Price matching

[getupandgo]

I have to disagree. You're right that it's a tough economy for retailers and one way they increase the value that they offer to the consumer is through other methods like good service and discounts. I've never dealt with Neal but I hear he's a great guy. However if you advertise that you match prices then you need to match prices. It's better to take a loss in the short term and keep your word and reputation intact. I realize this is an odd circumstance but the fact remains that the stated policies of any business should be upheld by them no matter what, to do otherwise is just bad form and potentially illegal.

You've never dealt with Neal, so why should he care what your opinion is on the matter?

It's great that you have an opinion on it, but if you haven't supported him with your dollars, you're just complaining for the sake of it.

There's a time and a place to be cheap... This is the place (bartertown). You need to realize that there is also a time and place to not be cheap. That place and time comes when you are supporting an institution (and at this point the war store is an institution in my opinion) that has come through for thousands of people and fulfilled thousands of orders at well below retail pricing.

Again; you can't expect an independent retailer to price match a manufacturers' sale. That's simply unreasonable and doesn't take their livelihood and business into account in the least. If your only issue is with the wording of the price match on the site, that's fine. Take that up with the war store, but seeing as you're admittedly not a customer, it seems kind of pointless for you to argue the issue in the first place.

and "illegal"??? seriously???

Talk about rules-lawyering.

[MEDEVL]

All too often on this site people seem to be unable to see the bigger picture. Maybe it's the lack of personalization of the electronic medium we use to communicate but it seems like a lot of people don't seem to grasp what others are trying to say.

You're right, I've never dealt with Neal but I absolutely have the right to express my concern over his business practices. If for no other reason than it can, as you claim, broadly affect the members of this hobby which many of us hold so dear. Do I think Neal is a good guy? From the testimony of others he must be. Do I think he runs a good business that "that has come through for thousands of people and fulfilled thousands of orders at well below retail pricing"?? Again based on his reputation, yes. Keep in mind Saint Neal isn't doing this out of the goodness of his heart. I'm quite sure he's making a healthy profit off of his thousands of customers. He's a businessman running his business and I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with ANY business that refuses to honor it's obligations be they advertised sales and discounts, shipping times or ability to promptly fill orders. I was speaking in broader terms than just this one instance but if you'd prefer to scritinize this particular issue I still think it's bad business to not mach the price unless his rules explain why he shouldn't. In the short term it might cut into his profit but to do otherwise calls into question ALL of the rules and deals on his site. If he reneges on this policy what is to make people believe he won't go back on his word about some other aspect of another deal??

As for legallity, whether you like to admit it or not, we live in a law driven society. You can like it or not and choose to live within the bounds of the laws or not , but the fact remains that the laws ARE present. I know that many states have harsh laws dealing with businesses who refuse to honor written policies and deals. If that observation is rules-lawyering then I guess I'm guilty but still remains an apt observation in this case.

[getupandgo]

All too often on this site people seem to be unable to see the bigger picture. Maybe it's the lack of personalization of the electronic medium we use to communicate but it seems like a lot of people don't seem to grasp what others are trying to say.

You're right, I've never dealt with Neal but I absolutely have the right to express my concern over his business practices. If for no other reason than it can, as you claim, broadly affect the members of this hobby which many of us hold so dear. Do I think Neal is a good guy? From the testimony of others he must be. Do I think he runs a good business that "that has come through for thousands of people and fulfilled thousands of orders at well below retail pricing"?? Again based on his reputation, yes. Keep in mind Saint Neal isn't doing this out of the goodness of his heart. I'm quite sure he's making a healthy profit off of his thousands of customers. He's a businessman running his business and I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with ANY business that refuses to honor it's obligations be they advertised sales and discounts, shipping times or ability to promptly fill orders. I was speaking in broader terms than just this one instance but if you'd prefer to scritinize this particular issue I still think it's bad business to not mach the price unless his rules explain why he shouldn't. In the short term it might cut into his profit but to do otherwise calls into question ALL of the rules and deals on his site. If he reneges on this policy what is to make people believe he won't go back on his word about some other aspect of another deal??

As for legallity, whether you like to admit it or not, we live in a law driven society. You can like it or not and choose to live within the bounds of the laws or not , but the fact remains that the laws ARE present. I know that many states have harsh laws dealing with businesses who refuse to honor written policies and deals. If that observation is rules-lawyering then I guess I'm guilty but still remains an apt observation in this case.

Do you have a statute that you can use to argue your "illegal" point?

The "big picture" is that people claim things are "illegal" all the time on the internet, with no actual legal knowledge.

I understand and grasp what you're trying to say; arguing about a few dollar difference and using highly loaded terminology like "illegal" over the war store not price matching a manufacturers' sale.

If you don't like it, take them to court...

