DVD-Obsession

Qualifying Titles Only

Code: PINETREES

https://www.gohastings.com/departmen...m_nooverride=1

SethDLH

thanks for the link - grabbed the 4th/final season of Tales From The Darkside and a women in prison triple feature dvd I've been needed for about $16 shipped.

DVD Josh

Are the DVDs/BRs in better condition than their CDs? I have to return a ton of them to GH due to being in horrible condition.

BobO'Link

I've not had too many issues with either. I've received *one* CD that was marginal (rough looking but plays OK) and only a couple of DVDs that wouldn't play. That's out of over 100 DVDs and a dozen or so CDs.

AMERICAN

..picked up Godzilla Blu-ray criterion for $10.60...a great deal....

g

The BR disks are typically in better condition than DVD. I find they sometimes buff or resurface disks on DVD. They also often pass of previous rentals as used even though they are supposed to be listed as "previously viewed." Sets are typically in better condition than single DVD.
With newer BR sometimes you get rental versions missing bonus features even when listed as "used". I've not been satisfied with some of what I get from them.

BobO'Link

With those previous rentals I believe what's happening is *they* didn't *directly* rent it -or- it was a rental that sold and was then sold back to them making it "used" rather than a "rental." I have issues with such practices and usually complain when I get a former rental as "used." I've had them ask it be sent back and I've had them credit the purchase telling me to just keep it. Fortunately it's not been often - probably a half dozen or so times across my total purchases. I've typically complained only when it's the "Rental Only" version with forced commercials/etc. and not when it's the normal release with the rental center tracking ring sticker.

kodave

Rant time:

People trading in ex-rentals is how they get those rentals into the used supply chain. Their previously viewed are supposedly their own in-house rentals they're now selling. They've been at this for years with no intention of stopping or changing. If you get an ex-rental instead of a retail used copy, they'll either have you send it back for a full refund, or let you keep it and refund your money if it's below a certain dollar value. (And then you're SOL because Hastings can't/won't do exchanges, so if you scored a great deal, good luck getting that price again the next time the item comes into stock.) But they're never going to change, so that's basically the risk you run buying used movies from GoHastings.

In my opinion this is a deceitful business practice. Their product page lists a very specific UPC number and that the version of the movie you should receive. But because they'll refund people who complain about getting the ex-rentals, I guess no state's consumer watchdog division or attorney general has any motivation to investigate them to put a stop to it. And I don't suppose any class action attorneys have caught a whiff of this. I'm pretty sure this is also against Amazon Marketplace and eBay's terms, but as long as Hastings issues the refunds and continues to make those companies money via fees, they're not going to put a stop to it. Heck, it's probably against the credit card companies/payment processors terms in some way to be pulling crap like this with customers.

I know that sounds ridiculous to think Hastings should be punished, but in my opinion it is even more ridiculous for a sizable company to be advertising one thing while intentionally allowing these other products (ex-rentals traded into as used) into their inventory without taking any effort to filter them out prior to sale. It's intentionally deceitful and a waste of the customers time if the customer does notice, and it's taking advantage of the customer if they never realize they didn't actually get what they actually paid for. Hastings is run pretty ineptly overall, but they're not some random joe on eBay trying to sell off a DVD collection. They're a subsidiary of a larger corporation and have a multi-state operation with a notable online storefront across multiple online venues. They should be held to a higher standard, but they won't hold themselves to one and so far no one else will either. If the average joe sold their DVDs on eBay or Amazon Marketplace as intentionally carelessly as Hastings does, that person's account would not last long before getting shut down. But it's a pure numbers game revolving around money, so it's worth it for eBay and Amazon to allow Hastings to keep up this practice.

The solution for Hastings is simple if they don't want to put the effort into selling what the listings actually advertise - just have a generic product page for the movie. Maybe the customer will get the deluxe/collector's edition of the movie. Maybe it'll be an ex-rental and you can't watch anything but the film and no fast forwarding through the previews. Maybe it will be the basic retail DVD. But that way consumers know upfront they're not guaranteed a certain product with a specific UPC. But Hastings will never do that, because the whole inventory system is built on specific UPCs and so are the eBay and Amazon Marketplace storefronts. So they'll continue to inconvenience more savvy customers while ripping off less savvy customers because they refuse add those ex-rental-trade-ins to their own previously viewed inventory and they won't outright refuse to accept them as trade-ins.

How do these ex-rentals even get into the inventory flow if everything is so UPC specific? The employee accepting the trade in just matches it up to the closest thing in their system, so that ex-rental goes in as the full retail movie. In the past I've bought box sets of certain movie franchises and received a different box set than the product I thought I was paying for, all because Hastings didn't have a separate listing for that other box set, so some employee just lumped it in with the one they did have a listing for.

Personally I got very tired of this ex-rental and incorrect DVD game years ago and stopped buying movies from them all together after I had bad experience after bad experience. But others seemed to have fared a bit better.