Honesty - extreme couponing

[HEthePrimate]

It seems that retailers are reacting negatively to extreme couponing: Yahoo! Finance - Financially Fit

[augustbringsyou]

actually, stores get reimbursed for coupons. Also, a lot of those on extreme couponing choose to donate. You dont' have to get all 15 boxes of pasta-or you could-and plan your meals for a month, or keep 5 for yourself and save the other 10 for a needy family in your ward, or take it to the local food shelter. A lot of items can be kept for food storage too.

[Seminarysnoozer]

It seems that retailers are reacting negatively to extreme couponing: Yahoo! Finance - Financially Fit

Thanks, I saw that too. Look at how it says "stealing" newspapers at the bottom.

Funny how people still think that nobody has to flip the bill because the stores get paid. Yeah, they get paid by the manufacturer who passes on the cost of "advertising" to those who pay full price.

[lizzy16]

my mom is an amazing couponer. She saves so much money. Shes purchased cans of soup at 10 cents each before. She once got TP free. She bought tons. We had 10 black garbage bags full of toilet paper. We kept it in the attic and just ran and got some when we needed it. Was that wrong? I don't think so. Both of my parents currently attend nursing school. The money we live on is from the fafsa/pell grant, my parents savings and from scholarships my parents have won for there scholastic achievements.(My dad actually just went to Cali and won nationals in a nursing competition. Yay him :) ) . I know our budget is small, and I'm glad my mom has the skills to save such money so it can go elsewhere.

My mom also does the food for the youth dances, youth confrence and stake activities. She has this calling because she is AMAZING at getting food for low costs. She ends up saving the budget and making other activites possible. My mom even buys coupons off ebay that correlate with this weeks sales and then doubles them and uses other deals. She is amazing. She's trying to teach me the secrets of couponing. They'll come in handy next year in college.

The bishop and SP are well aware how my mom cuts the budget for the ward. If it was wrong I'm sure they'd jump in and say so.

My dream is to be just like my mother ^^. At least in regards to money.

[Seminarysnoozer]

my mom is an amazing couponer. She saves so much money. Shes purchased cans of soup at 10 cents each before. She once got TP free. She bought tons. We had 10 black garbage bags full of toilet paper. We kept it in the attic and just ran and got some when we needed it. Was that wrong? I don't think so. Both of my parents currently attend nursing school. The money we live on is from the fafsa/pell grant, my parents savings and from scholarships my parents have won for there scholastic achievements.(My dad actually just went to Cali and won nationals in a nursing competition. Yay him :) ) . I know our budget is small, and I'm glad my mom has the skills to save such money so it can go elsewhere.

My mom also does the food for the youth dances, youth confrence and stake activities. She has this calling because she is AMAZING at getting food for low costs. She ends up saving the budget and making other activites possible. My mom even buys coupons off ebay that correlate with this weeks sales and then doubles them and uses other deals. She is amazing. She's trying to teach me the secrets of couponing. They'll come in handy next year in college.

The bishop and SP are well aware how my mom cuts the budget for the ward. If it was wrong I'm sure they'd jump in and say so.

My dream is to be just like my mother ^^. At least in regards to money.

The Bishop and other leaders don't always intervene with every aspect of our lives. There are many things that are between us and God. Just because leadership doesn't react to something doesn't necessarily make it right. I am not speaking about your mom's actions, just saying that the lack of comment or reaction from leadership is not a test for something being right or wrong. Leadership also tries not to judge unrighteously.

I have known individuals that have obtained complete disability with support on the governments dime and then serve full time missions. There are many 'gray' areas that we have to figure out on our own.

My point is that someone has to pay for the TP, it is not totally free in that sense, it cost money to make it. Who pays for it then, everyone else who pays full price. (By the way, I hope you don't have to 'run' for TP .... just kidding )

[PrinceofLight2000]

I think coupons are fair game. The manufacturers and retailers give full permission for consumers to take part in coupon offers. If the coupons begin to be redeemed on a mass scale and become unprofitable, the company needs to stop offering them. That doesn't make it an unfair deal. The bottom line is that taking advantage of a legitimate offer is not dishonest. I would even go so far as to say that the wrongdoing doesn't always rest on the consumer's head even if the offer is illegitimate, because often times there is no way to verify fraudulent offers.

