Buy any Maggi product with the "100% Money Back Taste Guarantee" sticker and maggi will refund the cost of product plus postage.
One claim per household.
Edit: Note the nestle url does state "Maggi Try Me Free", which led me to conclude that it has nothing to do with level of product satisfaction.
If you think this is a "freebie", go ahead and claim.
If you feel that it's "claim only if you dislike product", then don't claim.
fill in "ITS NOT FREE"
I left it blank. I mean, not complaining will increase the chance of a refund. right?
No, only fill if you are not completely satisfied.
This isn't so much a refund as a deliberate attempt at taking advantage of a legitimate offer, yeah?
Yeah, maggi are putting out this offer in good faith, and this is taking advantage of it…
Not casting judgement, but I personally would not do it
I mean, the whole idea of this is to promote their products right?
And it does say that it is valid for 4, 10, and 12-packs.
Given a choice, why wouldn't i choose 12?
I am not abusing this offer in any way. It's something that Maggi intended people to do in the first place and would have budgeted for.
If not, it would have said "valid for 4-packs only".
At the same time, i do see your point.
Question is - are you actually unsatisfied with the product?
You're buying the 12 pack presumably because you find some merit in it.
i have edited the description.
Read edited.
@amkssg: Fair enough.
They do seem to be saying that they want people to take advantage of it, regardless of wording of the guarantee.
Exactly. Tbh, I wouldn't feel quite right about doing this. There's a fine line between a freebie and exploiting good will…
It's a taste guarantee, they will give money back if you're not completely satisfied.
We all have our own interpretation, so I guess go for it if you believe it's a free pack of noodles offer.
honestly i couldn't be #$#$* for the $8 or whatever it costs.
Comment modified, honestly why add the 7, a simple
I couldn't be bothered etc
is just as effective and we do have younger people here.
Thx
lol not really a bargain… and this is coming from an asian.
I don't rate this as a bargain because:
The seller is offering the cash back if you are not satisfied with the product. That's different to offering a cash back regardless of anything else.
If the buyer eats the product, doesn't dislike the flavour, but seeks a cash back anyway then it's a lie at best.
The seller is relying on a small number of refunds and hoping people don't abuse it.
we go through these ethical arguments every time with these deals.
However in this post the comments made indicate a new level of understanding. The points are made, no negative votes, to impose the views on others, allowing each member to see this listing and make their own judgments
. if only we could have the same in the PC/Mac Iphone/android posts LOL.
None of the above is meant to change your personal views, or to infer what you should do here.
It's still what we would accept as a bargain on this site. Just like the DVD's R4 cards because they are permitted to be sold here legally. Just like we allow Dell mistakes here, as it's up to the vendor to determine, their own policies for abuse, and even more so here as the company has used these types of promotions before.
Other deals from places like certain hamburger chains are not permitted because these companies contacted OzB and asked, sometimes nicely other times demanded, that they are not published here
As for the Noodles, I'll pass - too many carbs, costs me more in Gym fees to rebate these
The are 2 ways you can see this deal, the "freebie" pov or the "ethics" pov.
I take the "freebie" pov as i think this is something Nestle would or should have taken into account when they decided to hold this promotion. In fact, i see this as smart marketing by Nestle, promoting their product through this method to raise profits, yet minimising the number of claims to minimise expense.
Also, i don't really see why ethics is an issue when it's common to see "unethical" deals on OZBargain. For example, the Grill'd fiasco, when most of us knew that the vouchers were never intended for mass-circulation, yet lots of people on OZBargain decided to use the vouchers, and when Grill'd refused to honour the vouchers they started swearing. Also, when JB-HIFI or Dell's has a mispricing on their website, we publicise it, purchase the products, and swear when they refuse to honour the price.
In fact, there are deals that show how low OZBargainers will go just to save a few bucks. A good example was the KFC Cayan Burger promotion, where some of us were going into KFC, purchasing a packet of sauce for 20cents to qualify for "Cayan burger with ANY purchase". Some were doing it almost daily or going from one outlet to the next, just to get huge numbers of free burgers.
I think ethics is a very thin dividing line which separates some bargain hunters from others.
I don't really think there is a line to draw, deal like these depends largely on how the individual perceives it. And i totally understand the above comments.
Idealistically, I would have voted neutral, but as the poster, you don't have that choice.
but the thing is those deals and the dell deals (outrageously cheap pricing errors) are less about exploiting a system intended for those dissatisfied, they were more used on a "if this works it would be awesome".
sure they were getting close to the ethics line but IMO they were not as close as this 'deal'
Re: Grill'd the offer was used fairly by people according to the conditions. Grill'd didn't abide by them as they didn't take into account that the newspaper had a legitimate downloadable version. The hardcopy version was free also for anyone to get as many copies as they wanted. Grill'd was simply naive in their promotion setup as well as their subsequent response and their promotion got the attention they wanted just not the flavour!
You do have a choice to vote neutral. Not voting positive or negitive is a (neutral) decision that can be backed by comments.
