I've recently been noticing a few Dick Smith deals and actually clicking on them for a change… it seems all of them say something like "I know it's Dick Smith, but it's still a good deal" or "Yuck, dick smith".
I recently bought batteries from them online and had no issues whatsoever… I don't understand why they're so unliked?
I see… that's an interesting read, I would've thought DSE would have to honour it.
At my work, I've been specifically instructed to double check all price tags, because sometimes the pricer screws up and puts it as $0.00, and if that happens we legally need to honour that. Maybe my manager misunderstood something.
Where do you work?
Since i'll love to drop by and look for the $0.00 price tags? :p
You won't find any… I'm a price-tag ninja. :o
You dont legally have to sell it at the price listed especailly when there is a pricing error.
They did honour it.
Because some people love to hate, and some people love to feel entitled & hate :)
Abit like Roger from American Dad?
http://americandad.wikia.com/wiki/Frannie_911
However, it turns out that being nice is deadly to Roger's physiology, noted by a flower slowly dying.
On his deathbed, he reveals that his species had to be jerks otherwise he'll die.
lol - sure
Ordered a few things. Had no trouble whatsoever, and received my package 1 day later.
I've got no problem with DSE, (y) from me.
I walked into a Dick today and checked out what the Game On sale is about, and walked out with a $5 copy of Start the Party PS3 , nice one
Good for everybody who got something but the majority of people got screwed. If you put things in a nationwide catalogue, have some decent stock numbers.
In some countries in Europe stores are required to have enough special offer stock to last for three days (of a seven day offer) - if they run out they have to offer a rain check.
It is high time Australia introduces this so that these offers where they have one or two item sin stock in the whole of Australia stop.
In Australia, when a store runs a promotion/special/sale whatever, they are required to have "sufficient" stock. The reason why people got angry is because they thought it was a sale where there will be lots of stock. They did not realise that it was a clearance to get rid of old products out of the system. The publicity wasn't handled well and so lots of misinformation was spread and people got the wrong idea about what was actually discounted (old vs new xbox cards for example), and to add insult to injury DSE staff (this is probably the reason why most people are angry) nicked all the good stuff (most of the consoles that were available) for themselves (when they were not meant to apparently).
You're exactly right. I work in games retail (not at DSE) and recognised pretty much straight away that I hadn't seen most of the listed stock in my store for some time. In fact, the most heavily discounted items (and therefore the most wanted) were the rarest.
DSE head office weren't idiots when they decided on the prices for the stock, they would only mark something down by a huge margin if they only had a couple left laying around. It shouldn't have taken very long for a majority of people to figure out that if an item was marked down by $100+ then chances were there would be very few of them left in the country. Anyone who thought DSE were going to order in extra stock to sell at these prices is, honestly, a fairly ignorant person.
That being said, the main issue here is that once the list did leak DSE handled it incredibly poorly. They should never have confirmed that the list was real and they should never have promoted the sale by using the buzz that the sale created (on here and on facebook). I will give them credit though for the sale that has been going for the last few days. Having been to four separate stores each of them has had an adequate amount of stock and I've left each one with a bargain.
As for the DSE staff taking all the good deals. It sucks, especially if they plan to simply resell it to turn a profit. That being said, if my store did something similar and an item I wanted for myself was heavily discounted, I wouldn't hesitate to put it out the back with my name on it. Anyone who says that wouldn't do the same thing probably hasn't worked in retail before.
So you are saying all retail people are crooks?
I have but now I work in the legal field and if I put some shares, say of Facebook, which are also limited in availability "out back" with my name on it rather than offering it to the public through the appropriate channel I would go to jail - simple!
So what makes retail different? If it is bad in my field and is punished, why should it not be elsewhere?
Gallifrey
The most worrying thing about your statement is that one day like most legal representatives you might even make it to being a Magistrate or even Judge.
Whats is worrying is your ability to make judgements based on very strange precedents and even more obscure references.
How is it "illegal" for a staff member to buy something being offered by a retailer. Every store lets staff buy products from the store. If this is illegal how about quoting which State or Federal law that they break.
Then to give an example of this being insider trading really is extremely puzzling.
A company policy vs a legal obligation are two different things. If an employee breaks that company policy then the company can take some action. But even then the lawyers like yourself would have a field day.
Hell, the courts overturn dismissals for drug use, and much more serious crimes than buying sale items, and tell employers to re-employ people.
Judge Gallifrey, is a name I will remember in case I ever have to appear in court… I would instantly buy shares in companies associated with Correctional supply. But then again I probably would be classified by you as an inside trader and get a longer sentence… :)
That being said, if my store did something similar and an item I wanted for myself was heavily discounted, I wouldn't hesitate to put it out the back with my name on it. Anyone who says that wouldn't do the same thing probably hasn't worked in retail before.
Depends on what they were trying to achieve. It was simply to clear stuff off the books, why bother with who buys it. they want it gone.
If its to bring people in to upsell, or sell other things while in the store etc, then staff buying the goods would be an issue.
Confirming the leaked list is also a two way street. not confirming would have been seen to be poor form if people missed out because they were put off going.
maybe the old Rivers tag line should have been emphasised. "Some stores may have many, others none" But as you said reality is another story. Even putting limits on really wouldn't have worked. If one store had 10 and another had 1. Even suggesting there is a limit of say 2 thats misleading as people would expect at least two in the store that had one.
And staff buying was reported in a few stores by a few "anonymous" people. Pissed off maybe, and likely to exaggerate, what they saw. Just like the people who wait for 10 minutes when its more like 2-3
Social media has some issues….
Love that sound of sanity. Ok, let's call it level-headedness. :)
Because of this: http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/67702