https://www.catch.com.au/product/logitech-g-driving-force-sh…
https://www.logitechg.com/en-au/products/driving/driving-for…
Don't think I even need to explain what the problem here is… yet Catch won't listen when I show them, and keep telling me that I am wrong.
Isn't this what Trivago just got in trouble with the ACCC for?
From the ACCC:
"the recommended retail price (RRP).
Businesses that use such statements must ensure that consumers are not misled about the savings that may be achieved."
Trivago were comparing prices with wrong products, they were promoting the savings on a standard room, against the price of a premium room.
But by directly comparing the Catch identical offering and citing the Logitech price on “x” date aren’t they inducing a buyer to believe the savings they may receive are substantially more than what is in reality available.
Take some screenshots and fire it off to the ACCC.
In this case, the saving is pretty much negative… the same Logitech stick is selling on every site that came up in my Google search for less than on Catch
of course it is misleading https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/advertising-promotions/fal…
a 2 second google reveals it is $69 or less at other retailers
ALL comparison sites from the US are the same. Being it Tripadvisor or any other site for all kind of bookings.
The dumb get caught, the smart have time and use their brain and plays to find weak spots and profits. The other day we were caught in Sydney needing urgent overnight accommodation. Found a comparison site in Denmark that sold us an apartment for the night for A$84 instead of 184! Long faces at the reception but they honoured it.
Trivago was a bit different. It mislead customers by directing them to the site with the best commission rather than the cheapest site for that hotel room. They weren't misleading customers on the typical sale price, rather on which site was offering the cheapest price.
"They weren't comparing like with like, they were often comparing a luxury room price to a standard room price," Mr Sims said.
Why do you buy from another retailer that sells it cheaper?
I was comparing prices, and stumbled upon this. Have often wondered about their 'Don't Pay…' pricing.
You may have found a pricing error which you told them. What they decide to do with this information is up to them.
Unless Logitech changed their price the claim is clearly misleading.
Getting someone to do something about it is an entirely different thing.
Has never been above $79.95.
They have compared the price to the G29/G920 wheel which it attaches to.
Legality? Short of offering an actually informed legal opinion, there's probably sufficient "grey" in the whole thing that keeps them out of trouble. You would need to demonstrate systemic issues to build a case that can't be effectively defended simply by claiming mistake.
But honestly, I have little trust in many "bargain re-sellers" these days. As others have pointed out, a moment of research shows that they are often either no better than other "normal" sellers, or are in fact not the best price in the market, before you even get to questions regarding the RRP or other benchmarks for the claimed level of saving.
Stat dec from Logitech to say they didn't have it listed for that price on that day, but good luck!
LOL catch is there to catch the naive.
Always, always, always Google before buying. You see some ludicrous “savings” claims around.
Remember when catch of the day first hit the scene and actually had good deals
Was one product a day at midday wasn’t it?
Don’t even bother these days
I’ve seen this a few times with Catch. Their defence is that they’re not actually saying the RRP is $499, they’re simply advising you not to pay that amount. Still misleading if you don’t do your homework. The only thing that gets “caught” on that website is the consumer.
The Trivago case was because the highlighted price was being falsely passed off as the cheapest on the site, when it was just the option where the vendor had paid Trivago money to highlight their deal.
In this case Catch seems to be falsely jacking up the RRP, which, although incorrect, correct me if i'm wrong but i don't think is illegal.