Hey kids, want to spend the summer with five of your friends in your very own backyard pool? Then stay the hell away from Banzai’s Wild Waves Water Park! David Ng juxtaposed Banzai’s box art with a picture of his disappointed kids standing next to the fully assembled “water park.” He wasn’t the only one deceived, according to the reviews on Amazon…
Here are several representative snippets:
“I have two preschoolers (ages 2 and 4) and this pool is just the right size for them.”
“It is the worst product I’d ever bought from Toys R US and I’ll never go to Six Flags! Don’t buy it.”
“One person can’t slide down the slide while one person is in the pool let alone have 2 people sitting in it! The slide is so small and when you turn on the hose to let the sprinklers come down the orange top collapses and has no use!”
“As every one else has said this pool is tiny maybe good for 1 or 2 toddlers. Picture on the front is NOT accurate. A 6 year old can’t go down the slide with his legs out because they hit the wall. My 3 year old hardly fit. Buy a sprinkler for $5.00 my kids had more fun with that.”
The box admonishes buyers “product may not be as appears on image;” a gross understatement for a gross distortion.
SPIN SPIN SPIN [Popper Font] (Thanks to Paul!)
Banzai Complete Water Park [Amazon]
(Photo: davehwng)
More From Consumerist
-
Man Claims In Lawsuit That Six Flags Kicked Him Off Ride Because He Has No Hands
-
CDC Confirms What We All Suspected But Didn’t Want To Acknowledge About Poop In The Pool Water
-
Survey: iPhone Users Should Stop Bringing Their Devices Into Dangerous Places Like The Kitchen
-
Aussie Police Warn Against Using Apple Maps Lest You End Up Lost In The Wilderness
-
9-Year-Old Boy Manages Makes $3,400 With Lemonade Stand To Help Out His Hometown Of Detroit
Yikes! I almost bought this for a 5 and 7 year old. I’m so glad I read this first… thanks Consumerist!
Come on guys, use your brain here. The Consumerist is here to help people, not redicule them. And there’s a BIG difference in saying someone should have known better, and that someone deserved what they got. However, misleading advertisement what this post is about, lets use some common sense (even though I know it’s not really that common) when commenting. If you want to disagree, I’d suggest you do it tastefully.
@dragonfire1481: And the whole point to Roz’s job is to curb the amount of junk comments (which include blaming op) that is on this site.
@sean77: The average person is still going to look at those dimensions and think “Wow! This thing is pretty big!”, and also use the art to judge the size.
Having the measurements on the side doesn’t justify how obviously deceptive the packaging is.
@Consumerist-Moderator-Roz: And sorry Roz, I know we’re not supposed to referee on here either, But I stick up for people I like, and I got your back.
@Consumerist-Moderator-Roz:
I disagree, I don’t see him as blaming the consumer, I see him more or less pointing out that the information of the dimensions of this product are readily available. One could surmise that the dimensions provided clearly do not match up with the picture.
@Consumerist-Moderator-Roz: Wow. Just wow. Now I know why I visit this place less and less. I’ll put a couple blank lines on the bottom of this comment and you can insert what I’m supposed to say.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
@aaron8301:
I’m fairly sure that went off the air in 1990. That was a true 1980′s show if there ever was one. I watched in on nickolodeon starting in about 1982.
I saw an ad a few years ago for a ford Aspire or Fiesta or one of those older tiny cars they made. When you actually looked at it the curb that the car was sitting next to would have gone halfway up the side of the wheel and the people on the sidewalk looked to be about 4’1″ or so. Defiantly sleazy but with ford the ruse wont last long. I wish I had saved that ad.
My mom asked me to get this for my nephew’s birthday gift and when I saw the box and the sale price I thought it was a good deal. Putting it together I realize there is no way in hell all those kids in the picture can be in here like that.
What a waste of 20 bucks.
@Consumerist-Moderator-Roz:
Whoa, that’s a bit much. The ‘victim’ in this story has a smaller pool than he thought; he didn’t lose a kidney or something. I think the whole ‘don’t blame the victim’ mentality has gone overboard. Sean brings up a great point about reading the fine print, and then makes a somewhat snarky comment about the site, which authors themselves often do when writing up a post.
Not to play Monday morning quarterback (actually, wait, totally to do that), but it’s often nice to hear the other side of opinions, especially when they have valid and factual points.