I have a friend in the ward who's about a decade older than I am, and he told me he buys MP3s from websites that sell them for 15-25 cents. I told him that any MP3 vendor who sells that low is typically based in Russia and sells illegitimate copies because there's no practical possibility of an artist or label agreeing to be paid so small an amount. I think people are only responsible for taking fraudulent offers when they realize they're fraudulent.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I think coupons are fair game. The manufacturers and retailers give full permission for consumers to take part in coupon offers. If the coupons begin to be redeemed on a mass scale and become unprofitable, the company needs to stop offering them. That doesn't make it an unfair deal. The bottom line is that taking advantage of a legitimate offer is not dishonest. I would even go so far as to say that the wrongdoing doesn't always rest on the consumer's head even if the offer is illegitimate, because often times there is no way to verify fraudulent offers.

I have a friend in the ward who's about a decade older than I am, and he told me he buys MP3s from websites that sell them for 15-25 cents. I told him that any MP3 vendor who sells that low is typically based in Russia and sells illegitimate copies because there's no practical possibility of an artist or label agreeing to be paid so small an amount. I think people are only responsible for taking fraudulent offers when they realize they're fraudulent.

Sure, coupons are fair game. I think what we were talking about though is the person who is not honestly trying out the product to see if they want to purchase it in the future, which is really the intent of the coupon. If they get 150 of the product and they would only get it if they can get it for close to nothing without ever having the intention to purchase it for the normal price, well, that is questionable. Fraudulent is a legal term that may not fit with the moral question. We are 'responsible' for more than what is legally possible in that we are responsible for the intention and the desire of the heart. If the desire is to get something for an unfair price, like the parable of the unjust steward, to just look out for self, that should be questioned.

We are also not talking about what is legal versus illegal or possible or not possible, it was more of a moral versus immoral, honest versus dishonest question.

Thanks for your response.

[lizzy16]

Just because everyone else pays full price for toilet paper and my mom got it for free doesn't mean its stealing or dishonest. Anyone could have got it for free if they researched and cared enough :)

[PrinceofLight2000]

Sure, coupons are fair game. I think what we were talking about though is the person who is not honestly trying out the product to see if they want to purchase it in the future, which is really the intent of the coupon. If they get 150 of the product and they would only get it if they can get it for close to nothing without ever having the intention to purchase it for the normal price, well, that is questionable. Fraudulent is a legal term that may not fit with the moral question. We are 'responsible' for more than what is legally possible in that we are responsible for the intention and the desire of the heart. If the desire is to get something for an unfair price, like the parable of the unjust steward, to just look out for self, that should be questioned.

We are also not talking about what is legal versus illegal or possible or not possible, it was more of a moral versus immoral, honest versus dishonest question.

Thanks for your response.

I would modify that a little bit and say that it would be questionable (at best in terms of attitude) if they got it for close to nothing simply for the sake of getting it for close to nothing (even though I'm not sure what's wrong with that when people are willingly handing it out for next to nothing), rather than to try the new product and continue buying it if they really enjoyed it. It's usually the case that when most people do a free trial they won't be blown away enough by the product to buy it regularly. It would be stupid for companies to not take that into consideration, which is why they make sure the coupons aren't a guaranteed loss by only making offers that they can afford based on their sales numbers and research.

Coupons revolve around a concept called lossleading. In effect, lossleading is intentionally sacrificing a little bit of profit in order to employ an advertising technique to get more money back over time. Sometimes it's used in the long term, to get a person attracted to a brand name that appears to be more affordable because of the discounts it offers, but let's not forget that it's also used in the short-term to guarantee a sale of their product and not to the competition. So, again, I'm not too worried about mega-coupon users taking advantage of what has been taken into account by the businesses already when they decided to make the offer.

Now, if people were using the same coupon repeatedly to get free stuff, that's where things start becoming seriously ethically questionable. That would be like eating the entire bowl of samples rather than one or two, whereas coupon superusers gather their fair take from all sorts of different bowls. That's why typically you can only redeem a single coupon for a specific offer at a time.

