Surf Wiki
Save to docs
general/advertising

From Surf Wiki (app.surf) — the open knowledge base

Two-price advertising

Form of deceptive advertising

Form of deceptive advertising

Two-price advertising is the sales and marketing practice of showing customers two prices, a supposed normal price and a lower price, which is claimed to be a special offer or discount, but in fact, the stated normal price is a fiction.

The idea of two-price advertising is to present an apparent saving, usually very substantial, as a way to attract customers. The term two-price advertising refers only to those cases where the "normal" price claimed is designed to deceive.

Regulatory treatment of the practice varies around the world. A clear deception, it is likely to come under false advertising or fair trading laws. The practice normally takes place only in retail marketing. Certain industries tend to be more prone to it than others.

Australia

In Australia, two-price advertising comes under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 as misleading conduct. The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) is responsible for enforcing that act and cooperates with the various state-government departments of fair trading or consumer protection which also investigate such matters. For example, ahead of Mother's Day, in 2006, the ACCC and state authorities issued joint warnings about jewelry prices shown in catalogues. Jewelry and carpet rugs seem to be industries frequently associated with two-price advertising.

In 2002, the now-defunct retail chain Allans Music was prosecuted by the ACCC over a catalogue that it issued in 2000, showing musical instruments at prices heavily discounted from stated normal prices. They pleaded guilty to 9 of the 18 counts and were fined $80,000. The court was satisfied the "was" prices shown were not prices that had been offered prior to the sale.

One point the case illustrated was that a disclaimer in a catalogue may not be a defence. Allans had fine print saying the savings were off recommended retail prices (RRPs) but that was only suppliers' recommendations. Allans chose not to rely on it as a defence or as mitigation on legal advice. Justice Tamberlin described that fine print as "obscure and totally inadequate". In fact, the disclaimer worked against the company, as it indicated to the judge that Allans knew that their claims needed an explanation, and so were not an accident.

References

References

  1. [http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/6116 Nation-wide monitoring of jewellery advertising], [[Australian Competition & Consumer Commission]] 10 May 2006
  2. [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2002/1552.html ACCC v Allans Music Group Pty Ltd], [[Federal Court of Australia]] report, at [[AustLII]]
  3. [http://www.freehills.com.au/publications/publications_5039.asp Was: apparently a great marketing ploy. Now: unwanted attention from the ACCC], [[Freehills]], 19 March 2003 {{webarchive. link. (June 18, 2005)
Info: Wikipedia Source

This article was imported from Wikipedia and is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Content has been adapted to SurfDoc format. Original contributors can be found on the article history page.

advertising
Want to explore this topic further?

Ask Mako anything about Two-price advertising — get instant answers, deeper analysis, and related topics.

Research with Mako

Free with your Surf account

Content sourced from Wikipedia, available under CC BY-SA 4.0.

This content may have been generated or modified by AI. CloudSurf Software LLC is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of AI-generated content. Always verify important information from primary sources.

Report