Groucho

Thanks for calling me "genius". That means a lot coming from you. I'll put you as a reference when I fill out my MENSA application.

Robertwoj

Did you really detail the reasons? How do you know for a fact that the reasons you provide are the true reasons that CC is hurt by early release of ads? Has there been any study done by any group (government, private, consumer, etc.) that shows the actual damages done by the leaking of ads? I would be interested in reading THAT as opposed to what people in this forum conjecture as reasons. The 110% matching policy is mentioned as a policy that hurts CC by early release. But to what degree? If I get my ad on Saturday, I could run out that day and buy the sale item 1 day in advance and show up on Sunday to get my 110% adjustment as well.

Also, the word "loss-leader" is thrown around quite a bit in here. I would be interested in knowing exactly what CC pays for each item that is claimed to be a loss-leader.

How much is fact and how much is conjecture? I don't think anyone here knows the answer to that.

darkside

I agree if it can be proved what Speedy did (typing out in text some of the things in an ad) is a copyright violation.

Groucho

Some of his posts were word-for-word duplications of what was in the ad. If he were to resume posting with just the prices I imagine CC's lawyers would try a different tact.

But the reality is that all a big corporation has to do is threaten to sue and most websites would cave. Even if they're in the right, they can't afford to fight it.

Bandoman

Wait. You're a woman?

Toad

The lawyers simply did what their client wanted; no reason to wish harm against them.

spainlinx0

I just have to chime in and question whether this is actually causing CC to lose money, because I really don't think this is the case. Yes, they have this 110% price matching policy, but that doesn't mean they are losing money. Let's say a DVD costs them 15 bucks. Now I see the ad 2 weeks in advance for 16.99. I buy it for 19.99. Later I go back to CC to pricematch plus 10% which means I'm paying 16.69. That buying two weeks early really paid by saving me 30 cents. So now CC is making a paltry 1.69 in profit when before they were making 1.99. Of course they also could be making zero if I never went in there to buy the DVD in the first place.

Trevor

Well, you're using a small item/difference as an example.

Even if we limit it to DVDs, some sets were going on sale for $20 or so off the regular price, so the extra savings was $2. Not a lot for you, but a lot for them if thousands were doing it.

But of course I was mainly refering to the bigger ticket items like TVs and computers, where the extra 10% adds up.

Of course we don't know how many people were doing this or if this factored in CC's decision.

But seriously, why would any company ever want their sale prices leaked early? It makes absolutely no business sense whatsoever, and only does them harm.

pinata242

I searched the thread for "sony" and nothing came up. Has anybody considered that Sony is the ones pressuring CC to fix these leaks? I mean, this all started with the pre-E3 leak of the PS3 price-drop, right?

tonyc3742

Thanks! I like to amaze and impress.

You're misinterpreting my use of the word "right". You can get upset all you want. I'm not denying that. Whine, write pouting letters, threaten to take your non-business away from CC, whatever. It's human nature, as I said before, to get upset when someone loses something they used to have. Having the "right" implies it's justified to get upset. In this case, it's not justified. Unless it can be shown that the information in the ads was supposed to be, or meant to be, publicized two weeks in advance, you were not supposed to see it. Getting upset when something is taken away, that you were not ever supposed to have, is not justified. Call it "insider trading" of a sort. CC and their lawyers are now trying to recreate status quo, ie, ads and proprietary pricing released at their schedule. As to what legal tactics they can take to do that, as I have said before, IANAL, but given the zillions of lawsuits already existing, there's sure to be something, and I think this has more merit than a lot of frivolous lawsuits that do waste the legal system's time and money (like that jackass with the pants).
CC can lose money from these ads. I had an Xbox 360 ordered from CC.com just about a month ago. Thanks to the price drop rumors, and ad postings, then the ad scans, I cancelled my order so as to get it with the cheaper price (since I would have been just outside the 30 days.) "Insider knowledge" meant they lost a sale at the higher (and presumable higher-markup) price. Granted, that's one anecdote, but I know I'm not the only one.

I haven't read this entire thread, many of the posts have been of the snarky tongue-sticking-out variety and that gets old; has it ever been established where this ad information came from? Is it Joe Shlabotnik, PR VP in charge of Viral Marketing of CC, or was it Roger Kaputnik, who works in the print shop and always happened to "bring a little work home" when he got the file marked "CC Ads - Two Week Advance - Do Not Publish"?

neiname

Here are the scenarios:
- 0.1% of the population (ie DVDtalk and other sites where Speedy posts) would look at the prices and may try to do the 110% price match scheme or simply go buy what was on sale. (Inconsequential given the size)
- 99.9% of the population will go or not go and buy at CC (Inconsequential because Speedy's posts doesn't affect this sample)
- Egg on the face of CC for being the primary reason why a major price cut was leaked for one of Sony's flagship items (This is a BIG DEAL and should try to be contained by CC which is what they are doing)

lordwow

I'm not going to say much, because there's already 7 pages of intelligence and stupidity.

First off, Thanks Speedy. I think that needs to be said. If this is the end of the run, so be it, there's always that other website we Could especially with All the Gaming deals.

Second off, I think it sucks that CC went this route. Going past a cease in desist is pretty extreme, especially when your ads are encouraging people to buy from you. I agree there's probably some outside *cough*sony*cough* pressure here, but regardless.

Third off, DVDTalk has to protect its own interests. Ya, the community wants the ads early folks. But given the choice between no early ads or no DVDTalk, I'd choose the former.

That's all.

Trevor

Agreed.

It reminds me of people ordering stuff that is obviously mispriced, and then complaining when their order gets canceled.

Am I upset about not getting to see the ads early (here)? Yes! But can I really be upset at CC for trying to maintain their profit margin? No.

However, I can be upset with CC for having absolutely no customer service or knowledge of how to run a business.
Amen on all counts.

nlyonssmith

I've been searching for a precedent on this subject and haven't found one.

The most similar scenario is Black Friday, when ads are posted way ahead of time all over the net. Companies, specifically Best Buy, have threatened sites such as FatWallet by waving the DMCA in their faces. The only two outcomes look like this:


1. Site posts ads
2. Site receives threat of legal action
3. Site removes ads because they can't fight
4. Retailer wins

OR

1. Site posts ads
2. Site receives threat of legal action
3. Site tells the companies to fuck off, counter sue for abusing (FatWallet to BestBuy)
4. Company backs off
5. Site wins


I'd love to see option #2. I honestly don't give a damn if CC doesn't want them posted early



Good related article

Imail724

Sorry if this has been answered, but is Speedy not posting any ads anymore or just CC? I was curious because usually the Best Buy one is up by now.

MadonnasManOne

It would appear that he isn't posting any of the ads. I wouldn't blame him. It sucks, but, I would understand.

mifuneral

Speedy never scanned and posted an ad, so I don't see the purpose of your response other than to waste space at DVDTalk.

Big Worms

He posted in another forum that he is not going to be posting them for the time being. Really going to miss the ads.

Mosskeeto

You're "delusional" if you believe there's only one possible outcome to the issue of early posting of ads. I know that Fatwallet permits hand keyed entries of advance ads. I know from first hand experience that they permit hand keyed entries of BB, CC, CompUSA, Target et. al. DVDTalk will have to want to fight but the final outcome should permit them to have a stance similar to FW.

Lee Harvey Oswald

Well, I'm obviously in the minority here, but I don't have a problem with CC on this. It's their business and if someone is giving out sales price before the ad starts then they have the right to get upset and seek to end it. It has to do with their competition. If they wanted it released earlier, they would.

I've never had any problems with my CC, so I won't freak out and quit shopping there.

By the way, I have no clue who Speedy is, but my understanding of the topic is he was posting sales ad before CC officially releases theirs. I assume Speedy is an employee at CC? (I didn't read every post in the thread either).

Edited to add: Ok, I found Speedy's post which clears a few things up. I still side with CC on this.

argh923

Somehow, I don't see the "want to fight" as being the case, here.

Rubix

off topic, but if circuit city is reading this: you have the worst receipts ever. they are super long and wide, even if you only purchase 1 measley item. you really gotta come up with something better.

not that i will be there anytime soon, gotta find a new source of weekly typed ads first. wouldn't dare step in there to browse.

Nick Danger

Unlike pit bulls who are ordered to attack, lawyers are expected to have a sense of right and wrong. Here, we seem to be talking about a large, wealthy business using the legal system as a club against a small, poor business, and lawyers who attack regardless of the merits of the case.

Bandoman

WTF?

[Bando flips through his lawyers handbook]

lordwow

Agreed, could have fooled me.