$5 off $5 1st order at Family Video

I didn't want to end up waiting for Zelda, so I decided to get Red Steel, which was the only other Wii launch title that interested me. $41.65 shipped (with tax).
 
i got in on this late last night

picked up gears of war & ff xii

question for everyone ->

gears collector's for 58 or gears regular for 46? i am trying to decide which one to keep
 
I was a regular customer at my Family Video until I subscribed to Netflix. They send me free rental coupons every now and again, begging for me to return.
 
yay.... picked up zelda wii, call of duty wii, trauma center wii, red steel, and super mario super show volume 2 :) Mike is HAPPY!!!!
 
[quote name='espy605']How long is this coupon code good for? I'd like to wait to see if they actually ship the orders.[/quote]

probably good till they get rid of it because of abuse lol
 
Ordered Gears for $46. Hopefully no better deal comes around (well, hopefully it does, really), what with almost a month before release and all. I don't expect it to be region free, so Play Asia is out of the question.

Hope it doesn't take too long to arrive!
 
just a heads up, this is also really good on a lot of DS pre-orders. ff3 is 34.96 before the coupon and shipping, which will bring it down to almost 10 dollars less than msrp. someone mentioned castlevania, but yoshi's island 2 is also on here and would come out to about 23 after coupon.
 
[quote name='icruise']I didn't want to end up waiting for Zelda, so I decided to get Red Steel, which was the only other Wii launch title that interested me. $41.65 shipped (with tax).[/QUOTE]

interesting, how come I didnt have to pay tax? WI
 
interesting, how come I didnt have to pay tax? WI
Click to expand...

Maybe residents of some states, like Illinois, have to pay tax, but not residents of Wisconsin? Perhaps Family Video only charges tax in states where it physically has stores.
 
I think the reason he's asking is that they have stores in both Illinois and Wisconsin, so it's strange that only I had to pay tax.
 
[quote name='cleaver']They're reporting mass cancellations on DVDTalk, any cancellations here?[/QUOTE]

Nope, but I did a preorder for Gears of War.

Is everyone getting cancelled or only orders where people are buying low priced stuff?
 
OK, not cancellations, but emails saying

It has come to our attention that you have registered multiple accounts with our website. The "New Member Discount" was intended as a one-time, one per household offer. We will charge an additional $5.00, and fulfill this order. No further orders reflecting the new member discount will be honored.

Thank You for Shopping With Us!

Your Friends @ FamilyVideo.com
 
Damn, that just cost me $10 if they do that to me! oh well....

cleaver how many orders using different emails did you have? And did it specify which game they're charging the extra $5 for? I have two preorders under two different emails of my own and one under my girlfriends, although all three same address. *shrug*
 
I think that's wrong of them to do that. Even if someone misused the coupon, it's not right for Family Video to go ahead and fufill the order and charge $5 extra unless you give them permission to (or have the option to cancel the order if you want)
 
I was going to order Castlevania: POR until I saw this "This product will be in stock and ready to ship on Friday 29 December, 2006. "


I'd rather not wait that long for it to ship. Besides, it will be out around the holidays, hopefully there will be a deal.
 
[quote name='YoshiFan1']I think that's wrong of them to do that. Even if someone misused the coupon, it's not right for Family Video to go ahead and fufill the order and charge $5 extra unless you give them permission to (or have the option to cancel the order if you want)[/QUOTE]

No offense, but I think it's good for them to do it -- users shouldn't be scamming them, and they're just "paying" them back.

If I were managing that site, I'd do the same.

Family Video is a small retail chain that's stayed alive through ethical and good business practices (we have 'em here in IL and they're a great co.). Kudos for them to stick it to users who are trying to take advantage of them.
 
[quote name='romeogbs19']No offense, but I think it's good for them to do it -- users shouldn't be scamming them, and they're just "paying" them back.

If I were managing that site, I'd do the same.

Family Video is a small retail chain that's stayed alive through ethical and good business practices (we have 'em here in IL and they're a great co.). Kudos for them to stick it to users who are trying to take advantage of them.[/QUOTE]
This is cheapassgamer, not cheapasssmallbusinesspwner.
 
How about just giving the customer the option of cancelling the orders instead of just shipping them out without the coupon. That is probably the fairest way to go about it.
 
[quote name='OGHowie']How about just giving the customer the option of cancelling the orders instead of just shipping them out without the coupon. That is probably the fairest way to go about it.[/QUOTE]


Why? Because most likely those double dippers wont want to monkey with the return postage and what not..

