tag:consumerist.com,2010:/1/tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232- 2010-01-24T10:16:14Z Comments for Whoops! Sears Isn't Offering Too-Good-To-Be-True TV Deal Shoppers bite back. Movable Type 4.32-en tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232 2009-11-26T14:30:34Z 2009-11-26T14:27:52Z Whoops! Sears Isn't Offering Too-Good-To-Be-True TV Deal Sears stuck its drumstick in its mouth by apparently sending out an email advertising a ludicrously amazing Black Friday deal: a 54-inch 1080p HDTV for $399.99. Chris forwarded us this message from Sears in which the company backs away from the deal and offers a boring one in its place. WHOOPS! The email we sent you Monday had the wrong TV offer in it! We are not offering a Panasonic 54" class 1080p 600Hz plasma HDTV for $399.99. We apologize for this mistake and assure you that we are taking every step to make sure it doesn't happen again. The... Phil Villarreal http://becauseitoldyouso.com Sears stuck its drumstick in its mouth by apparently sending out an email advertising a ludicrously amazing Black Friday deal: a 54-inch 1080p HDTV for $399.99. Chris forwarded us this message from Sears in which the company backs away from the deal and offers a boring one in its place.

WHOOPS! The email we sent you Monday had the wrong TV offer in it! We are not offering a Panasonic 54" class 1080p 600Hz plasma HDTV for $399.99. We apologize for this mistake and assure you that we are taking every step to make sure it doesn't happen again.


The offer that we currently have is a Panasonic 54" class 1080p 600Hz plasma HDTV for $1099.99.

Hopefully everyone who was amazed by the first Sears email checks their account again for the follow-up before camping outside Sears tonight.

]]> tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20003798 Comment from mamalicious on 2009-11-29 mamalicious I saw "class" used several times in TV ads this weekend - 32" class, 50" class - guess it won't stick out like a sore thumb once you've seen it a half dozen times or so.

]]> 2009-11-30T00:51:23Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002874 Comment from friday3 on 2009-11-27 friday3 In what world is that? If you lose a tenth of an inch on a 55 inch tv that not noticable to a normal person. If you position is that it is a bigger rip off on larger tvs lets take a 1 inch tv and a 100 inch. If you take away a tenth of an inch on the 1 inch tv, you have lost 10 percent. On a 100 inch tv you have lost a tenth of a percent.\
Class size is the norm in the tv world since they went to 16:9 aspect ratios

]]> 2009-11-27T20:07:30Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002680 Comment from shepd on 2009-11-27 shepd Hmmm... I'm not sure I get what you're saying...

]]> 2009-11-27T15:18:15Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002629 Comment from Laura Northrup on 2009-11-27 Laura Northrup They may have been circulated on the Internet weeks ago, but they were also printed weeks ago. They're not going to back and reprint all of those ads.

]]> 2009-11-27T06:58:26Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002628 Comment from Laura Northrup on 2009-11-27 Laura Northrup They probably already fired their copy editor, if they ever had one.

]]> 2009-11-27T06:56:07Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002613 Comment from chancestevens on 2009-11-27 chancestevens Just to clarify for everyone asking... the class terminology is used by TV manufacturers when their television aren't the exact diagonal size as advertised. Usually it's smaller with a 32" class TV being 31.5" to allow the manufacturer to get more TVs from each sheet of glass.

Lots of companies have made these kinds of boo-boos. The problem is that people see a number too good to be true and think they should be able to buy it. Best Buy got caught out there with a 50in TV for $9.99 when it was really a lot more.

]]> 2009-11-27T05:03:01Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002569 Comment from IfThenElvis on 2009-11-26 IfThenElvis note: i kept getting Invalid tag entrydatajavascript_redirect errors when i tried to post the above

]]> 2009-11-27T00:42:48Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002568 Comment from IfThenElvis on 2009-11-26 IfThenElvis Panasonic applies Class (capitalized) to all it's TVs.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/panasonicclass

From the Panasonic link above:
50" Class Viera X1 Series Plasma (49.9" Diagonal)
46" Class Viera X1 Series Plasma (46" Diagonal)
54" Class Viera S1 Series Plasma (54.1" Diagonal)

]]> 2009-11-27T00:41:29Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002567 Comment from IfThenElvis on 2009-11-26 IfThenElvis Panasonic applies Class (capitalized) to all it's TVs.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/panasonicclass

From the Panasonic link above:
50" Class Viera X1 Series Plasma (49.9" Diagonal)
46" Class Viera X1 Series Plasma (46" Diagonal)
54" Class Viera S1 Series Plasma (54.1" Diagonal)

]]> 2009-11-27T00:31:30Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002566 Comment from IfThenElvis on 2009-11-26 IfThenElvis Panasonic applies Class (capitalized) to all it's TVs. I believe it's just a brand name.

http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-electronics/shop/Televisions/VIERA-Plasma-HDTVs.list.75003_11002_7000000000000005702

From the link above:
50" Class Viera X1 Series Plasma (49.9" Diagonal)
54" Class Viera S1 Series Plasma (54.1" Diagonal)
46" Class Viera S1 Series Plasma (46" Diagonal)

]]> 2009-11-27T00:27:03Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002564 Comment from killest on 2009-11-26 killest Yeah, fortunately they have pissed off enough people that many aren't just 'not irate', they are 'not customers'.