In my case, I'll get more value out of the discussion around these deals than any free noodles but that's a good thing too. It's good to hear/learn from others views and then be in an more educated position to form our opinions.
That is incorrect. The Grill'd offer was only published in a some victorian universities' newsletters. If was purely intended to be a local small-scaled promotion and used in outlets near Melbourne's uni campuses. However, it was OZBargainers who manipulated the system and distributed it nation-wide.
Unlike the Grill'd case where they unintentionally left out certain conditions, in the Maggi case, i am dead certain that it is a ploy to increase sale and reduce the number of refunds. The fact that they are offering it not only for the 4-packs, but also the 12-packs shows that their marketing dept would had budgeted for massive number of claims. Just IMO.
And, no, like i said, i can't vote neutral. As the OP, you are forced to vote positive.
UTimes has had a wide VIC distribtion (http://www.utimes.com.au/page10/page10.html for hardcopy) and availability on the net (to anyone) since the first edition. It's offers are for any readers unless specified. Other offers have indicated you need to show a student ID, etc. Grill'd also had offers in it before it's last farce. Customers complied fairly with the conditions in applying for the offer (ie there was no manipulation of vouchers, etc). The acceptance and handling of customer relations were subsequently up to Grill'd.
Agree with your comment re: neutral voting. I didn't pick up your bit as the OP and was thinking about the rest of us being able to have that choice.
Thanks for letting us know about this offer. I'm sure Nestle will be comfortable with the wider online promotion at the relatively small expense of free noodles for some customers.
@daydream: It wasn't meant to be a national promotion. OZBargain made it national. That's what i was saying.
This case is no different from Grill'd, read the promotion terms and conditions. It makes no mention about disliking the product being a condition of claim.
It just says, 'buy, complete form, attach sticker, send in".
and therefore to quote:
"Customers complied fairly with the conditions in applying for the offer (ie there was no manipulation of vouchers, etc). The acceptance and handling of customer relations were subsequently up to Grill’d." or in this case, Nestle.
Like you said, there is no manipulation in this case. In fact, Nestle has been promoting this deal. If you subscribe to their newsletter or visit the site, or look at the "Money-Back" sticker on their product, you would know of this. In fact, i think this is more widely publicised as compared to Grill'd.
Grill'd promotion was an error on their part, this isn't, i am dead sure Nestle intended for ppl to claim. Just see the pdf file name, it says "Try Me Free".
@amkssg: Might be a misunderstanding, I'm fine with this as an offer for consideration/use. I was just defending people who wanted to try using the vouchers in the Grill'd deal (I didn't feel it was manipulation even if it wasn't intended to be used nationally by Grill'd as it didn't breach any conditions. If it wasn't going to send VIC stores broke I doubt it would be any different for their stores in other states, as they subsequently proved). Cheers.
@daydream: lolz… was nothing against you.
Yes, i see what you mean.
The only point i was trying to make was that,
if this deal isn't "a deal",
then lots of past deals should not be deals.
Didn't have any issues with Grill'd, was just trying to find a comparison.
Cheers mate.
Does this guarantee add any extra value?
If you approached most food manufacturers and said you are not completely satisfised, they would offer refund or replacement (or am I naive, call me steve-naive ;-))
Exploiting genuine guarantees (assuming its not a marketing promo) may see less offered in the future. For me I would only claim if I didnt like the goods.
Thanks for posting offer anyway, .
Just seems like so much effort for a packet of noodles, I mean do you really care that much that you're willing to send off stuff in the post to get some shitty 2 minute noodles refunded?
Good points by Chan, Steve and Timski -
But it comes to who is really exploiting this "system" Nestle or the public??
We all know many manufacturers will guarantee their product, but they dont go out of their way to emphasise this or provide website for entry OR and this is a big point of different here, put a EXPIRY date on such claims.
As well, the use this promo under their competitions page on their website so they are already sending mixed messages… So who is exploiting the system?
And really their mixed messages are what this thread is all about.
If this was a post where someone said. Hey X manufacturer, will refund your money if you say their product is no good, go buy the product and claim it isn't. Then yes that's an abuse and IMHO unethical.
Nestle has done this before so and the same issues were raised by many here at that time. And it wasn't resolved because many felt the same, but that was the first time this manufacturer had done this so maybe it was naive to the possibilities of "abuse".
So maybe it's Nestle who should have the shame on the unethical way they are exploiting the "system"
As for voting on this I remain neutral .
Why because a positive vote does it disapprove of this tactic by Nestle or approve, likewise does the negative vote do the same?
Plenty of people shop at particular supermarkets and then wait in long lines each week (engines running) to fill up fuel at busy Shell and Caltex stations to save a couple of bucks. Some people will save a lot more money for effort here if they get a big pack (Their decision). "Value" and "bargain" are relative concepts for all of us.
this is sad, seeing a company offering "customer satisfaction on products"…as a FREEBIE!
I would imagine tons of people taking advantages on these as "FREEBIE", then in the future no more company offering any money back or have a tougher rule!
you should take advantage on this ONLY if this product really sucks!
This discussion is moot if you ask me. Maggi noodles taste crap so no one would be dishonest in asking for their money back!
