Circuit City ad error

[misha]

A while ago there was a discussion about a mistake in Compactfash pricing by buy.com. This weekend I got a foldout Circuit City stores ad in a copy of Washington Post which showed the Fuji 1300 with a photo (a 1.3 megapixel camera with a fixed lens), but the specs said "2.1 megapixels, a 3x optical zoom, and there was an insert on top of the camera's photo - "2.1 megapixels" (while the text on the actual camera's body in the photo said "1.3 megapixels"). The price given was $249 - obviously for the 1.3 megapixel model. I wonder if those customers who came to a CC store to get a 2-megapixel 3x zoom camera for $249 are entitled to any compensation from Circuit City (I'm not interested in that particular model, just as a matter of curiosity as to what recourse the customers might have, since formally the store can point to the photo which shows "1.3 megapixels" on the camera - it's quite small though compared to the "2.1 megapixels" banner).

Misha

 

[misha]

A while ago there was a discussion about a mistake in Compactfash
pricing

Correction: CompacFLash, of course.

 

[misha]

A while ago there was a discussion about a mistake in Compactfash
pricing

Correction: CompacFLash, of course.

D'oh! Again: CompactFLash - now, that looks OK finally (I wish there was an option to edit one's own posts like on Steves-digicams forum).

Misha

 

[harry]

Stores with print errors typically had a small correction disclaimer in the paper (hard for the consumers to find, but always posted at the store) to invalid any sale price errors. I have tried other times to "take advantage" of such similar errors and almost always found out that the stores noticed the errors before the consumers.

So, I'd forget about this and try to get an honest bargain from the internet or some place else. Life is complicated enough, and digital photography is supposed to be fun and not frustrating.

Easyn40

A while ago there was a discussion about a mistake in Compactfash
pricing

Correction: CompacFLash, of course.

D'oh! Again: CompactFLash - now, that looks OK finally (I wish
there was an option to edit one's own posts like on Steves-digicams
forum).

Misha

 

[Shadeaux #25548]

That ad was the 3rd time I've noticed Circuit City has had that same misprint in their ad. They've also been advertising HP's 315 as having 3 X optical zoom; it only has digital zoom. I've never paid much attention to Circuit City ads until recently when I started looking for a digital camera. I wonder how often this type of thing happens in their ads. After seeing the "misprint" again yesterday, I swore I'd never shop at Circuit City; there is no way this could be an honest mistake on their part.

A while ago there was a discussion about a mistake in Compactfash
pricing by buy.com. This weekend I got a foldout Circuit City
stores ad in a copy of Washington Post which showed the Fuji 1300
with a photo (a 1.3 megapixel camera with a fixed lens), but the
specs said "2.1 megapixels, a 3x optical zoom, and there was an
insert on top of the camera's photo - "2.1 megapixels" (while the
text on the actual camera's body in the photo said "1.3
megapixels"). The price given was $249 - obviously for the 1.3
megapixel model. I wonder if those customers who came to a CC store
to get a 2-megapixel 3x zoom camera for $249 are entitled to any
compensation from Circuit City (I'm not interested in that
particular model, just as a matter of curiosity as to what recourse
the customers might have, since formally the store can point to the
photo which shows "1.3 megapixels" on the camera - it's quite small
though compared to the "2.1 megapixels" banner).

Misha

 

[Rick28628]

I have been collecting these Circuit City flyer "mistakes" too. One would think that it is possibly illegal. I called them and notified them the first time I saw it, a few weeks ago. I didn't want to drive all the way out there for something that was not valid. I noticed this 2.1 megapixel 3x optical camera for $249 that they had advertised. It seemed fishy, so I checked the web for a Fuji Finepix 1300 and found that Circuit City made an "error". They admitted to me over the phone that it was an error, but they had the Fuji Finepix 2400 in stock, which was the correct camera at approximately twice the price.

They have made this "mistake" so many times, that I have to wonder if this "bait and switch"? Do they "bait" you with some erroneous data, only to "switch" a more expensive camera on to you with their smooth talking salespersons? When is someone in law enforcement or other enforcing agency going to ask them to stop this? A mistake once, maybe. The same or similar mistake for the same camera three times? Who do you believe? Is it fair to the consumer and Circuit City's competitors? I won't shop there either, unless Circuit City can come up with a good explanation. I would like to hear what they have to say about so many errors. It seems suspicious to me.

So, I'd forget about this and try to get an honest bargain from the
internet or some place else. Life is complicated enough, and
digital photography is supposed to be fun and not frustrating.