[MEDEVL]

Again I don't think you really see my point. The few dollar difference is THE LEAST important part of what I'm trying to convey. Of far greater relevance is the price-matching policy and the broader ramifications on the consumer/business relationship. As for examples you can find them easily online but here's the link to the Fedaral Trade Commission site:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/busines ... bus28.shtm

Here is a relevant statute from the KY.gov website in the Consumer Protection Act area:

367.170 Unlawful acts.
(1) Unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.
(2) For the purposes of this section, unfair shall be construed to mean unconscionable.
History: Amended 1976 Ky. Acts ch. 221, sec. 1. -- Created 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 4, sec. 7.

I have no intention of challenging Neal in court nor do I think anyone else is really all that unhappy with his service. I think the original poster was disappointed but that's about it. The underlying point that I'm hoping comes across is that if the reports in this thread are to be believed then Neal may want to re-examine his price matching policy and make any needed changes to that policy on his site to avoid further ill will.

[govannon]

getupandgo,
It is not the fact that it is just a few dollars, it is the fact that it has happened 3 times. I have bought from Neal many times and he has price matched for me before. But if I can buy something cheaper from another company that gives good service, why not? Neal is a business just like any other business. It is nothing personal against Neal. If there are 2 companies with good service, I will go with the cheapest. I think it would be dumb to do other wise. This hobby is expensive,so I try to find deals where I can. You say I am cheap...I agree, but I can't see how that is a bad thing in this example.

Thanks for your input!

Cheap George

[Ironhide]

Remember rule #1 guys. PLAY FAIR.

[reegsk]

I would just like to point out one other thing. Prior dealings with a business has no bearing on someone's ability to state their opinion of said business or its practices. Actually, major corporations spend insane amounts of money trying to figure out what they can do to get those people who have never bought from them to do so in the future. This thread may be a helpful thing for Neal. If someone pointed it out to him, he may see that the few dollar hit he may take on this transaction would be better than the faith in his stated practices he may lose. Personally, I've never dealt with Neal or TWS before. But, in my opinion, if you state one thing and then don't follow through on it, the actual monetary value doesn't matter. If he didn't intend to match sales prices direct from the manufacturer, then he should have said so in the disclaimer. He made the effort to be clear that he won't match going out of business sales. Now, you may like to think that, since I've never dealt with TheWarStore, my opinion isn't valid. And that may be so. But it's still my right to state it. And any businessman worth his salt will at least listen to opinions, if not heed them.

[MagickalMemories]

I *have* dealt with Neal before. A couple times, as I recall.
I intend to do so again, in the future. Perhaps a bits/boxed models exchange.

I agree with medevl. If a retailer makes a claim, he should stick with it regardless of circumstance and cost.

I looked at his guarantee. Nowhere in it does he make an exception for matching manufacturers costs or pricing. IMO, the match should be honored.

Also, the laws regarding it would be "False Advertising."


And, to clarify, I'm not out to rake the man over the coals. I'm commenting on the issue, not the retailer.


Eric

[getupandgo]

Again I don't think you really see my point. The few dollar difference is THE LEAST important part of what I'm trying to convey. Of far greater relevance is the price-matching policy and the broader ramifications on the consumer/business relationship. As for examples you can find them easily online but here's the link to the Fedaral Trade Commission site:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/busines ... bus28.shtm

Here is a relevant statute from the KY.gov website in the Consumer Protection Act area:

367.170 Unlawful acts.
(1) Unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.
(2) For the purposes of this section, unfair shall be construed to mean unconscionable.
History: Amended 1976 Ky. Acts ch. 221, sec. 1. -- Created 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 4, sec. 7.

I have no intention of challenging Neal in court nor do I think anyone else is really all that unhappy with his service. I think the original poster was disappointed but that's about it. The underlying point that I'm hoping comes across is that if the reports in this thread are to be believed then Neal may want to re-examine his price matching policy and make any needed changes to that policy on his site to avoid further ill will.

And which of these is the war store guilty of? You're attempting to re-write a law to suit your accusation. That's not the way that the law works. You would never be able to prove your case in a court of law.

*have* dealt with Neal before. A couple times, as I recall.
I intend to do so again, in the future. Perhaps a bits/boxed models exchange.

I agree with medevl. If a retailer makes a claim, he should stick with it regardless of circumstance and cost.

I looked at his guarantee. Nowhere in it does he make an exception for matching manufacturers costs or pricing. IMO, the match should be honored.

Also, the laws regarding it would be "False Advertising."


And, to clarify, I'm not out to rake the man over the coals. I'm commenting on the issue, not the retailer.


Eric

You'll have a hard time proving the false advertising claim as well, as the war store didn't in any way, shape or form violate the Lanham Act.

And no, an advertiser doesn't have to stick to a claim regardless of circumstance or cost, just like you don't have to stick to a claim regardless of circumstance or cost. It's simply decision-making. Companies (and people) make them all the time. If people are un-happy with it, they are more than welcome to not support that business, but since the majority of the people chiming in, haven't indicated that they have ever supported said business, their opinion really isn't of much value. You vote with your dollar and if you withhold your vote, you have made your statement already. I choose to not shop at walmart. I think it's bad for our economy and our country. Should I then walk into the annual shareholders' meeting and demand changes to the dividend structure?