]]> 2009-11-26T23:18:23Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002559 Comment from Kyin on 2009-11-26 Kyin Interesting. Seems companies are finding more and more ways to rip people off.

]]> 2009-11-26T21:56:26Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002557 Comment from West Coast Secessionist on 2009-11-26 West Coast Secessionist Because, in general, the '54" Class' TVs are UNDER 54". Occasionally you "win", but usually you lose. I think the whole thing is stupid. We have numbers for a reason. They're not subjective. Just measure the effing screen and tell me how big it is. There's NO justification for using these self-serving approximations.

TV manufacturers should be ashamed.

Or perhaps I can pay for the $1100 TV with a stack of 11 "$100 class" bills (that's my new name for fifties, if you want to get technical.)

]]> 2009-11-26T21:50:14Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002556 Comment from gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|* on 2009-11-26 gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|* new sales tactic? "post low prices in large flashy ads, issue price corrections in classifieds section next day"

]]> 2009-11-26T21:48:40Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002555 Comment from shepd on 2009-11-26 shepd Although, if it were marketing, why not say 'over 53" TV'?

]]> 2009-11-26T21:44:43Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002549 Comment from Saites on 2009-11-26 Saites Or it's a marketing tip to make smaller TV's sound larger.

]]> 2009-11-26T21:02:58Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002538 Comment from bizzle on 2009-11-26 bizzle I noticed many stores/ads/sunday circulars started using the "class" degignation a while back.
I can only assume it was because some doofus with more time than sense measured his TV and came up a 1/4 short from the claimed diagonal size, and probably thought it would be a great idea to sue somebody. Such is the American way.
So now we have to deal with the word "class", for the lowest common denominator folks. Much like hair dryers have tags now that say "do not use in the shower".

]]> 2009-11-26T20:02:57Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002523 Comment from Coles_Law on 2009-11-26 Coles_Law That one I could at least see-fudge the decimal point and you have $29 vs $299.

]]> 2009-11-26T19:06:13Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002522 Comment from WillB on 2009-11-26 WillB That deal is still amazing.

]]> 2009-11-26T18:58:07Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002514 Comment from kaceetheconsumer on 2009-11-26 kaceetheconsumer Hrm....I recall a few years ago when we were going to Sears during the holiday season (not Black Friday, but early December) they had big signs on all the windows with a whoops notice that they weren't really selling X Box for $29.

Makes me wonder if it's either a deliberate stunt or maybe they need to fire their copy editor.

]]> 2009-11-26T17:58:22Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002512 Comment from henrygates3 on 2009-11-26 henrygates3 I wonder if this 'mistake' was a stunt to pull people into the store.

]]> 2009-11-26T17:55:30Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002502 Comment from Halliday on 2009-11-26 Halliday I've seen the "class" term used before. I never knew what they meant by that. The comment about approximate size seems right to me. Most tvs are advertised as being one size but have a different viewable image.

]]> 2009-11-26T17:26:39Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002478 Comment from Woodside Park Bob on 2009-11-26 Woodside Park Bob Concerning the "54 inch class" reference, a lot of stores do this to indicate that the screen is only approximately the size stated. In this case it is probably between 53 1/2 inches and 54 inches.

]]> 2009-11-26T16:24:45Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002472 Comment from Megalomania on 2009-11-26 Megalomania the larger the TV the more difference each additional inch makes in terms of overall size... really, you're getting more 'gypped' when you get a 54.9" TV than when you get a 12.9" TV instead of 55" and 13" respectively.

]]> 2009-11-26T15:55:50Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002461 Comment from acknight on 2009-11-26 acknight Flipping through this morning's paper showed a correction for half of the ads within - including big box stores such as Best Buy. All this despite most ads being leaked for several weeks now...

]]> 2009-11-26T15:36:29Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002444 Comment from TheUncleBob on 2009-11-26 TheUncleBob Keep in mind, that 54" Class could mean 53.1" as well. Of course, at the point you have a 50"+ TV, does the .9" really matter?

]]> 2009-11-26T14:49:02Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002442 Comment from andyross on 2009-11-26 andyross Rather than give exact sizes, retailers now use 'class' to give the general size range. The particular TV (seems to be TC-P54S1) is actually 54.1". To be honest, they could probably get away with calling it 55"!!

]]> 2009-11-26T14:46:27Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002441 Comment from Kyin on 2009-11-26 Kyin I can see how one could mistakenly replace a 10 with a 3. If they were drunk.

]]> 2009-11-26T14:42:38Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002440 Comment from Kyin on 2009-11-26 Kyin I believe class is supposed to be put together with 1080p. As in a higher class resolution.

]]> 2009-11-26T14:40:15Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002438 Comment from SnoopyFish on 2009-11-26 SnoopyFish Wow. They were lucky to catch this problem and send an email out in time. They could have had many irate customers come tomorrow morning.

]]> 2009-11-26T14:34:48Z tag:consumerist.com,2009://1.10000232-comment:20002437 Comment from mrsam on 2009-11-26 mrsam Err, 54" "class"? What's that? All their TV sets graduated together, in the same year?

A more interesting inquiry here would be to find out exactly what kind of a scam they're trying to pull by hawking a " 54" class " HDTV versus a plain " 54" HDTV ". The word "class" in there sticks out like a sore thumb.

]]> 2009-11-26T14:32:53Z