About Me:
I'm a 32-year old Bronx livin' sarcastic bastard. If you cross me, I'll shred you. I have no problems sharing my opinion whether you want to hear it or not, so get used to it. There's a lot of it going on here. Hang around if you'd like and comment if you dare.
Meta
Recent Comments
Blogroll
Archives
Disclaimer
All e-mails sent to Vincent Ferrari or to any address at insignificantthoughts.com are considered for publication regardless of any disclaimers placed in the e-mail. It is automatically assumed that an e-mail sent is for publication purposes. Sending an e-mail with a disclaimer does not bind this site or its owners / moderators to adhere to your request. Thank you for playing!

Nanny Gets Your Rebates For You

Another shot in the face of private businesses. As it turns out, in Rhode Island, if you sell Linksys routers (for example) and Linksys offers a rebate, you’re responsible for paying it, not Linksys.

I kid you not.

According to news articles, a new law in Rhode Island requires stores to give rebates instantly. If a store advertises a price which requires a rebate to achieve the price, the store is required to honor the rebate amount at the register even if the rebate is handled by the manufacturer. That means any in-store, print, or media advertisements which show an after-rebate price, they are required to honor the after-rebate price during checkout. If a store omits the existence of a manufacturer rebate while advertising products, then the store would not be responsible to honor the rebate.

I have to wonder if anyone in the Rhode Island legislature even bothered to consider the impact this would have on smaller businesses, let alone the sheer stupidity of making someone pay someone else’s rebates. Hotdealsclub.com seems to be under the impression that this is a good thing because of all the problems people generally have with rebates. While there is a certain degree of truth to that, I still don’t see why that has anything to do with the retailers themselves.

Also, while this may be good for consumers, imagine being a small business. In reality, you can no longer advertise a rebated price like the big boys, and if you do, you now have to lay out the rebate amount as well, lest you get run out of business by a big chain that can easily eat a rebate as a cost of doing business.

I’m all for fixing the practice of deceptive rebate advertising, and companies that don’t honor rebates even after you do everything right, however, let’s keep the onus on the companies providing the rebates which is where it properly belongs. This may be great for consumers, but it’s not going to be great for the little mom and pops, which in the end probably isn’t good for anyone.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 5th, 2006 at 8:26 am and is filed under Stupid. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Viewing 3 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Connecticut has been doing the same thing for years, which is why, for instance, CompUSA ads all say "Not valid in CT" or words to that effect. You are right in believing these laws are a direct response to the incredible problems with rebates (I used to work at CompUSA, and they were the worst for rebate problems).

    Also, at least under CT's law, the retailer is legally entitled to the manufacturer's rebate (which would otherwise have gone to the consumer). All the retailer has to do is prove sales of sufficient quantities to cover the rebates claimed. If the manufacturer screws over the retailer, (a) the state's AG can -- and often does -- get involved, (b) the retailer stops carrying ANY products from that mfr, and (c) the retailer tells other retailers, who also decline to carry the items.

    A pain in the ass, true, but it seems to work.
    • ^
    • v
    So why not just ban them entirely?

    I don't doubt what you're argument represents. You're right. But if rebates are that big a problem, just ban 'em.

    Frankly, the only reason rebates are so prevalent is because people never actually benefit from them (percentage-wise). If there was mass-fulfillment of rebates, you could bet there'd be a huge decrease in the number of them offered.
    • ^
    • v
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting rebates. I tend to agree, it's much better (for the consumer) to just lower the price up front. I think one of the big draws to rebates, from the mfr's point of view, is that soo few people successfully complete the process. Since it's obvious that even at the rebated price, the mfr makes a profit, it stands to reason that an unpaid rebate is simply additional profit.

    To a certain extent, I can see rebates for big-ticket items like cars (as a "loyalty reward", f'rinstance) but for the little stuff, rebates are a rip-off.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus