31 replies to this topic

[nosfer2]

Lizzy, on Nov 7 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

Plus, you've been a member for long enough to be aware of how this stuff works...

This is the first event I've been to where free autographs were offered (and at this rate it may be my last).

It may seem like I'm making a fuss about nothing but I want to make sure that the next time Showmasters have an offer like this they make it abundantly clear that the offer is limited so no-one else is misled like I was.

[MikeDonovan]

nosfer2, on Nov 7 2008, 06:48 PM, said:

Lizzy, on Nov 7 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

Plus, you've been a member for long enough to be aware of how this stuff works...

I want to make sure that the next time Showmasters have an offer like this they make it abundantly clear that the offer is limited

Again, they did the first time round - it was very clear on the website.

[nosfer2]

MikeDonovan, on Nov 7 2008, 11:12 PM, said:

nosfer2, on Nov 7 2008, 06:48 PM, said:

Lizzy, on Nov 7 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

Plus, you've been a member for long enough to be aware of how this stuff works...

I want to make sure that the next time Showmasters have an offer like this they make it abundantly clear that the offer is limited

Again, they did the first time round - it was very clear on the website.

But I didn't look on the website, I looked here on the forums, and again in the e-mail Showmasters sent me. There should not be a presumption that people will look on the website. It should state clearly on the forum, and in the e-mail, that the offer is limited so that no-one else is misled.

[Grazer]

I agree it could have been slightly clearer if it was put in the email but the fact remains, it was on the website, Showmasters have not mis-led anyone in my opinion.

Your argument is akin to saying "It says in our fine print  but I didn't read the fine print"

[nosfer2]

Grazer, on Nov 8 2008, 12:17 PM, said:

I agree it could have been slightly clearer if it was put in the email but the fact remains, it was on the website, Showmasters have not mis-led anyone in my opinion.

Your argument is akin to saying "It says in our fine print  but I didn't read the fine print"

No it isn't. In all the time that I've been a member here, Showmasters have repeatedly stated that the most up-to-date information is on the forums. It should not be necessary to go to the website to find out, it should be stated clearly on the forum and in the e-mail.

[TommyT]

Grazer, on Nov 8 2008, 12:17 PM, said:

I agree it could have been slightly clearer if it was put in the email but the fact remains, it was on the website, Showmasters have not mis-led anyone in my opinion.

Your argument is akin to saying "It says in our fine print  but I didn't read the fine print"

Tosh, I'm afraid. Your argument would only hold if it was somehow mandatory for everyone to look at, or at least pass through, the website.
Put it this way, if the "unlimited" versions of the wording had appeared on an advert on Channel 4 and in a magazine advert in Empire, but the correct wording with the limitation stated had appeared on an advert on ITV, you wouldn't be using that logic, would you? And even if you did, the Advertising Standards Authority would disagree with you.

Your argument is more akin to "It says it in our fine print  but our fine print is somewhere else." That in itself is not illegal - if you look at a train ticket for example, it will tell you that travel is subject to National Rail Conditions Of Carriage etc, but it does tell you where you can read such conditions. The forum or e-mail notifications don't inform you that there are restrictions and that these restrictions are posted elsewhere and that you can read them at xxxx.xxx, so the defence that people were reasonably notified of the restrictions doesn't hold.

[MikeDonovan]

The way I see this, there are 2 distinct issues here.

In legal terms, could Nosfer have, a priori, a legitimate case against SM?
In my humble opinion I think not, although I'm not a lawyer (you need Lizzy for that!).

My suspicion is that this would hinge on what constituted SM's "shop front" - i.e. the place where they would reasonably be expected to advertise promotions - the place where people could be expected to go to find out 'what is on offer'. Whilst the forum is more up to date, I think most people would agree that this would be their 'main' website for the event.