Easyn40

A while ago there was a discussion about a mistake in Compactfash
pricing

Correction: CompacFLash, of course.

D'oh! Again: CompactFLash - now, that looks OK finally (I wish
there was an option to edit one's own posts like on Steves-digicams
forum).

Misha

 

[harry]

Is there an offiical place to complain? Since you've collected evidence in a few weeks in a roll, you should have a strong legal base to take some action.

Easyn40

They have made this "mistake" so many times, that I have to wonder
if this "bait and switch"? Do they "bait" you with some erroneous
data, only to "switch" a more expensive camera on to you with their
smooth talking salespersons? When is someone in law enforcement or
other enforcing agency going to ask them to stop this? A mistake
once, maybe. The same or similar mistake for the same camera three
times? Who do you believe? Is it fair to the consumer and Circuit
City's competitors? I won't shop there either, unless Circuit City
can come up with a good explanation. I would like to hear what
they have to say about so many errors. It seems suspicious to me.

So, I'd forget about this and try to get an honest bargain from the
internet or some place else. Life is complicated enough, and
digital photography is supposed to be fun and not frustrating.

Easyn40

A while ago there was a discussion about a mistake in Compactfash
pricing

Correction: CompacFLash, of course.

D'oh! Again: CompactFLash - now, that looks OK finally (I wish
there was an option to edit one's own posts like on Steves-digicams
forum).

Misha

 

[misha]

This week they have an HP 315 which they advertise as a "3x optical, 2x digital zoom" camera. Well, guess what - this camera has a fixed 38mm lens. Come on, can they really be so careless - or is that a tactic?

Misha

 

[Rick28628]

Sounds like it could be a tactic to me. I think we are on to them. For weeks, I was looking at just about every conceivable advertisement out there, until I decided to buy my Kodak. I never saw any errors, except for what we repeatedly see in Circuit City flyers. I'll watch future ones, and let you know what I find in my area.

All we need is a Circuit City employee to admit that their supervisor(s) told them to do it, if it is indeed a tactic. And then legal action could take place.

Rick

This week they have an HP 315 which they advertise as a "3x
optical, 2x digital zoom" camera. Well, guess what - this camera
has a fixed 38mm lens. Come on, can they really be so careless - or
is that a tactic?

Misha

 

[Larry]

The Attorneys General of the respective states in which these advertisements have been placed may be interested in an apparent pattern of deception.

If you feel that there is a pattern of deception, I strongly suggest that you contact your states office of Attorney General as they tend to be very pro consumer (especially during the holiday shopping season).

Larry

All we need is a Circuit City employee to admit that their
supervisor(s) told them to do it, if it is indeed a tactic. And
then legal action could take place.

Rick

This week they have an HP 315 which they advertise as a "3x
optical, 2x digital zoom" camera. Well, guess what - this camera
has a fixed 38mm lens. Come on, can they really be so careless - or
is that a tactic?

Misha

 

[K Porter]

They have made this "mistake" so many times, that I have to wonder
if this "bait and switch"? Do they "bait" you with some erroneous
data, only to "switch" a more expensive camera on to you with their
smooth talking salespersons? When is someone in law enforcement or
other enforcing agency going to ask them to stop this? A mistake
once, maybe. The same or similar mistake for the same camera three
times? Who do you believe? Is it fair to the consumer and Circuit
City's competitors? I won't shop there either, unless Circuit City
can come up with a good explanation. I would like to hear what
they have to say about so many errors. It seems suspicious to me.

So, I'd forget about this and try to get an honest bargain from the
internet or some place else. Life is complicated enough, and
digital photography is supposed to be fun and not frustrating.

Easyn40

A while ago there was a discussion about a mistake in Compactfash
pricing

Correction: CompacFLash, of course.

D'oh! Again: CompactFLash - now, that looks OK finally (I wish
there was an option to edit one's own posts like on Steves-digicams
forum).

Misha

 

[K Porter]

K Porter wrote:
I was able to snag one of these at the advertised price!!
The ad came out in the sunday paper, and after several weeks
of reviewing cameras, i recognized the ad mistake instantly.
The Mrs. & I ran down to our nearest circuit city that early
afternoon, and grabbed a flyer at the entrance, told the salesman
that we wanted to purchase the camera in the flyer. the salesman
took our monies, and we went to the desk to pick it up..
When the "wrong" camera was given to us, we, of course,
complained that THIS was the wrong camera, and had NONE of
the features that the ad described.... The manager and salesperson
looked for a retraction to the ad, and finding none, offered to give
us the camera (2400z), stated in the ad, for the (1300z) price.
Additionally, it also included an extra 16meg smartmedia card, as
also stated in the ad, for free....
Not a bad deal at all , and the camera works very well. I have made
several excellent 8x10's, with great color and contrast, both
indoors and out.

