Btw, businesses have gotten into legal trouble over fees in the past. Wells Fargo is the one that immediately comes to mind….
Busch Gardens Williamsburg Adds 5% Surcharge to In-Park Sales
- Thread starter horsesboy
- Start date
Your argument lost all merit for me when you said this. You can’t look at the way BGW has obscured the surcharge in tiny fine print in a font that blends into the menu boards and tell me “they aren’t really trying to hide it.”
Direct Link to Embedded Media Source
Direct Link to Embedded Media Source
More broadly speaking, if the park is really interested in being “forthcoming,” why aren’t they just raising their prices directly so guests can easily see the true cost of their purchase? I don’t care if other businesses are also employing this slimy tactic. The only reason they are doing this is to disguise the fact that they’ve raised their prices even higher and make it less obvious to guests. The only reason. It may be legal, but it is intentionally deceptive through and through. There is no way around that.
Yes there is a cost basis to and SEAS isn't hiding the reason, they put it right on the receipt.
I don't know how you can say that SEAS is trying to decieve the consumer, they are under zero obligation to even have signage up for it. They could simply have a line item that says taxes and fees then lump it in with the taxes. Then you and I would likely not even be aware that it's happening. However, they have chosen to put numerous signs up on the menus and registers and specifically call it out on the receipt and share why it's there.
You clearly want to be upset about it, which is fine because I don't like it. But you have absolutely no basis to claim that SEAS is trying to hide and/or decieve the customer. They have deliberately made decisions that make it obvious it's happening.
I think you should pay more attention to your receipts when you're out shopping. Like @warfelg said I think you'll be surprised how many times you get hit with fees that you didn't realized because they didn't make them as obvious.
Column: Supply-chain surcharge? Sherwin-Williams is latest company to add a sneaky fee
Sherwin-Williams has quietly added a 4% 'supply chain charge' to its paint. It's the latest business to hide a price hike with extra fees.
www.latimes.com
COVID-19 Surcharges Are Gaining Traction, But Only 1 in 5 Americans Think They're Fair [Survey]
FinanceBuzz conducted a survey of 1000 U.S. adults to learn what they know about COVID-19 surcharges and how they feel about them. Here's what they had to say.
financebuzz.com
To add to what @BGWnut said here, that first article highlights it. Sherman-Williams does a 4% (6% at the local one) without saying anything. My apartment complex added a 2% “services rendered” fee 4 months ago, and when I asked they said it was because of lifeguard costs and outside contractor repair costs.
I've seen both of those signs in person and while I agree they aren't the most clear, they are much more clear in person and there's also multiple additional signs throughout the location
I’ve seen the signs in person too and I don’t think there’s any way your average guest would notice those disclaimers, unless you’re looking for them which I’m assuming you were.
Are you just going to ignore this though? I’m really interested to know why you think BGW has added a surcharge if it’s not meant to obscure the true price of what they’re selling.
Just because surcharges are happening and some of us are understanding that they happen doesn’t mean we are ok with them. And I feel that’s a major disconnect going on right now.
So for the record: I HATE SURCHARGES. I think they are a backhanded way for companies to pass along supply chain or labor costs.
But in the world of rising costs, companies are in a no win situation. It’s raise costs or put on a surcharge. Both get viewed as slimy, especially at the start of a recession. Posting that there is a surcharge is at least helpful. There’s plenty of places that don’t say they are doing it.
The other option here was to raise prices, print all new signage, get them all posted up at the exact same time, and likely stick with that pricing. At least a surcharge can easily be walked back.
Until laws get passed that the price listed has to be all inclusive these will continue to happen.
So for the record: I HATE SURCHARGES. I think they are a backhanded way for companies to pass along supply chain or labor costs.
But in the world of rising costs, companies are in a no win situation. It’s raise costs or put on a surcharge. Both get viewed as slimy, especially at the start of a recession. Posting that there is a surcharge is at least helpful. There’s plenty of places that don’t say they are doing it.
The other option here was to raise prices, print all new signage, get them all posted up at the exact same time, and likely stick with that pricing. At least a surcharge can easily be walked back.
Until laws get passed that the price listed has to be all inclusive these will continue to happen.
The "reason" being "cover increased operational costs" isn't a reason. That's saying things are more expensive now, so we had to add a fee to cover that, but that isn't how increased costs work. If your cost goes up, your prices go up. This isn't the result of some new thing, it's the result of SEAS being deceptive. I'm not sure if you would agree but based on their wording they could call it an "inflation fee". There isn't anything here that warrants a separate line item, even C19 fees at least have some basis for many businesses that have additional overhead for taking care of the precautions that happened during that time. I'm also not saying that companies CANT do this, I'm just saying that I will not support a company that does.
1. citation needed. I am 90% sure that "hidden fees" must be disclosed to the consumer before the sale but once again IANAL. 2. I don't want to be upset about it. Saying so makes it seems as if you think it's unreasonable to refuse to do business who does such things. 3. I have every basis to claim that and you don't even know what my basis is. You only know what I've told you and as I've said, this isn't the only anti-consumer practice the company has attempted, and some of them have died on the cutting room floor only due to the feedback from legal.
Two things here. First, ok buddy. I'm not gonna say that I haven't ever paid extra unintended fees before, but I do absolutely keep tabs on that and make a point of not spending money places that do, SEAS is no different and I've spent a total of 0$ in the parks this year and will not be renewing. Second, you two keep throwing out these hypotheticals where everyone else is charging fees and getting away with it and nobody cares about them, but that isn't the case. I don't shop places with BS fees. Companies that do charge BS fees face backlash, and there is, AFAIK, a legal requirement to disclose these fees prior to any purchase.