@basket548: Funny, I think it’s swung the other way on this site. No matter what the story is, somehow a commenter will find a way to point out something the consumer did wrong – really easy to do when they weren’t the one in that situation.
In this case, the point of the story that the site theCONSUMERist is trying to illustrate is a pretty blatant misrepresentation of the product. Who cares what the specs say? Maybe the buyer is illiterate. Does it matter? Who among us is meticulously careful with each and every purchase we make?
If people would like to discuss the foibles of human behavior, they should find a site called ‘icouldhavedoneitbetter.com’ and comment there. Heck, this comment probably qualifies for that site.
So let me get this straight…
As long as you put an asterisk disclaimer on it, you can do whatever you want with the product inside? Also… putting the “do not return to store” message inside makes me believe that they know people are going to be disappointed.
Here, specifically, is a picture of a much larger pool with multiple older children playing in it. This picture is clearly different from the product inside. This is a deceptive practice no matter how many disclaimers or dimensions are on the box.
Blame the consumer applies when they’re trying to get something for nothing… or are ignoring obvious cues in hope of getting something they really want.
If I see a picture on the box that has several children of that age playing on it, I had better get what’s inside.
Those stupid disclaimers USED to be for people that hated the color of vinyl used that day in the plant. Now its a slimy way to get out of fraud claims.
How about this… a McDonald’s cup of coffee with an asterisk that says “might not contain coffee”. Today its put there because some idiot drinks it dry and complains that there’s no coffee in it. Tomorrow its McDonald’s reason to fill it with the contents of the soda fountain drain tub. Meanwhile, the picture on the menu shows a Colombian hillside covered in mist while the coffee was grown somewhere much less vacation-worthy.
Fix it! Return these products. Chargeback the credit card if the retailer is in on the scam. If the retailers waste their time/money, get slow sales and many returns, they won’t be selling that crap for long. Retailers often run a low margins and they can’t suffer all these returns on inferior product.
Too bad these bad reviews aren’t available to the retail shopper.
Complain all you want. Money is the only thing that matters.
Aren’t there WYSISYG laws for this?
Personally… I do think that the dimensions on the box and Amazon listing does change the issue a little bit. I’m not saying that the art is not deceptive and misleading, but there is information available that does reduce the *level* of deception. In effect, the info is there but is not complete enough to deter consumers from feeling cheated/scammed. Posting of this information does not necessarily blame the OP and is pertinent to the issue at hand… packaging, marketing, etc. Am I the only one who sees that?
And at the risk of being off topic…
When you put a moderator beat down on relatively innocuous comments it only 1) makes the site look petty and mean spirited… 2) draws attention to the original remark… and 3) drives away folks who have a lot to offer from a minority viewpoint. How’s this for an idea? How about we all just ignore the pinheaded remarks. You know… just don’t respond to the trolls, blamers, and morons. It’s the old sick puppy thing…. Don’t feed the sick puppies (and they die..? Er… I never did understand that…). For instance: I’m tired of all the GSR complainers but I just ignore ‘em (usually
.
Sites that moderate themselves into groupthink become support groups for like minded people and not places of interesting discussion. I’d hate to see that happen here because I love this place.
@Consumerist-Moderator-Roz: Woah! I’ve always felt the Consumerist community has been good at self-moderation. This isn’t Kotaku where you have a ton of young readers getting into flame wars. If this keeps up, I’m done with Consumerist.
@dtracker: I don’t think it’s fair to have a go at the guy for that. I agree with him, if the sizes of the item are there to be seen, then I don’t see how a consumer can complain. Yeah, the picture is clearly misleading, but the size of the item is right there in numbers for people to check. If the box says product may differ and has the actual sizes there, the consumer has to take some blame.
@Ubermunch: What he said.
Looking at the two pictures, they are clearly NOT the same product. The width between the orange things, the slide length at the top, the pattern on the side… this isn’t just a case of an awkward photo angle making it look smaller, the one in the photo is, actually larger in several dimensions. How that is legal advertising I will never understand. Now, I collect model kits, and on the box they are often panel lined, and sometimes the pre product models used in the box art have different colored pieces, and in rare cases, some things are molded slightly different. The box always says “contents may vary slightly from box art” and that is a fair use of the phrase, imho. What this company is doing with the slide is just wrong, and blatantly so. why don’t you make it the actual size on the box and just charge more for it? Some people will stay pay for it. -_-;
I received this email from Banzai regarding this matter:
On behalf of Banzai, I would like to point out that the reason the final product does not match the image on the box is due to the lack of sufficient air to expand the product to its actual size. Our new Wild Waves Water Park accessory, the Wild Waves Water Park Cold Fusion Air Compressor, sold separately for $35,000 at your local Toys ‘R Us stores and or rented from your nearby industrial waste complexes, will provide the necessary 12,040 psi needed to expand the Water Park to its native size.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at [redacted].
