var json_comments = new Array("

$\"user-pic\"$

thisheregirafFe

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate | Flag for review

slw dy, h cnsmrst ?

11 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

coan_net

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@thisheregirafFe: The point being, it's not really a Consumerist issues - it's a price mistake - many stores do it. Prices go up... prices go down... prices go back up. Sometimes not all the signage on the shelf is changed. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

What is next, The Consumerist has a story about how someone is breathing? It happens all the time.

Since the signage still had both prices, the store should have honored the old price... but of course since they said nothing (other then running to the internet to complain) the problem is still there not getting fixed.

$\"user-pic\"$

squinko

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@coan_net: Getting charged the wrong price is a consumer issue.

$\"user-pic\"$

thisheregirafFe

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: oh come on... the vending machine at work didn't give me the 20 cents change from yesterday's doritos purchase it should have... do you care ?

$\"user-pic\"$

squinko

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@thisheregirafFe: Let me break this down into very simple terms for you:

If one person is being overcharged on one item, every other person who buys that item is being overcharged as well. It isn't a matter of 20 cents one time. It's 20 cents on this item, 50 cents on another, etc., and with the volume of business Target does, that's a lot of people being overcharged every day. It is a pricing mistake yes, but they have been caught doing it repeatedly and charging a customer more than the listed price is illegal. Does that help?

(Also, if you dislike articles about pricing mistakes, here's a tip: don't read them.)

$\"user-pic\"$

gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@thisheregirafFe: i think you meant \"slw dy, h cnsmrst ?\"

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

What's funny is that when I saw the now-disemvoweled post, I kind of agreed because today is a slow day for consumer-related news. No big controversies so far, and I usually see at least one by 2 pm! No one's suing someone else, the Blockbuster death bell hasn't rung again yet, and we haven't brought up any women's issues or gotten into discussions on elitism...there wasn't even a Mac vs. PC war!

I usually see at least three things that people probably submitted before me, but this morning I didn't see anything. Yesterday, I saw about five consumer-related things, but today...nothing.

I'm eagerly awaiting the controversy.

$\"user-pic\"$

squinko

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: You have been reported missy!

$\"user-pic\"$

squinko

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@gStein_has joined the star bandwagon: Hahaha, looks like you called it!

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@thisheregirafFe: And that's an example of why I think the comments code ([consumerist.com]) should be linked in the sidebar.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@floraposte: Word.

@thisheregirafFe: Bingo!

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@thisheregirafFe: There are those that have kids,,,and not much income.

$\"user-pic\"$

thisheregirafFe

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@LeChiffre: and i'm sure they care... however, this is an issue with a register not ringing up the correct price. not much to learn from there...

$\"user-pic\"$

coren

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@thisheregirafFe: Or it's the register ringing up the correct price and Target falsely advertising. Furthermore, it could be a great lesson in price mistakes, how to handle them, and what the rules/laws about them are should the OP have chosen to fight Target for their 20 cents.

$\"user-pic\"$

HFC

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@thisheregirafFe: Did the register post two prices for one item?

$\"user-pic\"$

tonberry

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@thisheregirafFe: this is an issue of target's hilarious pricing, which i find amusing. thanks consumerist!

$\"user-pic\"$

squinko

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

As an aside, if you are reporting comments to Roz, she asks that you include the user's profile link as well as the link to the comment, since she's having some issues with the comment links. Not that I'm implying anything...

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: She wasn't online yesterday during the smarmy comment, and I totally forgot to email her. D'oh!

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Fabuloso

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

she was to busy corralling her 6 year old to show the cashier the picture but she wasn't to busy to take one to prove the mistake? Dumb.

12 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

coren

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@BB_User: Taking a picture is rather easy. Perhaps she took it beforehand for a good laugh (or to prove it if need be, and then decided it wasn't worth it, that her six year old wasn't going to behave long enough for the price check, etc.) It is kind of funny.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@BB_User: What if she went back to the store at a later time to take the picture? Don't make assumptions.