I think this is funny actually.

I was going to place my first order and it wont go through it gives a credit card error. I tried changing my credit card and neither one worked? It looks like they might have shut down the deal?
 
[quote name='Snake2715']Why? Because most likely those double dippers wont want to monkey with the return postage and what not..

I think this is funny actually.[/QUOTE]

I think its weak as shit... I did this to get 4 items... hopefully they dont end up jewin me. Better not since Ive allready dropped 350 dollars in store within the past 4 months. Its not like theyd really be losing money to me.
 
[quote name='BasketCase1080']I think its weak as shit... I did this to get 4 items... hopefully they dont end up jewin me. Better not since Ive allready dropped 350 dollars in store within the past 4 months. Its not like theyd really be losing money to me.[/quote]

They are losing money. Do you know how small the margins on these games are?
 
[quote name='romeogbs19']No offense, but I think it's good for them to do it -- users shouldn't be scamming them, and they're just "paying" them back.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's legal, to be honest or at the very least not within the terms of their merchant agreement. You've authorized a charge for X dollars and they're suddenly going to charge X+5? Unless you agreed to price changes after the fact in some ToS somewhere they can't suddenly charge what they want. They can absolutely invalidate the coupon, cancel the order and say "this now costs X+5 dollars do you still want it?" because they're not obligated to sell you anything at all but they also can't set an arbitrary price. A contract requires a meeting of the minds.
IF, and this is a big if since I didn't make a purchase and don't have first hand info, this is what they're doing I think this is going to end badly for them. They're going to get a lot of chargebacks since they can't prove they authorized more than X dollars, and a lot of people will complain to their CC company with proof of what was authorized. I don't think any emotional satisfaction someone, somewhere gets from this decision will balance out the backlash. They'll probably get that extra $5 from a lot of people, but they're going to get chargebacks and hassle from a lot as well. That's not a good business decision when they could have simply cancelled all the coupon orders.
 
I forgot all about this one. I grabbed Tron on UMD, because it's one of the only UMD titles I want but don't already own. $6 is a better price point for them, I think ;)

Thanks to everyone who posted this one
 
[quote name='cleaver']OK, not cancellations, but emails saying

It has come to our attention that you have registered multiple accounts with our website. The "New Member Discount" was intended as a one-time, one per household offer. We will charge an additional $5.00, and fulfill this order. No further orders reflecting the new member discount will be honored.

Thank You for Shopping With Us!

Your Friends @ FamilyVideo.com[/quote]

same thing happened to me, fortunately their prices aren't that bad before coupon...i personally think its funny, but i don't think it's legal
 
[quote name='Damian']I don't think it's legal, to be honest or at the very least not within the terms of their merchant agreement. You've authorized a charge for X dollars and they're suddenly going to charge X+5? Unless you agreed to price changes after the fact in some ToS somewhere they can't suddenly charge what they want. They can absolutely invalidate the coupon, cancel the order and say "this now costs X+5 dollars do you still want it?" because they're not obligated to sell you anything at all but they also can't set an arbitrary price. A contract requires a meeting of the minds.
IF, and this is a big if since I didn't make a purchase and don't have first hand info, this is what they're doing I think this is going to end badly for them. They're going to get a lot of chargebacks since they can't prove they authorized more than X dollars, and a lot of people will complain to their CC company with proof of what was authorized. I don't think any emotional satisfaction someone, somewhere gets from this decision will balance out the backlash. They'll probably get that extra $5 from a lot of people, but they're going to get chargebacks and hassle from a lot as well. That's not a good business decision when they could have simply cancelled all the coupon orders.[/QUOTE]

Actually, you're making the big assumption that the refunds/returns will be a greater hassle than canceling them altogether. FV stands to lose a lot of sales by just canceling everything, and it's a lot of work to contact every buyer and ask them whether they want to cancel. It's much easier on their end to ID those orders, automatically set the others to their correct price (minus promo) and ship them.

As for the legality of it, anyone who made multiple accounts to try to use the promo more than once would have a very tough time winning their argument. Whether one approves of the "corrected" charges is an after-the-fact argument, meaning it's after the consumer deliberately created two accounts, after the consumer deliberately bought another item, and after the consumer deliberately used the promo again.

In litigation of any sort, the consumer is going to be accused of fraud or misrepresentation first -- meaning FV charging the correct amount is hardly the first moment of an illegal act, if it can even be called that.