They have made this "mistake" so many times, that I have to wonder
if this "bait and switch"? Do they "bait" you with some erroneous
data, only to "switch" a more expensive camera on to you with their
smooth talking salespersons? When is someone in law enforcement or
other enforcing agency going to ask them to stop this? A mistake
once, maybe. The same or similar mistake for the same camera three
times? Who do you believe? Is it fair to the consumer and Circuit
City's competitors? I won't shop there either, unless Circuit City
can come up with a good explanation. I would like to hear what
they have to say about so many errors. It seems suspicious to me.

So, I'd forget about this and try to get an honest bargain from the
internet or some place else. Life is complicated enough, and
digital photography is supposed to be fun and not frustrating.

Easyn40

A while ago there was a discussion about a mistake in Compactfash
pricing

Correction: CompacFLash, of course.

D'oh! Again: CompactFLash - now, that looks OK finally (I wish
there was an option to edit one's own posts like on Steves-digicams
forum).

Misha

 

[misha]

K Porter wrote:
I was able to snag one of these at the advertised price!!

Good for you!

Misha

 

[MichaelT #27453]

Seems obvious that the people making the ads are stupid. Also quite obvious that the people trying to take advantage of the mistake are thieves. Who's worse?

Maybe the stupid people at Circuit City can sue the Thieves who knowingly stole a camera from their store (if only they were smart enough to look in this forum) How about someone email a the post to Circuit City.....

Easyn40

They have made this "mistake" so many times, that I have to wonder
if this "bait and switch"? Do they "bait" you with some erroneous
data, only to "switch" a more expensive camera on to you with their
smooth talking salespersons? When is someone in law enforcement or
other enforcing agency going to ask them to stop this? A mistake
once, maybe. The same or similar mistake for the same camera three
times? Who do you believe? Is it fair to the consumer and Circuit
City's competitors? I won't shop there either, unless Circuit City
can come up with a good explanation. I would like to hear what
they have to say about so many errors. It seems suspicious to me.

So, I'd forget about this and try to get an honest bargain from the
internet or some place else. Life is complicated enough, and
digital photography is supposed to be fun and not frustrating.

Easyn40

A while ago there was a discussion about a mistake in Compactfash
pricing

Correction: CompacFLash, of course.

D'oh! Again: CompactFLash - now, that looks OK finally (I wish
there was an option to edit one's own posts like on Steves-digicams
forum).

Misha

 

[harry]

http://www.JandR.com is selling Fuji MX-2400 for $399 with 2 mp and 3x optical. Great honest price and I have ordered from them. Forget about Circuit City.

Easyn40

A while ago there was a discussion about a mistake in Compactfash
pricing by buy.com. This weekend I got a foldout Circuit City
stores ad in a copy of Washington Post which showed the Fuji 1300
with a photo (a 1.3 megapixel camera with a fixed lens), but the
specs said "2.1 megapixels, a 3x optical zoom, and there was an
insert on top of the camera's photo - "2.1 megapixels" (while the
text on the actual camera's body in the photo said "1.3
megapixels"). The price given was $249 - obviously for the 1.3
megapixel model. I wonder if those customers who came to a CC store
to get a 2-megapixel 3x zoom camera for $249 are entitled to any
compensation from Circuit City (I'm not interested in that
particular model, just as a matter of curiosity as to what recourse
the customers might have, since formally the store can point to the
photo which shows "1.3 megapixels" on the camera - it's quite small
though compared to the "2.1 megapixels" banner).

Misha

 

[Rick28628]

The issue here is not whether people are trying to take advantage of mistakes, but are they mistakes at all in the first place? Please read all these posts, to capture the whole theme of what we have been discussing. It's quite interesting. A lot of persons on this post contribute what they have discovered. It appears to be happening nationwide. I encourage others to report what they find.

Circuit City did it again this Sunday in my area. They advertised a HP Photosmart "315" 2.1 megapixel digital camera with 3x optical, and 2x digital in their flyer for $299.99. I believe that this should have been identified as a "C315" camera that has no optical zoom and is 2.5x digital (maximum). Could someone verify that for me? Can you really buy a brand new (complete with cables and software etc.) Hewlett Packard digital camera with 2.1 megapixel resolution and 3x optical zoom for that low of a price?

