I moved this from the rabbit list to the something list... --On July 6, 2007 David Artman <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is a classic bait and switch tactic that should have been illegal (as false advertising) since snake oil and automobile undercoating was "invented." If *I* were a product producer, this would at least prompt me to contact their purchasing director and ask what reparations they have planned--guaranteeing the price when restocked is a good start. Depending upon my core target demographic, company philosophy, and availability of other distribution channels, this shoddy behavior might prompt me to pull my products from their store completely and irrevocably.
I am a product producer who would love to irrevocably pull my products from their store! Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. But who knows, the way this ruling went down last week: <http://tinyurl.com/2p7tay> I might be able to do just that - after a few of the big companies go fight this out in the courts. I have NO idea if Ryan <http://tinyurl.com/3cmhkx> is right about anything he is saying - but it will be very interesting to see where this goes.
But I AM a consumer; and Toys R Us just made The S**t List--I vote with my dollars, and they just lost all future sales from me or from anyone who will hear me describe this situation and agrees with me. There's a LOT of great, responsible, even eco-friendly companies that sell toys and games and clothes and vehicles and....
How can you expect good service from someone selling a product at a 75% discount from the manufacturers suggested retail price? - Kristin (she who needs to get back down to the booth!)