Edited June 30, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000

[Vort]

I would modify that a little bit and say that it would be questionable (at best) if they got it for close to nothing simply for the sake of getting it for close to nothing (even though I'm not sure what's wrong with that when people are willingly handing it out for next to nothing), rather than to try the new product and continue buying it if they really enjoyed it...Coupons revolve around a concept called lossleading.

I disagree. Loss-leading is used because it's ultimately profitable.

Suppose someone decided to give away $1 bills to attract people to his new store. Then lots of people show up at his store, collect their $1 bill, and then leave without buying anything. Would you say those people were dishonest for accepting what the store owner gave them?

Same deal with coupons. There may be some coupon maximizers, but clearly the retailers make money on the whole. If not, they wouldn't offer the coupons. So all the talk of "dishonesty" is bunk. If someone uses coupons to purchase an unusably huge quantity of thumbtacks, that's stupid, and it might be destructively selfish, but it is not dishonest.

[PrinceofLight2000]

I disagree. Loss-leading is used because it's ultimately profitable.

Suppose someone decided to give away $1 bills to attract people to his new store. Then lots of people show up at his store, collect their $1 bill, and then leave without buying anything. Would you say those people were dishonest for accepting what the store owner gave them?

Same deal with coupons. There may be some coupon maximizers, but clearly the retailers make money on the whole. If not, they wouldn't offer the coupons. So all the talk of "dishonesty" is bunk. If someone uses coupons to purchase an unusably huge quantity of thumbtacks, that's stupid, and it might be destructively selfish, but it is not dishonest.

What you're disagreeing with isn't obvious to me because it appears we're on the same side of the argument and are making the same point.

[Vort]

What you're disagreeing with isn't obvious to me because it appears we're on the same side of the argument and are making the same point.

Perhaps we are. I understood seminarysnoozer to be saying that the honesty of megacouponers' practice was questionable in certain circumstances, and you provisionally agreeing with him. Maybe I misunderstood.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Perhaps we are. I understood seminarysnoozer to be saying that the honesty of megacouponers' practice was questionable in certain circumstances, and you provisionally agreeing with him. Maybe I misunderstood.

What I meant by that was that the person's attitude could be making their activity questionable. I'll make an edit to reflect that.

[pam]

Perhaps we are. I understood seminarysnoozer to be saying that the honesty of megacouponers' practice was questionable in certain circumstances, and you provisionally agreeing with him. Maybe I misunderstood.

*whispers to Vort* Seminarysnoozer is a she not a he.

[Vort]

I said she. I mean her. You just misread me.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I disagree. Loss-leading is used because it's ultimately profitable.

Suppose someone decided to give away $1 bills to attract people to his new store. Then lots of people show up at his store, collect their $1 bill, and then leave without buying anything. Would you say those people were dishonest for accepting what the store owner gave them?

Same deal with coupons. There may be some coupon maximizers, but clearly the retailers make money on the whole. If not, they wouldn't offer the coupons. So all the talk of "dishonesty" is bunk. If someone uses coupons to purchase an unusably huge quantity of thumbtacks, that's stupid, and it might be destructively selfish, but it is not dishonest.

I guess I look at it as more like a "loophole" not a coupon maximizer. Just like when someone finds a loophole when they pay taxes until the government finds there are enough doing it then they will make changes. The practice of extreme couponing maybe hasn't taken off big enough to affect the bottom line enough for manufacturers, retailers etc to be worried about it. For the big companies that produce the coupons, of course they still make a profit, just like when a few people take towels out of a hotel room, the hotel can still make a profit. Why is that an argument for it still being honest? (If there is only a little loss)

[Backroads]

*whispers to Vort* Seminarysnoozer is a she not a he.

I factually know this, but somehow I always think of her as a he and I need to stop it.

[PrinceofLight2000]

I guess I look at it as more like a "loophole" not a coupon maximizer. Just like when someone finds a loophole when they pay taxes until the government finds there are enough doing it then they will make changes. The practice of extreme couponing maybe hasn't taken off big enough to affect the bottom line enough for manufacturers, retailers etc to be worried about it. For the big companies that produce the coupons, of course they still make a profit, just like when a few people take towels out of a hotel room, the hotel can still make a profit. Why is that an argument for it still being honest? (If there is only a little loss)

Tax loopholes are legitimate when the government puts them in place and is permissive. Swap in coupons and businesses for tax loopholes and the government and you get the idea. The point is that activities aren't dishonest when you have been given the permission to perform them.