$\"user-pic\"$

Fabuloso

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@joshua70448: thats almost as retarded as you look. Moron

$\"user-pic\"$

outlulz

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@BB_User: I probably wouldn't argue about 22 cents if I was busy with a kid. Even if I was by myself I probably wouldn't bother with 22 cents and just assume it was a mistake by a stocker who left a sale price out. 22 cents is not worth hassling a minimum wage cashier and holding up customers behind me, as I'm sure a manager would have to be paged.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@outlulz: Right, and it's kind of a tradition around here to post funny articles about Target's pricing mistakes. So that may have been the OP's intention more than anything else.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: A Target cashier isn't going to argue over 22 cents. It's not worth their time and the inconvenience of the guest's in the line. So yes, this would have been a 10 second issue.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Jbjohn942: *shrug* if you say so. The last price check I did at Target (missing tag, so slightly different issue, but still) took upwards of 10 minutes.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@BB_User: My first thought was, \"that's 22 cents a pack!\" Since it's a two-pack, if she bought about eight of these, she would have saved more than a dollar. I totally would have shown the cashier the photo.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@BB_User: Just because you're anonymous doesn't mean you have to be heartless. No doubt the contributor will read these comments. Don't you think the word dumb is a little harsh? Do you know what its like to have a 6 year old? Maybe the 22 cents is a small price to pay to avoid a meltdown at the register.

$\"user-pic\"$

Fabuloso

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Method of Steepest Descent: actually i do know what its like to have a six year old and believe me the extra ten seconds it would have taken the OP save the some money by speaking up for herself and letting target fix the mistake instead of this,running home to go behind the back of target and post that picture on the consumerist would not have created a melt down of any sort for her kid. She deserves whats she gets for complaining about it afterward when she did nothing but pay the wrong price. which is Dumb.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@BB_User: TEN SECONDS? What are you smoking? Do you really think they'd take her word for it? No, they'd have to find a free employee to walk over to the shelf and check the prices, and check them in the system, etc. We're talking 2 minutes, minimum, NOT 10 seconds. And depending no how busy the Target was and how lazy the person they asked was, it could take upward of 5 or 10 minutes.

$\"user-pic\"$

psm321

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: Some stores do just take your word for it. I was very surprised the first time I had that happen.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@psm321: Huh, go figure. They weren't willing to do it in my case, even though I knew the (high) price of the shoes, which I'd looked up online earlier.

$\"user-pic\"$

Fabuloso

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: that's when you show the cashier the picture. seriously your gonna argue about this? Bottom line if you don't have the time to pay the correct price but you do have time to get fleeced and know about it, don't complain and don't blame your uncontrollable children. Have a super day! :)

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@BB_User: I've never had an employee of any store take my word for a price match, I very much doubt that a picture is going to make a difference.

P.S. Very clever job there, going from calling someone dumb to throwing a smiley face my way. And arguments go two ways, my friend. :) <-- see that? It's a jolly smiley face.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: Ha! You get a heart for that comment. Friended.

$\"user-pic\"$

4hotdog

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster:\"P.S. Very clever job there, going from calling someone dumb to throwing a smiley face my way. And arguments go two ways, my friend. :) <-- see that? It's a jolly smiley face.\"

Hilarious

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@4hotdog: Heh, thanks. I'm a little punchy this morning, I couldn't resist. :) <--this smiley face is ACTUALLY jolly, though.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: Agreed. In my local Target the baby section is at the far back of the store from the registers - and since Target seems to prefer to grab someone up front to check prices over calling someone over an intercom, it would take a good long while to resolve this issue. And all that time you're dealing with a fidgety six year old and most likely a line of disgruntled fellow shoppers building up behind you. Definitely not worth it.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: I think this is where a parent's ability to put the fear of the Lord into a child comes into play. I understand kids have meltdowns all on their own, but my mother never had a problem controlling me in a store. Whenever I have kids and I have to take them into public, I'd tie a ball to my kid's wrist so he or she could play with it, but couldn't throw it at anyone or drop it.

Yeah, the cashier would find an employee to go look, but I would have totally done it for that 22 cents because most parents buy a lot of baby food in large quantities. The savings add up.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: True, but there may have been other things going on, is all I'm saying. She may not have wanted the line behind her to wait, etc.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: If they actually send someone back to check, make sure you complain to someone about it. It's Target's policy to take the customer's (\"guest's\") word if the item is under $20 and the difference is reasonable.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Method of Steepest Descent: But this is the internet! Heartless comments from behind an anonymous username is the name of the game!

