersection you encounter because obviously the Department of Transportation intended to have a stop sign there but they just plain old forgot to put one up and then calling out others for a failure to stop.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Dravin

[Dravin]

Disagree with just about every judgement of dishonesty you're leveling here. I don't have much more to say about it, than I've already said in this thread.

That's probably the smartest course to take, repeating positions with increasingly greater detail doesn't particularly get anywhere. I haven't really said anything in my later posts that I didn't say in my second.

[Seminarysnoozer]

If

You have constructed a scenario in which all parties involved are getting what they put forth and it's somehow dishonest. The manufacturer is getting what they put out there, X off per coupon, the store is getting what they put out there, the sale price minus doubling (if applicable), and the customer is following the rules and policies put in place by the other parties. Yet somehow this is dishonest because you say so because somehow the manufacturer doesn't intend a discount per coupon and the store doesn't intend the sale price.

I think there are two things you are not including in the discussion (maybe not, this is how I read it). 1. I am not talking about "profits" alone, I am talking about the loss that exists if a product costs 30 cents to produce and the person only paid 5 cents for it, even though its retail value might be $2.00 there is still a hard loss of 25 cents. That loss doesn't vanish into thin air. Somebody pays that loss (not talking about the loss of profits, the $1.70 in this example). And 2. the discussion is about the relationship the couponer has with the single entity of the store-manufacturer, not the couponer - store/manufacturer - other customers. You have to take the "other customers" out of the equation if you are trying to determine the couponers honesty. The "other customers" have no obligation to the couponer.

I disagree with you saying that all parties have gotten what they put forth. In the single relationship between the one couponer and the store-manufacturer entity, just looking at those two entities alone, the store-manufacturer or "other customers" lost. Unless, you can somehow explain to me that a product X obtained for free costs nothing to make or put on the shelf and the checkstand worker taking the time to process the coupons cost zero and the electricity in the store etc. is zero. The slight-of-hand shuffling of the thimbles to justify this 'nobody looses' idea requires other buyers. Take the other buyers, other customers out of it and you can't justify it. So, in other words, the extreme couponer gets the benefit of the deal on the shoulders of other customers willing to pay the retail price. If the extreme couponer looked at it that way, I would think they would question the honesty of it.

I think the justification that you are implying though requires balancing the loss of the extreme couponer against the total sales and business income. I presented this from the couponer's standpoint. The couponer does not have a relationship with all the other customers. And yet is able to do what they do because of them.

If a product costs 30 cents to make and ship etc. and the customer obtains it for 5 cents, there is a loss of 25 cents that has been payed somewhere. Who pays that? The couponer did not pay it, who pays it? Whoever that is, whether it is spread out onto all people who pay retail price or is paid by the manufacturer or the store as "advertising" costs, somebody other than the couponer paid for it. You want to push the thimbles around to make it seem like nobody has to pay the 25 cents remaining to even make the product then you are in denial of that fact.

Just answer that simple question then if you think you have said everything you can about it, .... Who pays the lost 25 cents to make the product when the couponer only paid 5 cents for it? The answer isn't nobody and the answer is not the couponer. And the answer isn't that the product only costs 5 cents because the coupons say so.

[Seminarysnoozer]

If the argument is that the store or the manufacturer is giving away the food or products for less than what it costs to make it, in other words, the argument is that this is a charitable act, then why not cut out the middle man and give the products to any number of charities and food pantries etc. that are already established. It would be wasteful for them to print coupons if their intent is just to give it away, like some are suggesting here.

I think it is a blind view if the couponer who gets something for nothing thinks that they intended to give it away for nothing.

I must be of a different generation, I was taught that one should honestly earn what they get. It is sad to think that people today don't think it is a dishonest way to live, to get things from others that they didn't earn or return in some form or fashion in equal value, like work or being a loyal customer or money or some other obligation. In general, knowingly and purposely getting something for free without any obligation for return of some kind is dishonest. wow, I am really saddened by this image.