The degree to which one will contort themselves to defend a company that is actively trying to bleed them dry is remarkable.
I would encourage you to read the second article I linked. The polling is right there on how people feel. The percent that would give backlash is far smaller than the percent who pay it and move on.
Additionally, while they do have to disclose it, there’s companies (Sherman-Williams example) where it doesn’t happen until after everything is rung up and right before you have to swipe your card.
At least SEAS is posting about the surcharge before the transaction happens allowing you to change your mind ahead of time. Still not good mind you, but you can at least make the informed decision before getting to the POS.
You’re wrongly assuming that a price increase and the 5% surcharge are equally noticeable by guests. We discussed this in one of my consumer behavior classes recently; there is a large body of research that shows that customers do not perceive all price increases equally. Consumers are most sensitive to a direct change in price, but other tactics to effectively raise the price — like smaller portions or calculations that require consumers to do math — are harder for the average consumer to notice. This article cites a Consumer Reports study which basically found that, when you require customers to do math to understand the price of what they’re paying, they tend to underestimate what they’re paying. Similarly, this study found that consumers incorrectly perceived a price as being lower when a service charge was factored into it, compared to just a single price being given. So, if you’re saying BGW had the option of either raising prices or adding a surcharge, the choice is obvious if they cared at all about transparency — they should’ve just raised the prices.
I also don’t buy the “they’d need to print new signage” argument for one second, since pretty much all of the major locations at the park have digital menus that could be changed instantly.
"Companies that do charge fees face backlash"...*checks numbers*...from about 49% of customers who notice. Read your own article? Also several of those polls are reflecting a covid surcharge vs hidden fees in general.
Trust me, I know of specific instances where almost the exact situations y'all are dreaming up where the hidden fees aren't mentioned to the customer during the purchase were run through the wheels at corp and the only reason they didn't happen was because legal said no. You are giving a company credit for not doing something they very much did indeed try to pull off, and instead went with the bare minimum legally safe version.
It will be nice to not have people like you that seem to hate and bitch about everything no longer in the partk
Maybe now the resat of us can continue to enjoy it with out this crybaby bs
Look. I think there are reasonable ways to try to defend the surcharges—"other places are doing them so fuck it," "company wants money, consumers don't really care," etc. I'd argue against these points for sure, but I think a case could be built. Sincerely though, to the people opposite of me in this argument, I think picking "SEAS isn't trying to deceive" as the hill to fight on is a huge mistake. I can't fathom how that could possibly be true. The entire scheme is literally built around concealing the true prices of goods from consumers. I have seen and can dream of no other explaination for the choice to apply a 5% surcharge on all purchases of food and merchandise when actual list prices for these same items can be (and very regularly are) changed.
If you named a spesific individual, depending on the language, it could enter a gray area.
Honest question:
So when someone makes that point and the counter is “But SEAS is hiding it”; aren’t we being forced to take that position? I’m not picking that position. I (and others) are being forced into that as “hey, they at least post something” without any consideration to the “hey many places are doing that.”
I don’t like it at all, but hell this is the country we are in. We’re in one where profits mean more than anything and a majority of companies will do anything to squeeze every dime out of what they can.
You see, that's exactly why I said what I did. I think we all actually agree that this is a bad, scummy, dishonest business practice. Acknowledging that common ground in this argument seems helpful.
I think everyone involved here would freely tell you that there are more scummy business practices occuring right now out in the world than BGW's surcharge, but that doesn't make the 5% thing less scummy—it just makes it less shitty than [insert even worse business].
At the end of the day, I think in this post-COVID world, it's clear that legislation is needed to ban this sort of dishonest business behavior. It is becoming incredibly widespread and it is, in my opinion, dreadfully harmful to consumers.
I think everyone involved here would freely tell you that there are more scummy business practices occuring right now out in the world than BGW's surcharge, but that doesn't make the 5% thing less scummy—it just makes it less shitty than [insert even worse business].
At the end of the day, I think in this post-COVID world, it's clear that legislation is needed to ban this sort of dishonest business behavior. It is becoming incredibly widespread and it is, in my opinion, dreadfully harmful to consumers.
Which I fully agree with, but somehow saying ”at least SEAS posts something while doing something shitty” is wrong….which it isn’t. Hell look at my post that I said I think it’s scummy, there wasn’t acknowledgement of that being common ground.
I’m unhappy with it either way. I’m less inclined to make a stink at BGW because it’s posted before I get to the POS than I am (and did) at Sherman Williams because it was put on after I got to the POS and had a custom color mixed (which would have cost $20 for refusing to take….plus the surcharge).
Ok, but you see, I'm inclined to push back on that because, from where I'm sitting, it looks like you're essentially allowing shitty businesses to shift the Overton window in their favor. It seems like we should just be able to call SEAS and Sherman Williams shitty, scammy companies and move on without having to dissect the exact ranking of their dishonesty.
I get where you are coming from—I'm just trying to highlight that the gap between where we are is basically entirely rhetorical and we both agree that SEAS (and, by extension, every other company engaging in this scam) fucking sucks.
I get where you are coming from—I'm just trying to highlight that the gap between where we are is basically entirely rhetorical and we both agree that SEAS (and, by extension, every other company engaging in this scam) fucking sucks.