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Method of Steepest Descent: I interpreted the comment that the actions on the part of the mother were dumb, not that the mother was dumb. We all make stupid choices. She had time to snap the photo, but she could have just as easily had it brought up on her phone as she got to the register. That's what I do when I anticipate having to ask for a price adjustment.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@BB_User: Have you ever met a child under the sage of 10? The 6-year-old may very well have not been melting down until she got to the register.

ALSO pulling out your phone to snap a picture takes 10 seconds. Asking for a price check takes, oh upward of 10 minutes, depending on how busy/slow/lazy the manager is feeling.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@BB_User: I thought I was the only one who wondered about this =P.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Colonel Jack O'Neill

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Those prices look like they are for 2 different things.
If you look at the one that says .87, there's light hitting the beginning of it, so it looks like it says something different then the one that says 1.09.

8 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Colonel Jack O'Neill: I agree. The descriptions are for two different products. Compare secondary description line underneath the large bolder top part. There's GERBER (and a word perhaps 2ND or 2MG) and under the final bold character is a space in the secondary description on the right, whereas there's a different, longer word under the left label. It's clearly for two different products, not a vast corporate conspiracy.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Colonel Jack O'Neill: Having bought plenty of those in the not too distant past, I don't recall there being anything it could be mistaken for. The organ ones are higher still than $1.09 and are separate and the singles are in glass jars and significantly less than .87

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Colonel Jack O'Neill: Sorry to break this to you, but... you are wrong. As always.

If you bother to look at both of them, you'll see that they are both the same.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: haha. A little punchy this morning, are we?

$\"user-pic\"$

tonberry

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: i think someone stole his towel!

$\"user-pic\"$

Skaperen

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Colonel Jack O'Neill: Bar codes are the same

$\"user-pic\"$

bwcbwc

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: Don't know where you get that. The resolution on the picture is too low to tell whether they are the same. I don't see any differences, but there are some doubtful areas where differences could exist.

My original thought was that Gerber had repackaged with a new barcode (say after a grocery shrink-ray episode), but this looks more like a price change gone awry.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Colonel Jack O'Neill: i see in the glare 7oz sweet potato, exactly the same as the left. it appears there may be some other sticker underneath that sticker, but indeed those 2 displayed are for the same item, differing prices.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Colonel Jack O'Neill:

If you look very closely, they both say \"7oz 2-pack\", so same exact product.

Oh, and O'Neill rules. I'm re-watching the series right now, and I'm starting to remember how disappointed I was when he was \"replaced\" and starting doing more Executive Producer stuff.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

SmittyWerbenmanjensen

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Yep, ran into that yesterday at my Target - two shelves (one in an aisle, one was an endcap) of Up and Up and GermX hand sanitizer, one marked $2.29 and one marked $1.99 (the endcap). You win a cookie if you guessed it rang up as $2.29.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

pgh9fan1

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@SmittyWerbenmanjensen: I guessed $2.29.

And, I like snickerdoodles the best.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pgh9fan1: The pricing team probably just didnt make it to end endcap yet..

","

$\"user-pic\"$

cabjf

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Those tags should have dates on them. Whichever is the most recent should be what rings up. I would hope Target has a system that's smart enough to print those price tags directly from the same database the registers use.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@cabjf: Target is bad at pricing in general...I sincerely doubt they have such a system.