[NeuroTypical]

Random trivia: As anyone who has read their Work and the Glory series knows, coupons came out in the early 1800's. Folk used to buy soap in a big box, unwrapped. Then someone came out with a bar of soap wrapped in paper. People were immediately suspicious that they were paying extra for the paper. So the soap seller countered by turning the soap wrapper into a coupon.

[Dravin]

I disagree with you saying that all parties have gotten what they put forth.

Except they did. The terms and conditions are written right there on the coupon. The terms and conditions of doubling is available and written down at the store. The sales price and it's terms and conditions are also made known in the advertisement.

The manufacturer offers X amount off each product for each coupon turned in.

The store offers X amount of the normal cost of the product from the store.

The customer takes both entities on both offers.

At no point is the customer taking anything more than is offered unless like you we start randomly making up unspoken restrictions on the explicit offer.

The manufacturer says, "Here, take $0.75 off.

The store says, "Here, take $1 because it's on sale and on top of that we'll give you an extra $0.75 off."

The customer says, "Sweet."

Is the customer taking more than the $0.75 off per coupon offered by the manufacturer?

Is the customer taking more than the doubling and sale price offered by the store?

No? Then the customer is taking no more than is being offered to them. Likewise the manufacturer and store received the agreed upon price from the customer (in the case of the manufacturer indirectly as the store purchases more product to restock shelves).

The process is the same regardless of the end cost to the customer. It's no different than having the $3.50 box on sale for $3 and doubling a $0.25 coupon to get the box of cereal for $2.50. They are the exact same process, it's just the figures of the offers from the manufacturer and the store are different, the behavior of the customer is identical.

Unless, you can somehow explain to me that a product X obtained for free costs nothing to make or put on the shelf and the checkstand worker taking the time to process the coupons cost zero and the electricity in the store etc. is zero. The slight-of-hand shuffling of the thimbles to justify this 'nobody looses' idea requires other buyers.

If the seller is letting things go for less than it costs him he better make sure it's worth it to him to do so. If you use milk as a loss leader you better make sure people are buying bread and eggs or readjust your policy but if people only enter your store to purchase milk they aren't dishonest for taking you up on your offer to buy milk from you at a cheap price. If the position is not tenable form a business perspective you need to change your business model either by not letting milk go at that price or making a stipulation that the offer is only valid for those buying X amount of groceries (and imagine that, stores actually do this, I guess they are more intelligent then you give them credit for).

If the argument is that the store or the manufacturer is giving away the food or products for less than what it costs to make it, in other words, the argument is that this is a charitable act

It's not a charitable act, it's a business model, which if it isn't profitable they need to change. This is true regardless of the business model under discussion. Until the business model changes however it is the intended business model and it is the offer put out there.

This applies whether after all is said and done the product is obtained for free or for 10% off a larger price tag.

It would be wasteful for them to print coupons if their intent is just to give it away, like some are suggesting here.

That a store that offers you an item for $2 intends to sell it to you for $2, or that a coupon manufacturer that prints coupons for $0.75 intends the coupon to be redeemed for $0.75 is a rather straight forward reality.

The store offers you X off the item, they intend for you to receive the item for normal price - X, and the coupon people when they offer you a coupon for $0.75 intend you to receive $0.75 off per coupon. This is what you fail to see, unless we're discussing economic viability it's irrelevant what the end price is everyone is receiving what they agreed to. The store less the sale and doubling and the manufacturer less the coupon.

In general, knowingly and purposely getting something for free without any obligation for return of some kind is dishonest.

Not if that's the offer being made, and it is. If the offer really was getting a gallon of milk for Y when you buy X then that's what the offer would be. If the offers where, "$10/10 if you spend $400 or more annually at the store" then you'd have a viable point. If it isn't part of the offer than one is not dishonest for not following it.

Really, if what you proposed was how things work than the store is being dishonest by only informing me of a portion of the offer you seem to think exists. If buying that milk for $1.50 obligates me as part of the offer to drop $400 in the store annually that's the kind of thing I should be informed of. Likewise if part of the offer of the coupon is that for every one I use I need to buy 10 product without coupons.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Dravin

[Dravin]

I decided to just go to the horses mouth. I've asked General Mills what they think of the issue. An email to Meijer (a store with frequent 10/$10 deals) will be going out shortly to ask about their prospective.