Bottom line is FV isn't at fault. The terms of the promo are very clear. People aren't going to like what they've done here, but for the small co. they are, it makes much more sense logistically, and legally, well, the argument is far better on their side.

[quote name='cleaver']This is cheapassgamer, not cheapasssmallbusinesspwner.[/QUOTE]

Uhhh ... since when did CAG.com turn into CheatAssGamer.com? I'm all for buying games cheaply, but misrepresenting oneself to save $5 isn't justified and isn't worth it. Come on guys, you stand to lose a lot more should FV ever think about pursuing you legally (which they can). Now, they prob. won't for the same reasons we wouldn't bother (costs, time, etc.), but beyond ethics and all that other moral blah-blah, it's just common sense based on the potential.
 
[quote name='romeogbs19']Actually, you're making the big assumption that the refunds/returns will be a greater hassle than canceling them altogether. [/QUOTE]
No, I'm making the assumption that chargebacks will be a greater hassle than just cancelling everything and I think it's a safe assumption. Chargebacks are evil if you're a merchant.

As for the legality of it, anyone who made multiple accounts to try to use the promo more than once would have a very tough time winning their argument. Whether one approves of the "corrected" charges is an after-the-fact argument, meaning it's after the consumer deliberately created two accounts, after the consumer deliberately bought another item, and after the consumer deliberately used the promo again.
Click to expand...
That's irrelevant though. A violation by one party doesn't release the other party. If I made some purchases at Target, and shoplifted while I was there Target does not have the right to charge the credit card I used for the stuff I stole. I would absolutely be in the wrong to steal it, and Target would have recourse against me in the form of small claims, etc, but they cannot take a unilateral action that the law does not provide for.

In litigation of any sort, the consumer is going to be accused of fraud or misrepresentation first -- meaning FV charging the correct amount is hardly the first moment of an illegal act, if it can even be called that.
Click to expand...
Litigation? Who said anything about litigation? This won't go past a phone call and maybe a fax or two to a credit card company. The consumer will complain they were charged too much and provide their order confirmation as proof. The CC company will contact FV, FV will claim fraud and the CC company will say, "Why didn't you cancel them if you thought they were fraudulent?" FV will say "because this was easier for us" and the CC company will say "Wrong. Denied." I don't know if you've ever been through the chargeback process but credit card companies are not the merchant's friend. You can easily get a CC through another bank if yours isn't helpful, merchants don't have that luxury.

There's also the concept of mitigation of damages. You have an obligation to protect yourself from damage if possible, and sending out orders at a price they knew wasn't authorized is just foolhardy. If they have ANY doubt about the validity of a transaction, they have an obligation to not go through with it or suffer the consequences themselves.

Bottom line is FV isn't at fault.
Click to expand...
For charging more than they were authorized to? They absolutely without a doubt are at fault. Did the customers break the contract first? Absolutely. Does that give FV the right to break it as well? No, absolutely not.
 
[quote name='romeogbs19']Bottom line is FV isn't at fault. The terms of the promo are very clear. People aren't going to like what they've done here, but for the small co. they are, it makes much more sense logistically, and legally, well, the argument is far better on their side.

Uhhh ... since when did CAG.com turn into CheatAssGamer.com? I'm all for buying games cheaply, but misrepresenting oneself to save $5 isn't justified and isn't worth it. Come on guys, you stand to lose a lot more should FV ever think about pursuing you legally (which they can). Now, they prob. won't for the same reasons we wouldn't bother (costs, time, etc.), but beyond ethics and all that other moral blah-blah, it's just common sense based on the potential.[/QUOTE]
How are the terms clear? $5 off is the promotion, and people who are getting charged probably put their names and addresses the same on each account, not trying to be slick. I checked you previous posts and you say
[quote name='romeogbs19']I doubt it'll stack but if you can find a dumb cashier, more power to you. The coupon says it cannot be combined with another offer.

Also, not sure whether it would apply to more than 1 item at a time if used independently; the coupon implies it works only against one item so I don't know how CAGers are applying it to multiple games at once. May be on diff. visits[/quote]
so I guess it's cool to cheat Toys R Us.
 