$\"user-pic\"$

Nicole

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: They probably do have such a system, doesn't mean the employee bothered to take the old sticker off before putting the new one on.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Nicole: If you click the Target tag, you'll see that this website could make a living off of just Target pricing issues as well. I don't think they know how to use that pricing system, even if they have it.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Nicole: working in retail having to update these price changes every single day when they go up or down .10 was a pain in the ass to keep up with. It happens.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

kc2gvx

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I wish the picture was a higher resolution. Chances are the $0.87 picture has a date that is well before the $1.09 tag. Since the $0.87 is where it should be as per Target's shelf-label (planogram) standards, someone in the pricing team should have covered the cheap one with the $1.09 tag, but placed it wrong. Either way, mom should have gotten the food for the lesser price, without argument. Target cashiers have override power for most products under $20.00 to take the guests word on pricing errors.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@kc2gvx: One of these days, I'll take my low-res camera to a local retailer, and move product over to an adjacent unfilled space and take a low-res picture of the self-created disturbing injustice before me, and get posted on Consumerist with instant credibility.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I will confirm this. All you need to do is ask - they do it automatically.

It costs more money to stop the transaction, call a supervisor, and discuss the price difference than charging .20 less.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

princesspineisempowered

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The .87 is 7oz, the $1.09 is 10 oz per picture provided. No fail

8 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@princesspineisempowered: No, the picture says 7 oz. for both pretty clearly; even on a small screen you can see that the oz. amount is only a single digit.

$\"user-pic\"$

larrymac thinks testing should have occurred

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@princesspineisempowered: Both tags say \"7OZ SWT POTATO 2PK\".

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@princesspineisempowered: It doesn't look that way to me. It's a little blurry but the $1.09 price only has one character before the \"OZ\". Couldn't be 10 oz.

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Donathius: @princesspineisempowered: Also (and unless you buy baby food, you wouldn't know this) -- this style of food only comes in the one size. There is no 10 oz. (And I've only ever seen them in the 2-packs.)

I have been price shopping as Mini McGee has just started on his \"stage 1\" solids. Peas! (I think tonight we add CARROTS. The excitement!)

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Ooh! I really like peas and carrots together. I actually didn't even like carrots, but I liked how they're perfectly diced into cubes and I liked lining them up with the peas.

Now I feel as if I must incorporate peas and carrots into tonight's dinner.

$\"user-pic\"$

princesspineisempowered

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

href=\"#c16546093\">princesspineisempowered: except me . My fail

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@princesspineisempowered: Heh. We've all had those moments. You'll be punished by getting corrections all day for an error you admitted within 2 minutes.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@princesspineisempowered: They both say 7oz.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Target has always been awful with this. Thankfully, a lot of their prices are still cheaper than other places for certain things.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Interesting. So, she was actually charged one of the listed prices?

Knowing Target, I was expecting her to pay some price vastly different than either of the two listed.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

shepd

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

If you don't complain, they certainly won't fix it and you'll continue to be ripped off. If you do complain, they still probably won't fix it, but you'll likely get such a cheap item for free (depending on store policy), and you can come back the next day, and the next, and so on until they're tired of giving you free stuff.

It's up to you, but I'd say go for the freebies while they're there!

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

If I needed 3 guesses for a question with 50/50 odds, there might be a job waiting for me at Target.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

JulesNoctambule

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ovalseven: Considering that it's Target, there could always be a third, previously undisclosed price!

$\"user-pic\"$

squinko

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ovalseven: Hahahaha. +1!

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Hogan1

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Tags are for the same item/size and have the same code so this is more then likely simply a case of an employee missing a label when updating prices. No one is perfect.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I'm guessing that just to the left out of the photo's range is a special deal to buy two 2-packs for only $2.24.

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Eh, it's cheapest to make your own baby food but if she was too lazy to make a stink about the price difference, she's probably not up to the making baby food challenge either...

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Kuchen

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@khfurletti: Wow. Way to judge someone without knowing anything about them.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@khfurletti: Maybe they were about to travel and couldn't bring jars of baby food with them. If you make your own baby food, you have to put it in your own jars - and throwing those out is just a waste of money.

There are reasons to buy baby food, you know. Maybe it wasn't even for her own child. You don't know how many children she has - it could have been a favor for a friend.

$\"user-pic\"$

squinko

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@khfurletti: Would this count as a \"I make my own X at home\" comment for commenting bingo purposes?

$\"user-pic\"$

coren

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: I thought it was meant to be a clever variation on that, but there I go being an optimist ;)

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: I don't think so, since khfurletti didn't specifically say that he or she makes X at home.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: He or she did, however, call the OP lazy for not making baby food.