If I did this (which I wouldn't because I honestly don't want the noodles) I would just put as the explanation for why I wasn't satisfied: "Did not taste like Indofoods Migoreng noodles!"
But in general, I would say this is an unwinnable argument. If you were satisfied with a product you are being dishonest by asking for your money back, pretty much by definition. But terms like 'completely satisfied' aew so vague that you could very easily justify claiming the cash back for any number of reasons (e.g. "I was in a bad mood when I ate this so was not completely satisfied"). In this case it is even more vague. There is nothing in the T&Cs that says you can only claim if you were not satisfied. The only evidence that this is not a clear cut free trial is the title "100% money back taste guarantee". Guaranteed to be what? If they do not specify you are able to claim for whatever reason you see fit.
I remember having these debates on Heaven ice-cream and a few other products a year ago…
from thinking it would have to be a genuine dissatisfaction required to rebate, now I think people should be treating this as a normal cashback… especially if it is promoted in the competition-like sticker labels/ promotional leaflets.
I think this because I'm pretty sure it's a way some companies increase sales numbers before the financial year. Since working at a major supermarket for the past 5 years, I've noticed that Maggi sales have clearly dropped ever since Woolworths and Coles have been promoting Mi-Goreng noodles in multibuy sales (constantly having to fill in these shelves!). They're now trying new packaging, flavour/herb sachets, but they really can't compete… as I've been to indonesia and Mi-goreng noodles are about RRP 1-2cents a packet in our currency.
By asking the dissatisfaction question, in a way, they are paying you for consumer feedback. Nestle is a huge company, if it adversely affected them here, they simply won't do it the same way again next time.
btw, the huge debate on heaven ice cream last time…
it's owned by nestle i believe, so obviously they didn't see it affect their company adversely.
and arguably, choc coated premium icecreams are more costly than salt covered wheat noodles.
Hehe, won't be surprised in Nestle/Maggi requests no further deals be posted on OzB.
Hehe - just dont bet your noodle(s) on that LOL
wow incredible
i can print this out and submit it for my ethics class
one thing though… you are talking about allegedly ripping off Nestle… a multinational just a few steps down ladder from monsanto and shell as far as ethics go
if you wanna 'rip them' off for $8 go right ahead… i'm sure it matters to the billions they make
I actually agree with you.
Except that i don't agree that i am ripping them off.
This is essentially a cash-back based on what the claim form states.
As far as i am concerned, there is nothing unethical about it.
However, there are those who interpret the word "taste" to mean "claim only if you dislike".
Agreed. Unlike some other companies Nestle has clearly thought this through (just read the conditions) and can also limit the number of packets released with the sticker. After all they could have just asked us to send in a barcode from any regular pack as proof of purchase or would have had an open offer like this http://www.coles.com.au/Products/Our-Brands/Our-Promise.aspx without an end date (No I'm not going to post that as a deal!). I'm sure some companies are savvy enoungh to make use of offers like this and the unintended viral marketing that follows via online forums to their advantage.
PS. There are much more complex and unclear ethics decisions than this to use in class ;-)
cant eat 2 minute noodles anymore.
ate them almost everyday after school in primary school until they changed not only the type of noodle they use but also the type of stock. Now tastes like utter crap… -_-
i'll wait for a deal on mi goreng… :P
I seriously wouldn't bother with Maggi noodles, they taste like crap. A box of 40 Mi-Goreng is only $8 !! It's win/win !!!
I vote negative as this deal is incorrectly labeled as a freebie. It is clearly not. It's an offer that can be exploited if you twist the wording.
By all means, try the product, and if you are unsatisfied then claim. However if you take up this offer with the sole purpose of claiming… It's paramount to theft by deception.
Dictionary.com defines satisfy as:
–verb (used with object)
1.
to fulfill the desires, expectations, needs, or demands of (a person, the mind, etc.); give full contentment to: The hearty meal satisfied him.
2.
to put an end to (a desire, want, need, etc.) by sufficient or ample provision: The hearty meal satisfied his hunger.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
I don't expect others to share my view, I do however stand by my negative vote.
Agree with your justification. Which is exactly what i said at the very beginning.
I take the stand that this is subject to interpretation.
Reason: No where on the claim form nor packaging nor terms of offer does it mention that "Disliking the product is a condition for claim".
You can interpret the words "taste guarantee" as "claim only if you are unsatisfied" or the fact that Nestle is giving you a product sample and guaranteeing its taste.
In fact, the form specifically states: Buy, fill form, claim, limit to one per household. Which is more typical of a cash-back program as compared to a "claim for unsatisfactory product".
In summary, it can be seen as either a cash-back, or as a "unsatisfactory product claim". I take the former view, while you take the latter. Both views were clearly stated in the description.
(Which is why i don't really understand the negative vote, but i do appreciate your view)
Anyone received their cash back?
received my cheque today
Anyone that enjoyed the noodles and then claimed back is a theif and a social scrooge
If you have tasted the noodles, anyway who enjoyed the noodles is a liar.
so true … LOL
Do you need to fill in that section?