Why ‘lowest price' can actually mean you're getting ripped off

DEBRA KILLALEA
24-09-2014
Shoppers might think lowest price means a bargain but they need to check the fine print when it comes to getting the wallet out.
YOU may think you’re getting a good deal with a price promise but as it turns out you may actually be paying more than you bargained for.
Retailers are using price promises to lure unwitting shoppers into snaring what they think is a bargain but is actually anything but.
An investigation by Choice has found consumers end up spending more than they think after falling for slogans such as “lowest price, best price” and “price match”.
Choice spokesman Tom Godfrey said Choice found, in most stores, that a lowest or best price guarantee did not necessarily equal a bargain.
Instead he said they often meant consumers were left to grapple with tricky terms and exclusions only to end up paying more at the check out.
“While most retailers will quite understandably exclude liquidation and clearance items from price match guarantees, others back you out of a bargain by adding location requirements such as the cheaper offer needing to be within 10 kilometres of their store,” he said.
“Once they get you in store retailers often greet you with fancy fine print as they seek to beat down a potential bargain.”
According to Choice, Retravision Online had one of the broadest disclaimers which claim to beat any advertised competitor price.
But Choice found the fine print revealed a different scenario and states: “in some cases there are prices which Retravision Online cannot match. In these cases we will offer you the best possible price that we can.”
“The problem is that customers are selecting particular stores who make impressive sounding price promises with the expectation of receiving the lowest price, only to find the process isn’t that simple and the price isn’t that great,” Mr Godfrey said.
Choice also looked at the “lowest” or “best price” guarantees offered by department stores, hardware stores and electrical retailers including Bing Lee, Harvey Norman, Officeworks and Toys ‘R Us.
But according to them, consumers who relied on these prices risked paying more in the long run.
For instance, the Choice investigation found Toys ‘R Us claimed that its prices couldn’t be beaten but a Target Razor Power Rider 360 cost 20 per cent more from them than if the same product was purchased at Target.
Mr Godfrey said the lesson was for consumers to read the fine print and not be afraid to question a price promise.
“We found lowest-price guarantees do not guarantee the lowest price and companies should be more transparent,” he said.
“Price guarantees can also discourage consumers from seeking out lower prices and this ultimately leads to higher prices and consumer detriment.”
Choice said it paid for consumers to shop around and not to rely on price matching claims.
It also paid for consumers to check the terms and conditions and to have any documentation necessary with them so retailers could not refuse to price match.