$\"user-pic\"$

squinko

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Damn you and your \"making sense\", Pecan!

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: You can count it as Blame the OP and Passing Judgements.

","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

johnfrombrooklyn

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

These type of posts are so stupid. Do you not think that Target, Wal-Mart, and every other retailer in the world would like to have 100% compliance on pricing, promotion, and sales issues? Of course they would. If any poster here thinks they can find a way to fix these type of issues then go show up at Target headquarters. They'll give you hundreds of thousands of dollars if you can fix it.

8 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

coren

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@johnfrombrooklyn: How about, I don't know, employees who pay attention? I mean how hard is it to notice that two identical items have two price tags if you're stocking it, or if you're putting the price tags out?

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@johnfrombrooklyn: Years back, stores could get into HEAPS of trouble if their prices on the shelf tags were not correct on a majority of items. Don't know if that actually is enforced anymore.

I was actually the pricing person for a Kmart for a while. I went through the entire store, aisle by aisle, checked the shelf plans to see if any tags were missing, because stock would be missing and not ordered if there was no tag. I would also check every shelf item with a scanner, and if the tag wasn't correct, I'd print a new tag on the spot.

It was actually a fun job. HEY TARGET! I'm available!

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@webweazel: Oh yeah. Weights and Measures is still out there and checking prices... Want a viable threat against a store manager on a pricing issue - don't threaten to report to the BBB, file a lawsuit or even consumerist - threaten to report it to the local Weights and Measures - it may well trigger an inspection and inspections can get stores fined or even shut down... that usually gets the manager's attention.

$\"user-pic\"$

Skaperen

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@johnfrombrooklyn: There are plenty of people that can fix it. But they will never get the opportunity. That's because the C-level executives don't really like to have shoe-kick imprints on their hind ends to match the asphalt imprints on their face.

The problem is basic computer procedure logistics. It's solvable if they just get the right computers and the right people to run them. But those C-level executives don't like paying people what they are worth.

$\"user-pic\"$

dp05

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: It will still come down to employees changing the tags properly, and ultimately human error. Sometimes things just get overlooked. I realize it is their jobs to make sure the prices are all right, but can you honestly tell me you've never made a mistake ever at your job?

Things happen, people miss changing a tag. The computers can print out all of the perfect and correct tags in the world, but its human error if a tag doesn't get changed.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@dp05: Very true and considering your average target or walmart can carry a million+ different products at any given moment, thats alot of labels to change. People make mistakes, its not a huge deal. If you find an error tell someone so they can fix it. You will always get the best price, its Targets policy.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@parad0x360: Its more than Target's policy - state law requires it and its backed up by Weights and Measures.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@johnfrombrooklyn: Agreed. Maybe Consumerist should consider a moratorium on stories about shelf price errors unless they are really huge? When I encounter these in the store I point them out to the associate and nearly always get the lower price.

$\"user-pic\"$

JulesNoctambule

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@DadsterNC: I suggest you consider scrolling past stories when their summary does not interest you.

$\"user-pic\"$

squinko

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@DadsterNC: \"Maybe Consumerist should consider a moratorium on stories about shelf price errors unless they are really huge?\"

Or maybe people who don't like reading about pricing errors shouldn't click on stories about pricing errors?

","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

UrIt

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

were the DPCI's the same on both lables? if they're not it's just a case of overstock

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@UrIt: I worked at target for awhile, every product has a matching DPCI, it should always be on the label as well as the product. Normally anyways.

","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

personally if you're not willing to bring this to the attention of the manager, it's a non issue. how can they fix mistakes if they don't know about them?

*my kids at six years old knew better than to \"meltdown\" in public... neither here nor there however*

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@EdnaLegume: There's no indication that her six year old was melting down either, though.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@floraposte: my meltdown comment was due to a post from another commenter in the first response. I didn't indicate that I felt the OP's child had a meltdown.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@EdnaLegume: Ah, okay. If you click the circling arrow in the lower right corner of a post, your post will appear as a reply to theirs, and that'll keep them from looking like responses to the original post if you're meaning them to be responses to another poster.

