Stop posting threads about how you scammed Target.
 

The VG Talk mods have been pretty consistent about closing threads that discuss certain people taking advantage of Target's raincheck policy. If we haven't closed a thread regarding this topic, it's only because we didn't see it, not because we saw it and approved it.

Among the no-nos in the forum rules are the following:
No matter how you try to justify it, in the end it is taking advantage of a Target offer in a way that the company didn't intend. Such discussion isn't allowed here. Thanks for understanding.

I agree with the forum rules.

However, using Target's raincheck substitution policy is NOT a scam. Their policy is clearly stated.

Sure there is some wriggle room on their part. It says 'a TV for a TV', but are all TVs the same? Is a portable b&w TV the same as their largest color TV? We can extrapolate that it would apply to 'a game for a game', but are computer games, video games, and board games the same? We have seen in that past that each Target manager sets different rules.

I have had store managers approve both of the rainchecks that I have discussed in the 'deal of the year?' thread.

How is it abuse when their policy is firmly stated, and a store manager approves it?

I firmly agree that we shouldn't use a shampoo raincheck on a video game system, but I have no guilt in using the rainchecks that I've used.

(edited for typos)

I fail to see how this is a scam. The raincheck clearly says "Choose a substitute" on the bottom.

I also fail to see how this is a scam as well. I can understand though that DVD Talk could be scared and put in an awkward spot legally. However as the poster before has said: The raincheck clearly says "Choose a substitute" on the bottom. I have been shopping at Target which had always been a favorite of mine, even more often. If they find that this clearly stated policy is exposing them to substituting items they never intended, then they should have changed the policy by now. Simple as that.

You are choosing a substitute for an item you actually *wanted* to buy and found to be out of stock. Raincheck != X% off the item you truly wanted. Sure it is legal and follows store rules, but is in no way ethical.

Oh well ... nevermind ;). I'm sure we don't need another thread arguing this "deal."

I think he means it's a scam when people start bragging about how they got like 5 rainchecks when the item was still in stock. Or even got a raincheck on a temp price cut (which isn't supposed to be allowed) like Breakdown.

Some people take advantage of the policy in a bad way. Like I said about my friend in the previous thread. What she did is one of the things that Static is talking about.

So if you're going to be a con artist or a thief or a scammer, by all means, it's your choice. Just don't post about it here.

Pretty harsh words Nick.

Are you a Target policy maker? Do you know the exact rules on all their policys?

Breakdown was advertised in store at my Target. I asked for 5 rainchecks and received them. I planned to buy at least 3 Breakdowns for myself (multiple xboxes plus gift). The other 2 rainchecks I gave to friends so that they could get Breakdown or another game for the discount. I choose to not wait for Breakdown and got another game instead. How is this wrong? They gave me the raincheck, I followed it's policy. And when Breakdown comes back in stock I'll get it too.
If they choose not to give me a raincheck, saying that it was only a temp price cut, I would have been fine with it. But I saw the display ad, saw that it was out, asked for rainchecks and got them. I am not a thief, scammer, or con artist thank you very much.

I wonder how you would have passed judgement on the forum if you were back around 99-mid 2000's when places like Reel.com were still around.

Woah! Just because a "system" is in place and the "rules are clearly stated" does not mean that as long as you stay within those bounds you are in fact being ethical.

Legal != Ethical


For those with the need to justify themselves in this manner I suggest you try studying a basics ethic course. Be it legal, philosophical, or religious. In all three you will clearly see that ethics of society extend beyond what is written down.

If Target's policy allowed me to walk in their store and take an item free of charge, I'd have no problem doing so.

I'll let their policy decide what I can and cannot do as a customer.

I see your point Jeff, and do agree that there is a point where it would be unethical to use their policy. Using their policy to make a profit would be wrong in my book.
I have bought maybe 7 games total using their substitution policy, and I have kept and played each game.
When someone brags about buying games there and then returning them to Walmart for store credit, that is definitely wrong. It might be 'legal', and they might be able to justify it in their own mind, but I think that we all know that is unethical.

That being said, since people were bringing things like that up in the threads, I can see why Geoff would want it not being discussed in his forum. However, why not just delete those posts and censor/warn/suspend those posters? Why delete the whole thread?

Dude this is a scam.

Coments like "damn they weren't sold out" or "I got a raincheck even though they had em' on the shelf"

If that's not a scam I don't know what is. You people suck!

.... and pretty soon you're gonna ruin legit rainchecks for the rest of us.

Exactly.

I think I've used my rainchecks legitimately.

If we close these threads then we should also close all the threads about taking advantage of price mistakes. Those are much worse in my mind. Target allows us to substitute any item and even prints it on every raincheck. Taking advantage of a price mistake is much worse than simply following a policy.

I agree that the policy can be misused, such as by getting games cheap and returning them elsewhere for full price. And those type posts should not be allowed here.

As for getting rainchecks if the item is actually in stock: rainchecks must be given at customer service (at least that is what they always tell me) and customer service is right where we walk in the store. I always get my rainchecks for any sale item I'm interested in first, and then do my shopping. I would not use the substitution policy of a raincheck if they had the item. I imagine if you try the computer would catch it. I get rainchecks every week (for all types of household items) and only use a small % of them.

I will admit that I love the substitution policy and am glad when something is sold out. But I don't think this means I 'suck' as shawagg thinks.

Nick has a point. The amount of people that are legitimetly getting 5 rain checks intending to buy 5 copies of that particular item or game is very slim. And unless thats the case, whatever you're doing is shady. People are taking advantage of a policy that is in place to make sure the customer leaves happy when they don't have a particular item. And yet we get posts here from people complaining about how their Target wouldn't let them get away with such a great deal. Gee, i wonder why?

And regular visitors to DVD Bargains are aware that i have worked there for well over a year. So i do know the store policies. And there's nothing more annoying then customers who somehow feel they are the ones being cheated on these sorts of deals when they're prevented from benefiting from them.

I just noticed the Garfield pre-order thread Shawagg (not a fan of the show, but I like one of the writers).

I see that you tried to take advantage of a retailer price mistake. Please explain to me how that is ethical and the Target deal is not.

I'm open to thoughtful discussion, and would appreciate your response.

I think there's a big difference. For me, in case of a price mistake, its a retailers fault and is up to the retailer if they choose to honor it. If they do, then great, if not, then its just "darn, too bad." I won't put up a stink because a company goofed (although i know some people do).

In case of the Target rainchecks, customers are intentionally using them in a method that was unintended. Getting a raincheck for something that you never intended to buy is pretty much lying.

Your logic is incredibly flawed in my opinion Fumanstan.

A price mistake is the retailer's fault but it is ok to try to take advantage of it? Target's raincheck policy is printed on every raincheck but it is wrong to use it? This makes no sense.

And on your second paragraph, I guess buying something with a price mistake that you never intended to buy otherwise is also lying? I can't see how one is 'lying' and the other is not.

In my case by the way, I did want to buy Madden 2004 and Breakdown. And I'm hoping that Breakdown shows up at my Target again before the raincheck expires.

It makes sense to me... there's a huge difference to me there. For me, obtaining multiple rainchecks for an item you never intended to buy is flat out lying, because that's not the purpose of the raincheck. Imagine if you went to obtain 5 rainchecks for an item, and you were asked "Oh, you wanted to buy 5 of these but they weren't in stock?" I find it hard to believe that "yes" would be an honest answer. It's abusing a loophole.

On the other hand, a price mistake is no different from seeing any other low advertised price. You're not lying about anything. The low price is what enticed you to purchase the item in question, just like any item thats on sale.

Trevor, I honestly feel that you are way out in left field on all of this. I'll try to explain, but please don't take my use of the plural "you" to mean you specifically.

If at any time you have ever asked for a raincheck and not been willing to immediately purchase that exact quantity of items had a CSR been able to produce them, then you are clearly not following the intent of the system. End of story. It really doesn't matter what text is printed on the raincheck; you would never see those notices unless you had requested and been issued a raincheck under genuine circumstances. If, on your return visits to the store, you ever opt to use your honestly acquired raincheck on a substitute item while posessing the knowledge that the original item is readily available and in stock, you are also approaching the border of not following the intent of the system.

The substitution policy is intended to placate shoppers who have driven all the way to the store in hopes of buying the advertised special at the advertised price only to find the shelves bare. It was never intended as contest, a way to reward people for finding out of stock items of no interest to them.

A price mistake has very little in common with the raincheck discussion. An item is ordered at a published price by a shopper with the specific intent of acquiring only that item. At no time during the transaction will a circumstance exist where an employee can provide the shopper with exactly what they claim to be interested in and are specifically asking for only to have the shopper inexplicably pull out of the deal. Certainly, there are some ethical issues with this sort of opportunism, but at no time is anything resembling a lie being told. The conditions of both parties are explicitly stated up front and everyone is on the same level.

I hope you (back to Trevor specifically) can understand where I (and presumably others) are coming from regarding this scenario. We have no problems with you using rainchecks and occassionally taking substitutions when you have no desire to return to the store or require immediate purchasing gratification. We do, however, have genuine concerns when people begin to head to the store for the sole purpose of acquiring a raincheck to be used on a substitute item.

I rarely ever enter VGT, so I may not be around to reply if you have any questions. Hopefully I have shed a little light on the situation, and perhaps those who share a viewpoint similar to my own will be able to continue the dialog in my absence.

I have to agree with trevor on this, and excuse me for the blunt words, but that just sounds like hypocrisy at its finest.

I really don't see how... see BigPete's post. He explained what i'm trying to convey much more eloquently. They're too very different things.

BigPete,
I see your points and agree for the most part.
I do not advocate seeking out rainchecks with no intent of buying that item. I want to buy Breakdown, and since I drove to Target just for Breakdown, I do not feel guilty taking advantage of the policy by getting Ninja Gaiden instead.
However, I now concede that getting 5 rainchecks was a bit much, and agree that it is not following the intent of the system and should not be done purposefully.

I still think that trying to take advantage of a price mistake is worse, and a very similar ethical situation at heart. You have no intent of buying product X from store Y, but since they made a mistake you try to order it from them. Regarding your statement about 'the shopper not pulling out of the deal if the asked for item is produced', that happens all the time in a price mistake situation. In reading the DVD Bargain forum, stores apparently often find their mistake and offer the product at the correct price to the shopper, who often (always?) declines.

I appreciate your thoughtful reply without the added flair of name-calling, and, while I still disagree with some of your reasoning and feel no guilt about my few 61% off games, admit that I was wrong to some extent.

This is a pointless discussion. The threads will be closed, end of story.

Give it up, and move on.