Edited July 1, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000

[Seminarysnoozer]

Tax loopholes are legitimate when the government puts them in place and is permissive. Swap in coupons and businesses for tax loopholes and the government and you get the idea. The point is that activities aren't dishonest when you have been given the permission to perform them.

You have never heard of ‘an honest day’s work for an honest day’s wages’? I guess I am using the word honest in an unfamiliar way. This is what President Kimball said;

“Are you honest in your dealings? Do you bear a good reputation among Saints and nonmembers for paying obligations? Do you live within your means? Do you only borrow what you have reasonable chance to repay? Do you oppress the employee? Do you give an honest day’s work for your wages? Do you keep your word?” (See The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982, p. 194.)

Also Elder Bradford said; “The Lord also expects us to perform our financial duties to Him and others in an honest manner. This means an honest day’s work for our daily wages. It means being truthful with ourselves and all those we work with and for. It means that we treat people who work for us fairly in every instance. And it means we are honest in the payment of our taxes.”

I think being “truthful” means, the person knows the coupons are for advertising the product, not for obtaining 150 of them for way less than what it costs to make the product. And do we live within our means … only buy the things that we can reasonably afford.

Also, ““Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s”

If I win the slot machine in Vegas, is that an honest day’s wage? Again, just because something is legally possible or it can be done because the market allows it, doesn’t mean it is ‘honest’.

Paying 25 cents for $1500.00 worth of groceries doesn't sound honest on the surface, as that money saved is money earned, the person doesn't have to spend it on groceries, they put that in the bank. If I charge $500 an hour for my professional services just because I can, is that an honest wage for an honest day's work when everyone else charges only $50 an hour?

[PrinceofLight2000]

You have never heard of ‘an honest day’s work for an honest day’s wages’? I guess I am using the word honest in an unfamiliar way. This is what President Kimball said;

“Are you honest in your dealings? Do you bear a good reputation among Saints and nonmembers for paying obligations? Do you live within your means? Do you only borrow what you have reasonable chance to repay? Do you oppress the employee? Do you give an honest day’s work for your wages? Do you keep your word?” (See The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982, p. 194.)

Also Elder Bradford said; “The Lord also expects us to perform our financial duties to Him and others in an honest manner. This means an honest day’s work for our daily wages. It means being truthful with ourselves and all those we work with and for. It means that we treat people who work for us fairly in every instance. And it means we are honest in the payment of our taxes.”

I think being “truthful” means, the person knows the coupons are for advertising the product, not for obtaining 150 of them for way less than what it costs to make the product. And do we live within our means … only buy the things that we can reasonably afford.

Also, ““Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s”

If I win the slot machine in Vegas, is that an honest day’s wage? Again, just because something is legally possible or it can be done because the market allows it, doesn’t mean it is ‘honest’.

Paying 25 cents for $1500.00 worth of groceries doesn't sound honest on the surface, as that money saved is money earned, the person doesn't have to spend it on groceries, they put that in the bank. If I charge $500 an hour for my professional services just because I can, is that an honest wage for an honest day's work when everyone else charges only $50 an hour?

You're misunderstanding my use of the word permission. When I said permission in terms of coupons I wasn't speaking in terms of legality. Of course there are legally permitted dishonest behaviors. What I am having a hard time grasping is how taking advantage of a legitimate offer given by the company in the form of a coupon with their permission* can be considered dishonest. Again, this excludes the practice of using multiples of the same coupon to gain a second discount meant to be used by another consumer. If you could explain how taking what has been offered to you under the conditions given by the offering party is dishonest, please do that.

I would like you to find me documentation for any case where a coupon user paid for $1500 worth of groceries with a quarter. I have never heard of such a thing. The most I've seen saved on standard groceries was $150 when $200 was the full value. Despite that, I can't see anything wrong with the situation you present. Would it be wrong to accept an expensive television for a few dollars at a garage sale when it's definitely worth much more? I don't think so. Obviously a company would like you to begin paying full price on the product you're trying out through use of the coupon. That doesn't mean you're expected or obligated to. Using a coupon is not the same as signing a contract. The main purpose of coupons is not advertisement; they already have plenty of non-coupon advertisement. It is to guarantee a single sale of the product being advertised on said coupon by giving the consumer incentive to buy it by lowering the price.