[quote name='cleaver']How are the terms clear? $5 off is the promotion[/quote]

not taking sides, but the promotion is $5 off FIRST ORDER. if you order with multiple accounts, you take a risk. i'd say good for FV to reject multiple orders, though they should just cancel the other orders
 
I'm only responding for fun -- in no way am I trying to offend people or get flamed. I figured I could add to everyone's amusement by keeping this going ;-)

As for my TRU comment, listen, I'm not some conservative bully standing on a pulpit decrying my moral virtue to everyone :) I'm not that person. I simply said what I thought and I don't expect people to change their behaviors by what I say. I do hope people think about what I said, and that's it. That's why we have these boards, right?

So anyways, here's my take on Damian's points. Enjoy ;-) It's nice to have "deep" debates on CAG every once in a while.


[quote name='Damian'] No, I'm making the assumption that chargebacks will be a greater hassle than just cancelling everything and I think it's a safe assumption. Chargebacks are evil if you're a merchant. [/QUOTE]

I understand your point, however, I think the number of people who are going to call their CC companies to get FV to chargeback will be fewer than if FV canceled everything. I think that's the likely scenario. Sure, FV will need to deal with those chargebacks and that's a hassle for them. However, I hope you agree contacting everyone to ask whether they'd like to cancel is a far greater hassle. FV could have canceled all the orders, but then it would need to cancel ALL -- meaning anyone who used the promo more than once -- how are they to determine which one to keep and which to cancel? That means they would need to contact everyone, and that defaults back to the same reasoning.


[quote name='Damian'] That's irrelevant though. A violation by one party doesn't release the other party. If I made some purchases at Target, and shoplifted while I was there Target does not have the right to charge the credit card I used for the stuff I stole. I would absolutely be in the wrong to steal it, and Target would have recourse against me in the form of small claims, etc, but they cannot take a unilateral action that the law does not provide for. [/QUOTE]

Unlike a politician, let me admit you're right, FV isn't entirely blameless. :) But I don't think what they did is really wrong, either, esp. given the circumstances.

That said, I do stand by my statement that they are the party with a better argument for their reaction. Your analogy takes my comment to an extreme; it also doesn't make a correct comparison. I agree Target doesn't have the right to charge your card for the items you stole -- after all, you never gave them your credit card number.

For this scenario, the particulars are quite different. The consumer has agreed to buy an item and has authorized the credit card. Now consider who the acting agent is for the following: (1) creation of account (2) input of mailing address, credit card (3) confirmation and (4) input of promotiona codes.

FV in no way contributes to these actions. Should the consumer decide to make duplicate accounts and apply the promo code to each acct., that is misrepresentation. Does that mean FV is completely off the hook for moving forward on the transactions? No, it does not. However, in the majority of cases, I think the consumer is well aware he is violating the use of the promotion, in which case the greater proportion of the fault is on the consumer, not FV.


[quote name='Damian'] Litigation? Who said anything about litigation? This won't go past a phone call and maybe a fax or two to a credit card company. The consumer will complain they were charged too much and provide their order confirmation as proof. The CC company will contact FV, FV will claim fraud and the CC company will say, "Why didn't you cancel them if you thought they were fraudulent?" FV will say "because this was easier for us" and the CC company will say "Wrong. Denied." I don't know if you've ever been through the chargeback process but credit card companies are not the merchant's friend. You can easily get a CC through another bank if yours isn't helpful, merchants don't have that luxury. [/QUOTE]

LOL -- No, I never meant real litigation :) Of course not! I agree with you most (if not all) of these will be handled by a simple phone call. All I was suggesting was that I don't think it's worth duplicity to get $5 off. That was it. Look -- for every person who tries to cheat the system, it's one more reason companies won't offer them in the future. Wholistically speaking, doing things like this may only hurt our ability to see future ones like this.

As for how FV responds to CC merchants, I don't know if that's what they'll say. Every move a company makes is calculated with attorney advice. I doubt FV went ahead and charged everyone without consulting its lawyers, which is why I doubt that FV will respond the way you suggest when its asked why it went ahead and billed the totals. I'm not a lawyer but I worked in online media for almost 4 years and there's a commitment by businesses online to crack down on behavior like this so (while unlikely) I can see FV telling CC companies why it did what it did.

[quote name='Damian'] I don't know if you've ever been through the chargeback process but credit card companies are not the merchant's friend. You can easily get a CC through another bank if yours isn't helpful, merchants don't have that luxury. [/QUOTE]

True, but in this case, I don't think so. Merchants might not be CC companies' friends, but CC make some of their profit off merchant charges so they are as much a client as you are. Now, I've been involved in chargebacks where the merchant was entirely at fault. I think we agree that's not really the case here, and so I don't think the conversation will go exactly as you say in all instances.


