Black Friday TV Deals: A Case of Bait and Switch Advertising?

We’ve all come to expect great savings from Black Friday sales that offer huge savings on popular items like televisions, but as the deliberate “leaking” of Black Friday ads becomes more prevalent, it’s fair to stop and ask whether or not this form of marketing has skirted in to the territory of “bait and switch,” an illegal sales practice.

Let’s begin with a firm understanding of exactly what “bait and switch” means. Investorwords.com offers the following succinct definition:

“An illegal tactic in which a seller advertises a product with the intention of persuading customers to purchase a more expensive product. When a seller uses this tactic, they frequently tell the customer that the original product is sold out or no longer available (even if the product is indeed still available), and push hard for the customer to purchase the costlier product. This tactic can be considered false advertising if the seller is not actually providing the original product, but if the item is available but the seller strongly encourages the customer towards another item, in general no legal action can be taken.”

Now let’s move from the definition to an actual case study of how this may be working in practice right now. Target has generated significant buzz by offering a 46 inch Westinghouse television as a $300 doorbuster on Black Friday, a deal that I mentioned in my list of the five best television deals available on Black Friday. A set this size normally goes for at least $500 to $600, even when it’s a bargain brand like Westinghouse.

Say you happen to be shopping online for a television set, and you stumble across the aforementioned Westinghouse on target.com. You decide that you like it, check the online availability, see that it’s at your local store, and go there to purchase it. Upon arrival, you realize that they’re unwilling to sell the TV because it’s earmarked for Black Friday, despite the fact that they list it as available on the web site and have it on the premises. Note, I tested this exact problem at my local Target, attempting to purchase the set only to be told I couldn’t because they were “pre-inventoried” for being a doorbuster. At that point, they attempted to direct me toward the other TVs that they were willing to sell me.

So let’s return to the original definition of bait and switch now. Did they advertise the product as available? Yes. Was it actually available upon entering the store? No. Did they attempt to steer me toward other products? Yes.

This is starting to sound a little bit fishy. To be fair to Target, you can understand their position a little bit. Sites on the internet like slickdeals.net have sprung up all over the place recently, where shopaholics trade information about how to game the Black Friday system. In this instance, people seek to purchase the TV in advance at full price, then demand a refund of the difference on Black Friday in accordance with a price guarantee policy that guarantees you won’t be disadvantaged by a sale that comes after you purchase a product. Plus, Target does need to keep sufficient quantities on hand when they advertise doorbusters.

But those factors aside, it’s hard not to take the side of the consumer in this scenario. Through their website, Target is clearly advertising available products that they are unwilling (at present) to sell you. If it’s not an outright bait and switch, it certainly edges precariously close to that threshold. Admittedly I’m no lawyer, but to this consumer advocate, it seems like a class action suit waiting to happen.


People also view

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *