It is not obvious if the 3 elephants constituted a set or if the ‘Exclusive’ sign applies to more than the rightmost product, and it was said not to apply to the leftmost and is claimed non-compliant and confusing vis a vis what is quoted above.
Whether a customer should have walked, argued, or signed up to get the elephant is secondary. The question was whether such sales tactics might be a way Swarovski ‘entices’ people to join their paid membership program.
If something had a precondition of sale I personally would expect it to be made as clear as
Given that there was no ‘fee’ to purchase the item, but a membership to avail one of the membership price, the quoted text from the original poster is irrelevent.
The business explained, and the buyer accepted. Move on.
I believe, like you, there is an issue. The cabinet in question appears from looking at their online store, contains items only available to their crystal club. This isn’t clearly displayed on the cabinet that this is the case. This is the first concern.
I also suspect that they stuck the ‘Join the Swarovski Crystal Society…’ information card to try and cover themselves in relation to the cabinet contents being for SCS members. This information card does not indicate it is the case.
The photos of the elephant, a reasonable person would assume that the $650 elephant is for SCS members only, as the SCS Exclusive label is immediately adjacent to this pricing. If this label had been placed in the front centre of the shelf, a reasonable person would assume everything on the shelf was SCS exclusive. This isn’t how the SCS exclusive label has been presented. This is the second concern I have.
A reasonable person from in-store displays would only think the $650 elephant was for SCS member only, and I agree you have been deceived or misled by the display and verbal information store staff gave you.
I would be formally writing to Swarovski head office stating you have been deceived by misleading store pricing, and you were forced to buy an unwanted $89 membership to make a purchase. I would state (and provide the photos) that the in-store information did not indicate the cabinet nor the $500 elephant was for SCS members only. It was only after deciding to purchase, store staff advised verbally it was the case. Their price displays and displayed information contravenes the Australian Consumer Law pricing display requirements. This is in relation to the displayed price bring the purchase price. As a result you are seeking refund of the $89 membership fee.
Also state that Choice and its online community are interested in their response. Close by saying if a refund isn’t forthcoming, you will he taking it to VCAT.
I didn’t enlarge the photo, but on enlargement, some of the items on the bottom shelf (e.g. gazelle) aren’t shown as SCS exclusive on their website.
This works in @AndrewD29 favour as Swarovski can’t now claim that it should have been obvious the cabinet was only for SCS members.
As there are SCS and non-SCS member exclusive products displayed together, Swarovski should have clearly displayed which ones were SCS and which one’s weren’t. As the SCS exclusive label is adjacent to the $650 elephant, it is now very clear a reasonable person would determine it only applies to the $650 elephant. If Swarovski claims it also covers the $500 elephant, this is a furphy as their claim would also mean it would cover non-SCS products displayed in the same cabinet. This gives @AndrewD29 strong grounds to formally challenge Swarovski and request a refund of the SCS membership fee.
Wish you the best in pursuing Swarovski and let the community know the outcome when you do.
Yes, good luck, Andrew. Meanwhile, can someone explain what are the advantages/disadvantages of SCS membership? Yes, you can access stated prices in future, but what information are they gathering from you? And how is it being used?
Wow, that is some privacy policy. They can ask you to provide anything asked of you, and if you decline, they may not deal with you.
And then whatever provided is shared worldwide amongst their entities and commercial partners.
I disagree, this is a clear example where the total price has been displayed in a misleading way, and it is totally separate to whether the OP decided to pay the misleading higher price.
The total price to purchase the item must be shown, for example the price tag could show $589, with the discounted price of $500 for members also listed, or alternately the price tag could state only members can purchase the product (the membership fee could be listed elsewhere). Having a sign nearby when the member pricing doesn’t apply to all products is not good enough.
If every item in the store required membership to purchase (eg Costco) then the need to label each item wouldn’t apply, but that isn’t the case here.
It probably is misleading. Sure. But that happens.
But that is not the issue. The OP having been advised that the price is a members price, has agreed to buy a membership (which has value) to avail themselves of that price.
Because they probably (by what they have posted) felt they had been duped by the displayed price, the item was not correctly identified as a SCS item. They had an expectation of what it would cost before seeking to buy it. Only after they made an offer to purchase the item was it identified as SCS only. Maybe they had promised to purchase it for someone based on the price they saw, and then felt obligated to complete the purchase. Whatever reason compelled them to buy the item, it still remains a very likely breach of the price display laws and might be seen as ‘drip pricing’.
Well, I suppose that if the buyer demanded that they wanted a refund for the membership they didn’t want, the business could turn around and say that since the item was sold at the indicated price to members only, hand back the item and we will refund the money paid for that.
Completely reverse both transactions. The purchase of a membership, and the purchase of an elephant figurine.
Whilst some consumers are aware of their ACL ‘rights’, businesses are too. They have rights also in how customers pay for goods and services.
You want to compel a business to see it your way if they don’t agree? Then it’s see you in court time for a judge to rule on the mess that the ACL is. Because the ACCC are not going to help. Nor are any fair trading organizations.
There have been numerous comments pro and con regarding the signage and whether the purchase was agreed as it happened, under duress of any sort. It seems a good time to step back without speculating further until @AndrewD29 posts the ‘rest of his experience’.
The majority of comments are on the side of incorrect signage. It could easily be argued that the signage was intended to mislead potential purchasers to entering the shop and committing to a purchase to then be told, “Oh, btw, there’s also another membership fee!” That is ethically, morally and I believe legally wrong.
Showing that an item is ‘clearly a member only item’ on the website is irrelevant when you are INTHE STORE attempting to purchase said item in person! There should be signage on the item to show such a restriction. And there was not. In fact, of the three elephants, together on the same shelf… the one on the left, the most expensive of the three, was NOT subject to the ‘membership’. The store is clearly engaging in deceptive conduct. A form of ‘bait and switch’.
But the sign, displaying the price, on the item does NOT mention any such ‘membership’ requirement in order to purchase it. And as the item on the left (there are three similar items arranged together) is NOT subject to this ‘membership’ requirement, nor apparently are the items on the shelves below in the same cabinet… they can’t argue that the sign on the shelf above is advising the membership requirement to purchase any of the items. This is just a variation on the old ‘bait and switch’ scam.
Hmmmm…
If it had been me, and they told me I would first need to pay an $89 membership fee before I could buy the item, I would’ve given them a one finger salute and walked out with my wallet intact!
Whilst this may be quite legal, in my mind it’s a hidden cost in the same way that $299 + gst or $29,999 + dealer delivery + stamp duty are hidden costs.
You are baited, then when you take the bait, the hidden costs are revealed.
I think it’s deceptive.
And it’s also a way of convincing you to be a returning customer - youve paid your membership now you need to go back and buy more stuff to get your moneys’ worth out of your membership fee before it expires!!
Manipulation!
Kogan is now doing something similar to this. Kogan items now have two prices - the lower price which catches your eyes, and the higher price which you see later.
In order to get the item at the lower price you have to become a member of the “Kogan First” club at $99 per year membership fee.
It’s not a bad deal as it also means free shipping on all Kogan purchases for a year. But it’s obviously designed to rope you into being a regular Kogan customer even if you were only planning on buying one item.
BB
