I went to Peter's of Kensington and realised that even though they put 10% off on most stocks, they have re-labelled the price to mark up 10% compared to usual (on-line) price. So at the end of the day, unless it is labelled 30% off or more, there is no discount at all. The additional downside is that since these items are considered as "on-sale" products, there is some limitation regarding exchange policy.
I believe this has been happening every year, what do you guys think?
Cheers.
Correct, all stickers are new. I visit the shop every few months or so hence can tell the difference.
At the end of the day, I think we should know (I know I do) the actual price before making decisions.
Cheers.
If the 'was' price is not truly a 'was' price (ie it never was that price previously) then the display is probably misleading and in breach of the ACL.
See http://www.accc.gov.au/business/pricing/displaying-prices#tw…
ACCC v Allens Music if I remember correctly is a good case on this. It was about Allens labelling a 'was' price they'd never sold the item at before. Basically the court held that a product needs to be sold at a particular price for a reasonable period before it can be advertised as discounted.
Which is why Catch of the Day etc say 'expect to pay $XX elsewhere'.
But this is nothing new - happens most places.
I bought a pair of Circulon French Skillets from a major department store - sales signs said 75% off the "sticker price" of $329.95 so I ended up paying $82.50.
Looking at the docket though the price at the cash register was $165 so in effect I was getting a 50% discount only.
Leads me to ask and answer my own question - did they put a new price sticker on the actual item so it appeared you were getting a bigger discount?