There is a pattern of what appears to be deceptive advertising for many weeks now. Why notify Circuit City of this post? Have not thousands of customers notified Circuit City of these errors? For one, I know that I have discussed one of their "errors" over the phone. I didn't want to drive all the way out there for their "bait", only to be "switched" to a more expensive digital camera, by a fast talking salesperson. Over the phone, they were not willing to sell me the more expensive camera, for the lower price due to their advertising "error".

If Circuit City were obligated to pay for their "mistakes", then maybe they would have less mistakes. Who is the thief and who is the victim? The thief is the one that is dishonest and the victims are the unknowing customers and the honest competitors who suffer sales as a result.

Maybe the stupid people at Circuit City can sue the Thieves who
knowingly stole a camera from their store (if only they were smart
enough to look in this forum) How about someone email a the post to
Circuit City.....

Easyn40

They have made this "mistake" so many times, that I have to wonder
if this "bait and switch"? Do they "bait" you with some erroneous
data, only to "switch" a more expensive camera on to you with their
smooth talking salespersons? When is someone in law enforcement or
other enforcing agency going to ask them to stop this? A mistake
once, maybe. The same or similar mistake for the same camera three
times? Who do you believe? Is it fair to the consumer and Circuit
City's competitors? I won't shop there either, unless Circuit City
can come up with a good explanation. I would like to hear what
they have to say about so many errors. It seems suspicious to me.

So, I'd forget about this and try to get an honest bargain from the
internet or some place else. Life is complicated enough, and
digital photography is supposed to be fun and not frustrating.

Easyn40

A while ago there was a discussion about a mistake in Compactfash
pricing

Correction: CompacFLash, of course.

D'oh! Again: CompactFLash - now, that looks OK finally (I wish
there was an option to edit one's own posts like on Steves-digicams
forum).

Misha

 

[MichaelT #27453]

Stealing is stealing.....no matter what you call it or how you attempt to justify it. Circuit City is not the only company that has advertising problems. I saw a 36inch Toshiba Television at Fry's for $399. I thought I had hit the jackpot.......it was an advertising error.

In regards to the salespeople at CC. I overheard a conversation between a salesman and a potential digital camera customer. The customer asks the salesman.....what is the difference between digital and film cameras. The salesman responds.......digital is more accurate......Lesson learned....anyone who listens to a minimum wage salesman (without doing research of their own) deserves what they get.

Circuit City did it again this Sunday in my area. They advertised
a HP Photosmart "315" 2.1 megapixel digital camera with 3x optical,
and 2x digital in their flyer for $299.99. I believe that this
should have been identified as a "C315" camera that has no optical
zoom and is 2.5x digital (maximum). Could someone verify that for
me? Can you really buy a brand new (complete with cables and
software etc.) Hewlett Packard digital camera with 2.1 megapixel
resolution and 3x optical zoom for that low of a price?

There is a pattern of what appears to be deceptive advertising for
many weeks now. Why notify Circuit City of this post? Have not
thousands of customers notified Circuit City of these errors? For
one, I know that I have discussed one of their "errors" over the
phone. I didn't want to drive all the way out there for their
"bait", only to be "switched" to a more expensive digital camera,
by a fast talking salesperson. Over the phone, they were not
willing to sell me the more expensive camera, for the lower price
due to their advertising "error".

If Circuit City were obligated to pay for their "mistakes", then
maybe they would have less mistakes. Who is the thief and who is
the victim? The thief is the one that is dishonest and the victims
are the unknowing customers and the honest competitors who suffer
sales as a result.

Maybe the stupid people at Circuit City can sue the Thieves who
knowingly stole a camera from their store (if only they were smart
enough to look in this forum) How about someone email a the post to
Circuit City.....

Easyn40

They have made this "mistake" so many times, that I have to wonder
if this "bait and switch"? Do they "bait" you with some erroneous
data, only to "switch" a more expensive camera on to you with their
smooth talking salespersons? When is someone in law enforcement or
other enforcing agency going to ask them to stop this? A mistake
once, maybe. The same or similar mistake for the same camera three
times? Who do you believe? Is it fair to the consumer and Circuit
City's competitors? I won't shop there either, unless Circuit City
can come up with a good explanation. I would like to hear what
they have to say about so many errors. It seems suspicious to me.

So, I'd forget about this and try to get an honest bargain from the
internet or some place else. Life is complicated enough, and
digital photography is supposed to be fun and not frustrating.