[pam]

ksl.com - Extreme couponing craze has retailers making changes

[Suzie]

ksl.com - Extreme couponing craze has retailers making changes

Hahaha they read this thread.

[pam]

That's got to be it. :)

[LDSJewess]

I don't think the manufacturers are intending to just give away their products for free with no return; but I do not think the sole purpose is for their customers to try the product and then purchase more in the future. That is part of it, but there are other benefits to the manufacturer and the store when it comes to couponing that everyone is missing, and that is name recognition, and tax deductable advertizing budget.

For instance Proctor and Gamble have a line of products and they decide to offer coupons for customers. The retailer say Krogers Grogery carrys the product and because of the coupons they order a lot of extra product in anticipation of the promotion. Then the store runs advertizements in the local newspapers and news inserts where they advertize their of coupons fo the soap, and the brand name is again in print in the ad as well as the coupon. The manufacturer and the store benefit from this co op advertizing. And the manufacturer also benefits because the reatiler orders more product in anticipation of the sale. Since they have now already sold to the retailer, they have given nothing fo free.

Now the retailer, say Krogers grocery who has already purchased the product from the manufacturer, stocked their shelves and co op advertized to sell the product, gets their name connected with the manufacturer, so the advertizing alone is a win win.

Even at this point if the store is giving away a lot of the product, there are many who are lured into the store from these ads and they buy a lot more products than that bottle of soap. I mean how many times have any of us walked into a store to "pick up a couple of things" and dropped $100 or more on a cart load of stuff.

And when it is all said and done, both the manufacturer and the store both receive big tax credits for their advertizing budget as well as for any unsold product or free products in their profit and loss statements.

I am not in the grocery business but I am in the travel business, and I can tell you I have given away free airline tickets, free limo service to airports and piers, free hotels, free shore excursions, and yes even free cruises. So how do I stay in business when I am giving away all these freebies. Because it is a much better way to advertize than putting my number in the yellow pages or paying for a display ad in a magazine or newspaper. In the end I have a lot more repeat and referral clients who enjoy all the freebies; and the free offers are my advertizing budget and can be written off on my tax returns so that my profit and loss is balanced proportionately. We all benefit from this win-win situation, including the government because the more a business makes the more taxes they ultimately pay. And for that matter churches and charities win as well because the more a business makes the more the business owners are able to tithe and/or donate to charities.

If any business person was not making money or they felt taken advantage of, they would quickly change their business strategy.

[Blocky]

I have a feeling some companies are making money off of the extreme coupon craze. Think of all the people who are like 'I want to do that!' get their nifty little coupons and go for it. But, they don't do it all hardcore like the people on the show. Sure they get some great bargains, but then they get lazy and next thing you know, they're buying the product they never used to buy, but ended up liking, with out any coupons at all.

[Dravin]

If any business person was not making money or they felt taken advantage of, they would quickly change their business strategy.

Yes, my response from Meijer was just a restatement of their coupon policy (which leaves one assuming as long as one follows that coupon policy they're happy) which points out that they reserve the right to limit qualities. Nobody is forcing them to accept any coupons or numbers of coupons they don't want to if it's gonna run them out of business. Same with clearing them out of every box of pasta in the store.

As Pam's link points out, if a business finds a offer isn't working for them they'll change it, whether it be free shipping, accepting coupons in certain ways, ad matching, or sales.

[Seminarysnoozer]

If the seller is letting things go for less than it costs him he better make sure it's worth it to him to do so. If you use milk as a loss leader you better make sure people are buying bread and eggs or readjust your policy but if people only enter your store to purchase milk they aren't dishonest for taking you up on your offer to buy milk from you at a cheap price. If the position is not tenable form a business perspective you need to change your business model either by not letting milk go at that price or making a stipulation that the offer is only valid for those buying X amount of groceries (and imagine that, stores actually do this, I guess they are more intelligent then you give them credit for).