$\"user-pic\"$

idip

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@EdnaLegume: Agreed.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Awjvail

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

What happened to the \"target is crazy\" tag?

","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

MaytagRepairman

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Did her store not have the randomly placed price-check scanners found in many Target stores?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

sugarpox

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MaytagRepairman: My thought exactly. I always price check my items, especially if they're supposed to be on sale.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

chocobo

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Just bought a box of fruit snacks from Target. The shelf said $3.69, I was charged $3.99.

There ought to be a serious penalty for doing this. They can just get away with doing it on purpose all the time, because no one's going to go back to get their 30 cents.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chocobo: In Michigan, if the item scans higher than the listed price, and you've already paid, you're entitled to 10x the price difference up to $5.

You would've made $3 on that deal.

I don't know if it applies in other states.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ovalseven: ^ Just to clarify, the price has to be stamped or affixed to the product. So, if the price is listed only on the shelf, that law doesn't apply.

$\"user-pic\"$

maltboy1

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chocobo: I agree there should be a way to register complaints so cronic abusers can be fined. As far as going back and getting the money they stole from me, I will do it every time.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

maltboy1

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I shop a local chain (HEB) here in Texas because they have good prices and I like their store brands. I usually shop the sale items carefully so I can save a few dollars here and there. Unfortunately, I have to watch the cashiers like a hawk during checkout because I am overcharged about a third of the time for food that is supposed to be on sale but hasn't been changed in the computer. I wonder how often other people are also overcharged but don't bother to check their receipt? I'd be willing to bet it happens all the time.

","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I don't want to be a Target apologist, but I have had luck with them honoring the lower price on stuff. In a perfect world there wouldn't be mistakes though.

Recently I saw that Target sold something at $4 and it was at least double that everywhere else. It rang up at $14 for me. Thankfully my child did not have a meltdown and after a longish wait, I was credited the difference. The shelf label was correct in that case, but the wrong product was on the shelf.

Another time I bought a slipcover that rang up twice as much. They tried to not give me the lower price, saying it applied to a different one, until I stormed back to the department and pointed out how there were a bunch of them in the lower priced's spot.

In both cases the employee immediately moved the items to the correct spots.

It sucked that it happened, but at least they made good by taking it seriously. :)

","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Quake 'n' Shake

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Target is just bizarre about their pricing. We live about a 10 minute walk away from one. 2 years ago, another Target opened about 4 miles away. The newer one consistently sells their house brand (\"Up & Up\" these days) of powdered infant formula for about $1.50 less per can than the store closest to us. Although, I think the price came down recently at the closer store, but still not as low as a the new store.

These things won't stop me from shopping there though. Until last month, there were 3 Target stores closer to my house than the nearest Wal-Mart.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

dsevil

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Surly 20-year-old stockboy not attending college has to do a few hundred price tags and screwed one up? Shocking.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I love these Target pricing posts simply because I work at Target and I never see these issues in my store. More often than not its because someone removed the top most label so they could snap a \"funny\" picture and send it here. When Target changes a price they just put a new label on top of the old ones. Its clear to see its a new label and its easily removed for comedic effect.

Also consider when an item is in 2 locations, say an endcap and an aisle its possible that the pricing team hasnt hit both locations yet.

Also any vendor product(food and drinks) has its price set by said vendor so if the prices are stupid and crazy blame them.

They other snafu always posted here is when companies do bonus packs. Labels dont distinguish that its a bonus and may very well have the same name, so say something is 100 count, and the bonus version is 120 count cause you get 20 free then the label on both will still read 100 count.

Targets pricing system is actually pretty good and I speak from experience. Im not one to defend any company and if they were pulling a fast one I'd be the first to shout it out but really 90% of the pricing stories on here about Target just arent 100% true.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@parad0x360: When they put the new label, does it stick to the old one in a way that makes it difficult to separate them out? Or is it possible for somebody to pull the lower-price tag back out so it displays on the shelf? If so, this could be the work of a customer here.

$\"user-pic\"$

levelone

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@floraposte: Both. Some items have a lot of price changes, so you'd have a hard time removing the multiple labels stuck on top of each other and making it look like there was never one there (usually rips the label strip or pulls print up with it, like silly putty). But if it was an item with just one recent or shoddily placed adhesive label it could be removed fairly easily and it wouldn't be noticeable.