If you provide service and professional excellence so worthy of such a fee that you would have people voluntarily pay that fee in exchange for that service, then yes. Regardless, this is a poorly applied analogy and also a straw man.

*Redundant, but I felt like it needed to be said.

Edited July 2, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000

[mrmarklin]

I live near Nevada, still the gambling capital of the USA.

Casinos only publish the names of those people who 'WIN' the jackpots, never the thousands who lose.

The coupon companies love this stuff, because it's more publicity and creates "buzz".

In reality only a very small portion of all coupons printed are redeemed.

[Seminarysnoozer]

You're misunderstanding my use of the word permission. When I said permission in terms of coupons I wasn't speaking in terms of legality. Of course there are legally permitted dishonest behaviors. What I am having a hard time grasping is how taking advantage of a legitimate offer given by the company in the form of a coupon with their permission* can be considered dishonest. Again, this excludes the practice of using multiples of the same coupon to gain a second discount meant to be used by another consumer. If you could explain how taking what has been offered to you under the conditions given by the offering party is dishonest, please do that.

I would like you to find me documentation for any case where a coupon user paid for $1500 worth of groceries with a quarter. I have never heard of such a thing. The most I've seen saved on standard groceries was $150 when $200 was the full value. Despite that, I can't see anything wrong with the situation you present. Would it be wrong to accept an expensive television for a few dollars at a garage sale when it's definitely worth much more? I don't think so. Obviously a company would like you to begin paying full price on the product you're trying out through use of the coupon. That doesn't mean you're expected or obligated to. Using a coupon is not the same as signing a contract. The main purpose of coupons is not advertisement; they already have plenty of non-coupon advertisement. It is to guarantee a single sale of the product being advertised on said coupon by giving the consumer incentive to buy it by lowering the price.

If you provide service and professional excellence so worthy of such a fee that you would have people voluntarily pay that fee in exchange for that service, then yes. Regardless, this is a poorly applied analogy and also a straw man.

*Redundant, but I felt like it needed to be said.

That is what this whole thread is about, "extreme couponing" is a program on cable TV that highlights people who turn this into a common practice of getting their groceries for essentially free. There were many, more than 5, that I saw and more and more are trying to do this. I was never talking about the person who uses coupons as they were intended, single use to see if one would like to buy or use the product. Of course, that is not dishonest.

[threepercent]

if you buy a turkey for thanksgiving you are paying less for it than the store. thats the way it is.

so, if you wanted to can 50 quarts of turkey, why would you buy them any other time? why not buy all your corned beef the day after saint patty's?

[Seminarysnoozer]

if you buy a turkey for thanksgiving you are paying less for it than the store. thats the way it is.

so, if you wanted to can 50 quarts of turkey, why would you buy them any other time? why not buy all your corned beef the day after saint patty's?

If one thinks that buying a product that costs 50 cents to make and retails for $2.50 but buying it for 10 cents, 100 times over is honest then more power to that person, I suppose. I, personally, would have a hard time paying 10 cents for a product that costs 50 cents to make (materials, shipping, storing costs etc.) without ever having the intention to try it out and see if it is something that I may want to pay full price for one day.

I think "being honest in all our dealings" includes paying a reasonable price for products and services .... maybe I am way off in left field with that idea.

I think there are some in my neck of the woods (southern California) for example that find workers who they can pay 2 dollars an hour to get the job done as opposed to minimum wage, would that be honest? ...just because it can be done easily, just have to go the shopping mall corner and I can pick up several of those workers right now, doesn't make it "honest". (Not talking about hiring an undocumented worker as an employee in a business, by the way, that would be illegal on top of the dishonesty described above.)

[Seminarysnoozer]

My sister who lives in Utah said there was a story on the news last night that specifically because of "extreme couponing" many stores are telling customers that they can only use 4 coupons of the same kind and only 2 'buy one get one free' type coupons at the same time. She said Target and Rite Aid were mentioned.