Easyn40

A while ago there was a discussion about a mistake in Compactfash
pricing

Correction: CompacFLash, of course.

D'oh! Again: CompactFLash - now, that looks OK finally (I wish
there was an option to edit one's own posts like on Steves-digicams
forum).

Misha

 

[misha]

Stealing is stealing.....no matter what you call it or how you
attempt to justify it. Circuit City is not the only company that
has advertising problems

I don't quite agree in this case. When buy.com had a pricing error and backed out of honoring the price, people accused it of poor service (there were even lawsuits) - I disagreed and argued that the company was perfectly justified in doing that (though it apologized and offered $20 gift certificates). However, when a brick-and-mortar retailer consistently publishes wrong prices (for some reason, always lower than actual) and a number of people might have made long trips to CC stores to get that item (not everyone is so knowledgeable and aware of real prices), I believe the company should bear some responsibility (it's not a problem usually to order online and find out that there was a mistake - less so when you spend hours of your time and gas). When the person who posted above got the store to honor that price that was not "stealing" at all - they were aware of the true price and the error and chose to deliver.

Misha

In regards to the salespeople at CC. I overheard a conversation
between a salesman and a potential digital camera customer. The
customer asks the salesman.....what is the difference between
digital and film cameras. The salesman responds.......digital is
more accurate......Lesson learned....anyone who listens to a
minimum wage salesman (without doing research of their own)
deserves what they get.

Do you think that the majority of customers in CC store are sophisticated consumers who participate in online forums and know a lot about hardware features and prices? Probably not - do they "deserve what they get"? (and I would expect that expensive newspaper ads are not prepared by minimum wage salesmen).

Misha

 

[Jeremy]

I would definitely contact your states' Attorneys General. I used to work in the Consumer Affairs division of the Attorney General's Office in New York State. If a "persistent pattern" of abuse is determined then a case can be opened (the first step towards litigation). I'm sure that Circuit City has a disclaimer on their flyers which states something to the effect that they are not responsible for printing or typographical errors. They would claim protection under that statement. However, if there is a clear pattern, then they could be vulnerable to litigation.

At the very least, consumers who feel cheated may be able to get some help from the AG without litigation. The main thing that our office did was mediation between consumers and merchants. Big chains like CC are usually pretty good about giving in to reasonable consumer demands brought via tha AG.

Larry

All we need is a Circuit City employee to admit that their
supervisor(s) told them to do it, if it is indeed a tactic. And
then legal action could take place.

Rick

This week they have an HP 315 which they advertise as a "3x
optical, 2x digital zoom" camera. Well, guess what - this camera
has a fixed 38mm lens. Come on, can they really be so careless - or
is that a tactic?

Misha

 

[MichaelT #27453]

I suppose that you think that women who wear tight jeans deserve to be rapped. People who leave their car door unlock deserve to be robbed. People who ride motorcycles without a helmet deserve to be killed. After all these people invite problems into their lives......or maybe you are the other extreme .....a victo-crat. No personal responsibility......."I'll just file a lawsuit!"......."It's THEIR fault..."

A thief is a thief.

Stealing is stealing.....no matter what you call it or how you
attempt to justify it. Circuit City is not the only company that
has advertising problems

I don't quite agree in this case. When buy.com had a pricing error
and backed out of honoring the price, people accused it of poor
service (there were even lawsuits) - I disagreed and argued that
the company was perfectly justified in doing that (though it
apologized and offered $20 gift certificates). However, when a
brick-and-mortar retailer consistently publishes wrong prices
(for some reason, always lower than actual) and a number of people
might have made long trips to CC stores to get that item (not
everyone is so knowledgeable and aware of real prices), I believe
the company should bear some responsibility (it's not a problem
usually to order online and find out that there was a mistake -
less so when you spend hours of your time and gas). When the person
who posted above got the store to honor that price that was not
"stealing" at all - they were aware of the true price and the error
and chose to deliver.

Misha

In regards to the salespeople at CC. I overheard a conversation
between a salesman and a potential digital camera customer. The
customer asks the salesman.....what is the difference between
digital and film cameras. The salesman responds.......digital is
more accurate......Lesson learned....anyone who listens to a
minimum wage salesman (without doing research of their own)
deserves what they get.

Do you think that the majority of customers in CC store are
sophisticated consumers who participate in online forums and know a
lot about hardware features and prices? Probably not - do they
"deserve what they get"? (and I would expect that expensive
newspaper ads are not prepared by minimum wage salesmen).

Misha