[quote name='Damian'] There's also the concept of mitigation of damages. You have an obligation to protect yourself from damage if possible, and sending out orders at a price they knew wasn't authorized is just foolhardy. If they have ANY doubt about the validity of a transaction, they have an obligation to not go through with it or suffer the consequences themselves. [/QUOTE]

Again, I would assume FV consulted its attorneys before it did what it did. I think you're overly siding with the consumer on this. To be fair, couldn't you say that if the consumer felt any doubt about using the promo on more than one acct. that he should ask FV whether he could do it before moving forward?


[quote name='Damian'] For charging more than they were authorized to? They absolutely without a doubt are at fault. Did the customers break the contract first? Absolutely. Does that give FV the right to break it as well? No, absolutely not. [/QUOTE]

Again, agree with you here. FV isn't blameless -- but like all cases, I think that the greater fault here lies with the consumers than with FV. Did FV react appropriately? I think they have a strong argument to insist they did. The consumer really doesn't come out of this looking positive no matter which way I see it. Sure, he could claim FV charged him without authorization, and that's true -- but given the circumstances, I think it's easy to see which side is in the greater wrong.
 
Hey asshat romeogbs19, I talked to a good friend of mine today whom is the manager of the family video here. He tells me that himself along with many of his other managers (runs the three FV's in town) all took advantage of this error. He said that its not his fault they never logged IPs or something to make it one use per IP, so he took advantage of the exploit as well. That kills your whole asking someone at family video if doing this action was alright theory.
 
[quote name='BasketCase1080']Hey asshat romeogbs19, I talked to a good friend of mine today whom is the manager of the family video here. He tells me that himself along with many of his other managers (runs the three FV's in town) all took advantage of this error. He said that its not his fault they never logged IPs or something to make it one use per IP, so he took advantage of the exploit as well. That kills your whole asking someone at family video if doing this action was alright theory.[/QUOTE]

I hope you know how flawed this argument is. Here's just one: being a mgr. at FV doesn't mean anything re: justification for the action. And where exactly do I ever put forth the argument about asking someone at FV? Guess what? Nowhere.

Try reading the arguments next time before putting one forward. On a standardized test, it's called the main point question. You can't debate something if you don't know the main point. In case you're having any trouble, here it is: In the FV scenario, consumers are at a greater fault than FV, regardless of how one views FV's reaction to the multiple acct. orders.
 
This is ridiculous. I placed only one order, so this isn't a problem for me personally, but this is enough of an ugly/spiteful move that I probably won't ever consider ordering from Family Video again. I mean, really, this is bush league. This is a marginal online retailer acting like a marginal online retailer. People trying to find every last way to save every last nickel shopping online is a well established practice and, right or wrong, I've never heard of a retailer *biting* back like this. If you don't want to eat the $5 per extra order, as a retailer, you cancel the orders. It's all in a database and results in no labor cost. Honestly, I can only shake my head. For most of us, this was the first time we've heard of family video as a reputable retailer - online or not. Isn't that the whole point of a promotion like this? I bought GOW and was actually pretty impressed with many of their prices. I would have bought again. But then they had to go and shit the bed.

If they do ship these orders, they will get an assload of chargebacks, and they will lose them. The burden is really on the retailer in chargebacks, as far as I know. Their email says 'we intended one per household' - well WTF? Who cares what you intended, you bush league creeps? It was for NEW USERS. What if spouses, children, etc., became unique users? So many defenses for the purchaser, and no defense for Family Video except transparent spite.
 
So they will ship my first $5 off order fine (ships next week), but when my 2nd $5 off order ships in late Novemeber, they will wait until it ships, then email me and charge me $5 more?
 
[quote name='ZildjianKX']So they will ship my first $5 off order fine (ships next week), but when my 2nd $5 off order ships in late Novemeber, they will wait until it ships, then email me and charge me $5 more?[/quote]

ya i would like to know that too...cuz they said they will be taking NO FURTHER orders...which makes me feel like they should follow through with the one's that have already been put in?
 
I think they should just cancel the orders, and that they are wrong for charging more than what people agreed to pay, but I don't agree with trying to take advantage of FV either.

Don't figure that because they accepted an order because of a glitch that it's a win-win for you (either they let it go through, or they cancel your order, or you get a coupon because they made a mistake). They are kind enough to give you $5 off your first order, as well as 99 cent shipping and no tax, don't whine about not being able to take advantage of them. What are they doing that's worse than what your trying to do to them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top