Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

TK Maxx Price Confusion

Options
  • 16-05-2017 6:40pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 538 ✭✭✭


    I visited the TK Maxx store in the Ilac centre yesterday to look for a backpack. After some browsing, I came across one that fitted the bill. The main, original tag on the item stated that the price would be €79.99, whilst two other affixed and adjacent red tags on a handle of the item each displayed a price of €40. Believing that the item would cost me €40 - the affixed red tags suggested to me that the bag was on special offer - I proceeded to the checkout.

    The cashier scanned the item and a price of €79.99 was displayed on the register. Fair enough, I thought; perhaps the old price was still showing on their system. I questioned the price and showed the cashier that there were two labels stating/suggesting €40 as the sale/new price. The cashier acknowledged the €40 tags. He then, however, told me that the numbers on these two adjacent red tags on the bag must be added together to calculate the final price. Initially, I assumed that he was joking. I asked why they would have €40 price tags on an €80 bag but he said that he didn't know the reason. As far as he was concerned, that's just how the system works. I declined purchasing the bag for the higher price and, since it was approaching closing time, I didn't have an opportunity to clarify the pricing structure with someone of a more senior standing in the shop.

    Am I alone in experiencing this, or indeed in finding this price tag policy to be misleading for customers? Aren't prices for items required to be displayed in full and in a clear manner?


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭njs030


    It sounds like the cashier didn't have a clue what they were on about and you should have just waited to see a supervisor or manager.

    That said perhaps there was an error with the pricing and the bag was 79.99 and the stickers were a mistake- it happens unfortunately.

    Either way next time wait and see a supervisor.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,948 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Sounds like the staff member was making stuff up on the fly. If that is what they're doing, it is deliberately confusing.

    Pretty certain a supervisor would have given it to you for 40; its much more likely the red tag(s) were put on for 40 but the price wasn't changed on the tills. Red tags are meant to be sale items - you wouldn't put the price up on sale even if it was 1c more!


  • Moderators, Regional South Moderators Posts: 5,749 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quackster


    Red barcodes are used when something is on clearance and they are meant to be placed over the original barcode to avoid that being scanned accidentally.

    Now the red barcodes either belonged to the item and were placed in the wrong location or were not applicable to the item at all.

    It's easy to tell if the red barcode is on the correct item as its barcode number is made up of the original barcode number followed by the new price.


  • Registered Users Posts: 29,089 ✭✭✭✭LizT


    Was it a barcode or 2 red squares with 40 written on them? Afaik TK Maxx put tags on their more expensive stuff to stop people from swapping price tags with a lower priced similar item. In this case the 2 40s = 80.

    If it was a barcode, then yeah, it should only have been 40.


  • Registered Users Posts: 538 ✭✭✭Equium


    It sounds like the cashier didn't have a clue what they were on about and you should have just waited to see a supervisor or manager.

    That said perhaps there was an error with the pricing and the bag was 79.99 and the stickers were a mistake- it happens unfortunately.

    Either way next time wait and see a supervisor.
    L1011 wrote: »
    Sounds like the staff member was making stuff up on the fly. If that is what they're doing, it is deliberately confusing.

    Pretty certain a supervisor would have given it to you for 40; its much more likely the red tag(s) were put on for 40 but the price wasn't changed on the tills. Red tags are meant to be sale items - you wouldn't put the price up on sale even if it was 1c more!

    That's what I assumed initially - maybe the cashier was in a rush, unsure or just inexperienced. Unfortunately the shop was in the process of closing as I was leaving so I couldn't query the issue further.
    Quackster wrote: »
    Red barcodes are used when something is on clearance and they are meant to be placed over the original barcode to avoid that being scanned accidentally.

    Now the red barcodes either belonged to the item and were placed in the wrong location or were not applicable to the item at all.

    It's easy to tell if the red barcode is on the correct item as its barcode number is made up of the original barcode number followed by the new price.
    LizT wrote: »
    Was it a barcode or 2 red squares with 40 written on them? Afaik TK Maxx put tags on their more expensive stuff to stop people from swapping price tags with a lower priced similar item. In this case the 2 40s = 80.

    If it was a barcode, then yeah, it should only have been 40.

    There wasn't a barcode on the red labels. They consisted solely of, as you say, a red square with €40 printed on both sides. These tags were made of paper and attached to the bag's handle. Other nearby bags had similar tags on them, each for less than the value specified on the original tag. It looked for all intents and purposes like these items were being labelled for further price reduction.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 40,275 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    I've seen those tags in TK Maxx and the information given by the cashier was correct.


Advertisement