You are putting all responsibility on the seller, I think that is wrong. You have never heard of the honor system? You are trying to say that if they didn't specifically say not to do it then it is okay. I have given you several examples of other situations where that is not okay. If I fake an illness and go into the emergency room complaining of pain somewhere, my insurance pays for most of the visit, the doctors get paid, I get my pain prescription and the drug manufacturer gets paid ... everybody wins right? That is the kind of model you are setting up here. That would be dishonest, even though there is no sign on the door of the ER saying, "do not fake an illness". And there is no reason for the ER to stop such a thing because they get paid. I am a retired nurse, I have seen this kind of thing happen many times. But between that individual who is doing it and the insurance company, there is an inequitable trade.

The only way you are justifying this is by looking at the business side and saying that overall they must be making money otherwise they would stop. This is true, I have never argued against that. I am just pointing out the inequitable trade between the extreme couponer and the seller, only. What is the extreme couponer giving back in this trade? nothing. ... you think that is equitable and honest, I don't understand that.

What I am saying though is that they are not making any money off the extreme couponer. So the extreme couponer is getting stuff for free off the backs of those that are willing to pay full price or the seller is writing it off as advertising costs etc., and most of them ignore that fact. "I will never pay full price for anything" is their motto.

If a product costs 50 cents to make it and they get it for free, times 100, without ever having the intention of buying it at normal price then there is no obligation or return the extreme couponer is giving back in any form to the seller. In other words, extreme couponer is up $50.00, seller is down $50.00. Yes, the seller may make it up in other sales in other places, but not from that specific extreme couponer. So, as far as that relationship goes it is inequitable. Even if putting out coupons no matter how they are used results in more sales for the seller in general, still the extreme couponer got something for nothing. To me, as far as LDS standards go, that is not getting an "honest days wage for an honest day's work." Looking at the couponer's side alone!

[Seminarysnoozer]

At no point is the customer taking anything more than is offered unless like you we start randomly making up unspoken restrictions on the explicit offer.

It's not a charitable act, it's a business model, which if it isn't profitable they need to change. This is true regardless of the business model under discussion. Until the business model changes however it is the intended business model and it is the offer put out there.

This applies whether after all is said and done the product is obtained for free or for 10% off a larger price tag.

The discussion is not about what is given, it is about what is taken without the intention of giving back, that is how it relates to honesty. Please just answer one thing, if the extreme couponer gets $1500.00 worth of groceries one day for only 1 penny, what specifically is that couponer giving in return? Just looking at the honesty of the couponer, what are they giving back to make equitable this $1499.99 difference? Tell me what you think that person (alone, single, by herself, etc.) is giving back, not how the company makes that money back. How is that person giving equal value back for that $1499.99 gift they got? They are not giving loyalty to the store, because they vow not to buy anything for full price and they are not giving thought to future buys. The advertising value of the coupons would be there whether the person got the $1500.00 worth of groceries or not, so they are not contributing to advertising for the store. So, just answer, in your mind, what that one person has given back to the store in trade for $1499.99 gift? Please answer that.

[NeuroTypical]

You are putting all responsibility on the seller, I think that is wrong.

*shrug* As this thread crosses into it's 4th page, it's increasingly obvious that nobody's really convincing each other to budge an inch from existing opinions.

At the end of the day, a "fair price" is what a buyer is willing to pay, and a seller is willing to recieve. There's nothing wrong with a buyer wanting to pay zero. If a seller is willing to accept zero, but really isn't willing to accept zero, then the seller has the problem, not the buyer.

There is no ethical or moral duty for a buyer to spend a single second thinking about if the seller is "getting enough". Getting superior legal deals on stuff by following policies and rules, does not violate honesty.

It's called Adam Smith's invisible hand - I don't care, and I don't have to care about the cost structure of the entity I'm doing business with. It's the foundation of capitalism. Disagree with it all you you like - we're not budging an inch.