I doubt most customers do this, but I know this one crazy lady that comes into our store all the time - she's an obvious hoarder who spends her children's disability money on clearance and useless crap - who hides clearance (behind items in other departments, under basedecks, behind fixtures), harasses the price change team and changes or moves labels where possible to con our store out of a few dollars. She talks to herself, loudly, about what she is and isn't willing to pay for items and how they compare to prices at Wal-Mart and K-Mart and has the most shrill voice and awful personality. She would definitely move labels around, and she would complain so she got the lower price.

As a side note, I always feel, well not sorry for her because she's made her own hell, but sad that she's gone out of control to save a dollar at the expense of living a better life and that she's dragged her family down with her.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Yurei

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

And the worst part is, when you mention the mistake the cashier treats you like a criminal, and calls over a manager to walk with you back to the aisle so you can point out the price tag for the lower price.

At least at my local Target, this happened to me.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

H3ion

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

They appear to be the same with the only difference being the price. I've had three six-year olds (not at the same time) and any of them would have easily waited ten minutes to obtain a price check. Then again, I kept my taser in full view.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

In addition to the date stamp not being verified, it looks like the barcodes are different... Did she check the PLU code on either of the products and match them to either of the PLU codes on the tags? Often times the human readable descriptions are not truly accurate, and the PLU code will roll a digit to reflect a manufacturing change.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Do some of you ever stop to think that there's an actual real human being who you are talking about before you say some of these nasty things?

I'm the shopper who sent that photo in. I took it on my iPhone with the intent of using it at the register to argue with the cashier about the price if it rang wrong.

HOWEVER, by the time I actually got to the cashier, my husband I had been wrangling our autistic six year old daughter around the store for some time. This takes a lot of effort, understandably, and in the chaos at the register of checking out an overflowing cart of groceries and also trying to keep her calm through the checkout process, I was too busy and distracted to remember to check the scan price of the baby food as it went through.

As for my being lazy because I don't make my own baby food, I'd have to be a full-time chef to supply my own. Do you have any idea how much of that food a six year old consumes? That's right...that Gerber makes up the majority of my six year old's diet because she has severe oral textural aversions as a symptom of her autism and will not chew food that is wet. The food was FOR HER. She can't tolerate wet textured food, and she uses the portable plastic containers to carry it to school with her in her lunchbox every day.

So, instead of making assumptions and getting all superior and nasty, maybe next time consider that you don't know the whole story.

Thank you to those of you who considered that there was an actual person being discussed here and who gave me the benefit of the doubt.

For anyone interested in actually discussing the issue that I wrote to Consumerist about, instead of just trolling: I spotted the exact same problem again in another department of the store a few days later. I don't ever remember seeing something like this in this (or any other) Target before now, and I also don't remember ever seeing something like this at Publix, our other major grocery chain in town - having multiple shelf labels side-by-side for the same item. We all see occasionally where a label won't get switched for a sale or price change so the displayed price is wrong, but I've now seen two instances in a very short period of time at this Target where they were displaying, right next to each other, two different prices for the same item (not just a single, incorrect, price). It just seems to me to be ridiculous that people aren't noticing that when they are shelving, and that more consumers aren't noticing it!

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

jenjen

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@NancyNally: what I usually find helpful is to try to track down an employee before getting to the cash to verify the price. It's not always possible, but it can avoid having to do checks when you're in the line with people waiting behind you.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

palfas

November 13, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Even worse, I picked up a 4 pack of redbull from the endcap on the REGISTER. It rang up for $1 more then the sign said, 3 FEET AWAY!

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

January 25, 2010 4:09 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I work at Target and this could be a couple of different things. Could be a recent price change, sometimes products do increase in price due to manufacturer or retail reasons. The right label may have not been correctly switched out.
That's fairly unlikely though. The Price Change team is pretty good at not messing that up.

I'd like to see the DPCI (Item Number) on the bottom of the labels, to see if each label is actually for the same item. A Team Member may have just incorrectly stocked the shelf?

");