The little white lies Amazon tells...

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by Alfy

The purchases are linked, you cannot get one without the other, so looking at the savings on the second item separately is misleading, a practice that is common, albeit not usually with books, it's mostly used in supermarkets. If this kind of false advertising does not bother anyone else and you're just happy to get the deal, then so be it, but don't call me on my maths.

It's not false advertising. At no point did they state that the saving of 87% applied to the combined purchase. They were pretty clear that your first purchase entitled you to a saving of 87% on the second one, should you choose to exercise the option.

You're peeved because Amazon did not bundle your total savings, when actually they have no reason to do so, and furthermore they did not even state that the 87% applied to the overall purchase. It is plainly apparent that the 87% savings applies to the subsequent purchase of the second item should you choose to execute it at this particular point.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by Alfy

And for those who do not see where the problem is, let me try an imaginary example. Let's imagine a company is selling you an audiobook it says is discounted at 87%. You click on buy now, and the retailer now tells you that, in order to get the discount, you need to first buy the ebook. Now obviously, you would be pretty peeved by these practices, but let's put that aside and let's imagine you are still interested because the price is right. Are you still thinking you are getting 87% discount on anything? Or do you start thinking about the actual discount, unadvertised, you will actually get for the bundle?

The example you now provide is not an equivalent comparison. In the original case, you got what you originally intended to purchase for the exact advertised price. Once the decision to go through with the purchase was made by you on acceptable terms, you were presented with an added option that in no way affects the initial purchase should you choose not to exercise that option.

In the example you now provide, the initial purchase you intended to make is qualified at a further stage by a rider that was previously not advertised. Thus, it does affect your decision of the initial purcase and would definitely qualify as misleading advertising.

The two examples are not comparable at all.

[WillysJeepMan]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

You and I both know Amazon doesn't have a special snowflake's chance in hell of getting a license, the illiterate, anti-book, commercialist scumbags.

I figured it was a matter of time before you came around to seeing the truth.

[soulfuldog]

Originally Posted by Alfy

To be honest, I regret starting the thread, as I feel fairly lonely in my opinion.

Please don't regret it, despite most of us disagreeing with you and pointing out why, it's been an interesting thread to read.

And you're not just old and stupid to let the supermarket sales tactics bother you, I just laugh them off but they can be irritating - particularly the ones that aren't a deal (supermarkets selling things at 2 for x amount where the individual price is cheaper than buying 2 for example)!

Still disagree with you getting annoyed in this particular case though

Oh and thanks DiapDealer and ApK, you are both clearly special snowflakes.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by soulfuldog

Oh and thanks DiapDealer and ApK, you are both clearly special snowflakes.

Well on my own behalf, I'd just like to say; "derp!"

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by ApK

But I don't hate that NEARLY as much as I hate companies sending out "Gift Cards" that are just coupons.

Note to merchants:
A GIFT CARD WORKS LIKE CASH!
$10 off a $50 purchase is a COUPON, NOT a GIFT CARD.

LIE TO ME AT YOUR PERIL!!!

Hi folks, welcome to the deceptive advertising rant thread.

ApK

It can be quite confusing... and different languages and loan words might actually confuse the issue more, especially in Dutch, which is very apt to take loan words from English, German, and French without a second thought. In Belgium, there are much less loan words in their version of Dutch, even to the point that they use translations for some words, or use a... weird... ("Dutchified") pronounciation. I don't know for sure, but I think German and French actually have even less loan words.

English - Dutch - German

1. Gift card - Coupon / Voucher / Waardebon / Geschenkkaart / Bon - Geschenkkarte (= you get 'cash' to spend)
2. Coupon - Coupon / Voucher / Kortingskaart / Bon - Gutschein (= you get a deduction)
3. Voucher - Coupon / Voucher / Kortingskaart / Bon - Gutschein (= same as 2.)

Yes, "coupon," "Voucher," and "Bon" are used interchangeably in Dutch.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Yes, "coupon," "Voucher," and "Bon" are used interchangeably in Dutch.

Interesting. If I ever visit the Netherlands and get an offer in Dutch, I'll try to be more understanding.

In New Jersey, with offers written in English, it's my way or else, Bub.

ApK

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by WillysJeepMan

I figured it was a matter of time before you came around to seeing the truth.

I used up 95% of my Daily Recommended Intake of sarcasm on that post, (mind you, I'm prone to overdosing) and you think I'm serious?

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by ApK

Interesting. If I ever visit the Netherlands and get an offer in Dutch, I'll try to be more understanding.

In New Jersey, with offers written in English, it's my way or else, Bub.

ApK

Because of this, In Dutch, you're never really sure about what offer you are getting until you read the small(er) print.

The only two you can be sure of are the "real" Dutch words "Waardebon" (gift card of X amount) and "Kortingsbon" (deduction of X amount or percentage when buying something, usually over Y amount of value if the deduction is a fixed amount of euro's). Normally, "Waardebon" and "Geschenkbon / Geschenkkaart" are equivalent. All the rest, such as bon, coupon or voucher can mean anything. It could even mean getting a free entrance ticket to a zoo or something. (= "Toegangskaart", normally, but also "coupon", "voucher" or "bon" if given away.)

So, read the small print

[Catlady]

To the OP:

What alternate wording for the "buy e-book, get audiobook at reduced price" would you consider not a "little white lie"?

[Tarana]

Errr... Except you can't get this offer if you did not buy the book, so the "you save" tag is completely bogus.

I don't get it either, how is this a lie? Obviously, if you have no desire to have the audiobook, then you aren't saving anything by not buying because you wouldn't have bought in the first place.

I often buy kindle books for the audiobook deal. The two together are less than any other deal for the audiobook, even for whatever you are paying for a monthly credit.

[HarryT]

Moderator Notice
The topic of this thread is Amazon's advertising techniques. Anything else is off topic and will be deleted.

[Tarana]

The purchases are linked, you cannot get one without the other, so looking at the savings on the second item separately is misleading, a practice that is common

Not true. The offer is made to those who already own the ebook. I have ebooks that I have purchased at Amazon in 2010, that now have Audible audiobook offers because I already OWNED the book. They are trying to entice you, who already have an interest in the book because you bought the ebook, to also get the audiobook. In this case, it's a very low price. I cannot understand how you see this as deceptive?

I might add that they offer a similar offer to get the ebook if you already bought the paper version from Amazon. Again, how is that deceptive? You are offered a deal because you already own another form of the item. I think, as another poster indicates, you are confusing bundling with this type of offer.