Putting legality aside, is it reasonable of Nosfer to be annoyed with SM about this?
Again, and IMHO, no. Seriously, never in a million years would an offer like this not be subject to the standard "while stocks last" or "subject to commitments" or "only if everything goes well". I'm sorry, but I feel reasonable expectations are implied within the offer. Why didn't you ask? Since it wasn't mentioned explicitly, why didn't you ask on the forum "Hi, if I get there at 12:30 am I still guaranteed my free Rusty Goffe signature?".

Did you speak to a member of the crew on the day about this?

Edited by MikeDonovan, 08 November 2008 - 04:37 PM.

[nosfer2]

I'm not annoyed, just disappointed. I attended on the Sunday and didn't know what time I would arrive beforehand. I had no prior reason to suspect that there was any limit to the free autograph offer so I didn't ask. I didn't query it at the event because I wanted to check what it said on the forums and in the e-mail before I mentioned it (I wanted to be sure that I had my facts straight).

[TommyT]

MikeDonovan, on Nov 8 2008, 04:36 PM, said:

My suspicion is that this would hinge on what constituted SM's "shop front" - i.e. the place where they would reasonably be expected to advertise promotions - the place where people could be expected to go to find out 'what is on offer'. Whilst the forum is more up to date, I think most people would agree that this would be their 'main' website for the event.

Possibly undermined by a direct marketing e-mail, unless the email specifically stated that additional details or restrictions were available on the website and gave the url.
And at any rate, I'm not sure your "shop front" idea stands up when there are other marketing avenues in use.

[Lizzy]

From the email:

Quote

Plus you can collect a FREE AUTOGRAPH worth £10 when you buy any adult admission! There are more details on the Collectormania Midlands website.

From the website:

Quote

FREE AUTOGRAPH!! worth £10 with a standard adult admission! Autographs are available on a first come, first served basis while the stocks last.

Ta dah, theres your answer. I highly doubt an informal forum would class as an official statement, unless those words were used or there was some sort of formatting that suggested that.
The main T+Cs for SM/ME events are always listed on the main website.
The email sent is an official giving of information. It directs you to the website where it states that autos are first come first served.

It sucks you didn't notice that, but if we're looking at it legally, SM have done nothing wrong.

[nosfer2]

That may be the legal position, but I used to work in customer services, and from a customer services point of view it is unwise to disappoint your regular customers - I've been a regular since Collectormania 3. As the Ferengi say, "Good customers are like latinum, treasure them!" I'm not going to demand a free autograph (though it would be nice to get one), and I will keep attending events, but I'd appreciate it if Showmasters learn from their mistake and make sure that the terms and conditions are clear not just on the website but here on the forums and in update e-mails too.

[TommyT]

Lizzy, on Nov 8 2008, 09:19 PM, said:

From the email:

Quote

Plus you can collect a FREE AUTOGRAPH worth £10 when you buy any adult admission! There are more details on the Collectormania Midlands website.

From the website:

Quote

FREE AUTOGRAPH!! worth £10 with a standard adult admission! Autographs are available on a first come, first served basis while the stocks last.

Ta dah, theres your answer. I highly doubt an informal forum would class as an official statement, unless those words were used or there was some sort of formatting that suggested that.
The main T+Cs for SM/ME events are always listed on the main website.
The email sent is an official giving of information. It directs you to the website where it states that autos are first come first served.

It sucks you didn't notice that, but if we're looking at it legally, SM have done nothing wrong.

From an advertising standards point of view though, the e-mail is misleading. If it just said "FREE AUTOGRAPH worth £10 when you buy an adult admission" and then directed you to the website with the restrictions that would be fine. However, because it says "...when you buy any adult admission", it is most definitely misleading and creates a false impression. If it just says something is free when you buy a ticket, then the imposition of a numerical restriction is merely a clarification. If it says something is free with any purchase, but then adds a condition which quite clearly means it is not with any purchase, then the original statement has not been clarified but completely refuted. Meaning that the original statement was not just inaccurate, but false.
(Yes, this is slightly picky, but a client I worked for got taken to task over something very similar several years ago, and got rather a proverbial kicking for it. In the case of a £10 auto, it's not something anybody would take to court, but it is a customer service issue. Ideally it will be a lesson for SM for next time).