If you can find a legal precedent (either a valid statute or a case) supporting the claim that what the war store is doing being "illegal" or is "false advertising", I'll concede the point, but I think your backs are up against the wall on this one.

[reegsk]

I choose to not shop at walmart. I think it's bad for our economy and our country. Should I then walk into the annual shareholders' meeting and demand changes to the dividend structure?

No, not at a shareholder's meeting -- because you wouldn't be allowed in. But that's also a bit of an extreme example. Do those people that protest outside of WalMarts not have a right to express their opinions because they boycott the store? That's basically the argument you're making against us, well, making our arguments. Also, businesses, especially major corporations like WalMart, spend millions of dollars per year trying to find out the opinions of people who do NOT shop at their stores, to see what they can do to get them TO shop at their stores. Everyone on this site should be considered a target consumer for TWS (i.e. a wargamer who buys the products they sell), so ignoring their opinions simply because they have yet to buy from TWS is irresponsible. If I were Neal, and saw that I may lose some potential customers over a matter of $3, I would just take the hit, match the price and then add in an exception to the price matching that I won't match prices from the producer. Boasting something like price matching and then refusing to honor it when the situation does not fall into one of your clearly defined exceptions is just bad business practice.

[GearHead]

Ah, good old price matching. At my old job, we stated clearly and explicitly the conditions under which we would price match, and those under which we would NOT.

We didn't match with wholesalers or club stores.
We didn't match if the competitor was out of stock.
We didn't match manufacturers' sales.

People would still come in asking us to match a manufacturer's coupon at CostCo for an item that was sold out, and then get all huffy and threatened to sue when we told them they could have the thing for full price.

Anyway, the point is that you have to cover your bases, but people very rarely read your terms anyway.

[reegsk]

That's exactly my point, GearHead. This base isn't covered. We can easily say that he intended to say he wouldn't match a manufacturer's sale price, but you could also make the argument that he may have thought of it and decided to match them originally, then changed his mind later. Since this base wasn't covered, I say take the hit and match the price, and then add in the exception.

[getupandgo]

That's exactly my point, GearHead. This base isn't covered. We can easily say that he intended to say he wouldn't match a manufacturer's sale price, but you could also make the argument that he may have thought of it and decided to match them originally, then changed his mind later. Since this base wasn't covered, I say take the hit and match the price, and then add in the exception.

YOU say take the hit and match the price, but you don't own the business. Personally, were I in the position, I probably would have matched the price, BUT we don't know the details... was the OP rude in some way? He doesn't seem to be, but maybe the war store just didn't like the cut of his jib... Maybe whoever he talked to at the warstore (not going to name names, because I don't know) had a bad day... Maybe they just didn't feel it was worth taking a loss on the product because nothing else was being ordered? Point being, it's not legally required, and that's where people were going with this. Should TWS change it's policy on price matching? That's up to them. Is what they're doing now "illegal"? Absolutely not. Would it be a good business policy? Perhaps... BUT, only if it brought in repeat customers, not just those looking for the absolute lowest bargain ALL the time. Does TWS have the lowest prices on everything? Of course not. I could pay for shipping from 3 or 4 different places, and you know what? I'd end up paying a lot more.

Every week, my grandmothers' boyfriend would drive his brother around to 5 or 6 grocery stores to hit up all the best sales... One time they pointed out how they saved $4.50 by shopping at different places all day, and I pointed out that gas wasn't free, and that they were earning about .75 an hour by hitting up every single sale.

[MagickalMemories]

but since the majority of the people chiming in, haven't indicated that they have ever supported said business, their opinion really isn't of much value.

I have to disagree. The POTENTIAL customer is as important as the one who's been there before.

Also, re: illegal and not... Sounds like you know the ins and outs of law. Do you practice?
If you're not a lawyer, or studied in law, your intepretations of it could be wrong, unless you've got someone who *is* versed in it supplying your information.
Really, though, that's neither here nor there. While I admit that I don't know the specifics behind the LEGAL definition of "False Advertising," I know what's right and wrong. If a retailer is advertising a deal, and unwilling to follow through with it under circumstances he's already defined as WITHIN the acceptable boundaries of the deal, then he's not living up to his promise. Thus, in the eyes of the customer or potential customer, he's Falsely Advertising his deal.

IMO, to have customers and potential customers feeling that you're not living up to your word and advertising falsely is AT LEAST as bad as meeting the legal definition of it, because it ends up affecting your bottom line.

Also, regardless of being customers or not, anyone has the right to speak up about something they see as wrong or an injustice.

Eric

[Linrandir]

The War Store canceled its advertising with Bartertown earlier this year citing economic issues. I haven't seen a lot of War Store banners elsewhere, so I assume Neal has redirected his advertising dollars elsewhere for greater benefit.

I will remind everyone, as Ironhide has, that y'all can argue ad nauseum without "official" interference so long as you follow rule #1. If you find yourself getting hot under the collar, step away from the keyboard until you calm down.

Otherwise, carry on!