There you have it. I placed my order for the accessory yesterday from Amazon. With Google Checkout, it brought it down to $34,990 with free shipping.
@Consumerist-Moderator-Roz: That’s a bit out of line. He’s expressing an opinion. If his opinion is that he thinks the consumer is to blame in some way, his opinion isn’t valid here? Is that really how things work here now?
@Consumerist-Moderator-Roz:
Don’t most people have a general idea of the height of their children? I’m not talking exact inches, but if lil Timmy is waist high, and you’re about 6ft tall, you could guess an approximate height for him and use that against the measurement on the pool’s packaging.
This won’t be the first or last product that uses a deceiving picture on the box. No microwave dinner I’ve ever made comes out as appetizing as the photo on the front, ESPECIALLY the diet ones.
@shufflemoomin: Yes, Yes it is.
@dtracker:
EXACTLY! If we receive comments both about what a consumer can to to rectify the situation and what the consumer did wrong in the first place, then we can learn from BOTH viewpoints. That’s what this site should be encouraging, not a blind ‘rage against the man’ type mentality.
The fact that more and more people are pointing out what went wrong in the first place should be seen as a positive. As you yourself point out, maybe everyone should be more meticulous when making purchases.
WOW
@Consumerist-Moderator-Roz:
I can’t believe all these people getting their panties in a twist over your comment! I can’t believe people on what is often a very funny website don’t lighten up. Anyway, have a great day!
@Ubermunch: When a company has to alter the image in an attempt to fool customers, then it is fraud, no if and or buts… Sticking the dimensions on the side mean little.
@Mp3dog
Just figured that out now, eh?
@Grrrrrrrrr: geez we can put a man on the moon but we can’t make smaller children? Science has once again let me down
Hey, the 2009 Banzai models have just been announced!
[www.flickr.com]
This one adds a Water Jet System, which in the packaging will simply be revealed as a plastic loop to hold a garden hose that you turn full blast.
Maybe several, starving Chinese kids from Communist China could play on this contraption simultaneously! Otherwise, I think this would make a great waterboarding device. How about waterboading the CEO of this company!
@lemortede: I see. I’ll get my coat then…
@Consumerist-Moderator-Roz: Frankly, I think you need to use better judgement as a moderator. This is the 2nd bad call I’ve seen you make in 3 days.
I work for an ad agency and we frequently do photo shoots on food products. I’d be the first to say that what we photography is ALWAYS much better looking that what is packaged by our clients. But there is a difference to what is going on here.
When we photograph products, we take extra time to make it look as photogenic as possible. The best ingredients. The most symmetrical portions. However, we are careful to never use something not used in the final product. If it’s a frozen fried chicken dinner, we don’t add an extra piece. If it’s an ice cream cone, we don’t make larger sugar cones.
If Apple wants to use an abnormally large hand to hold their iPhone to make it look smaller, that’s fine. That’s where the listing of the dimensions comes into play. But if Apple built a special iPhone that was 50% bigger than the actual product and passed it off as a real iPhone in the photoshoot, that’s wrong, regardless of what the dimensions say.
@rellog: The FTC agrees with you:
“What makes an advertisement deceptive?
According to the FTC’s Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement – or omits information – that:
* Is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
* Is “material” – that is, important to a consumer’s decision to buy or use the product.
The FTC looks at the ad from the point of view of the “reasonable consumer” – the typical person looking at the ad. Rather than focusing on certain words, the FTC looks at the ad in context – words, phrases, and pictures to determine what it conveys to consumers.”
The image depicts three children comfortably fitting into the pool and a fourth climbing the slide in the back. It doesn’t matter what the dimensions on the box say, Banzai is implying that it’s possible to have four normal sized kids use the pool at once.
Report them to the FTC and the state’s attorney general. They should be made to correct their advertising or pay a fine for their deception (hopefully both).
[www.ftc.gov]
I was shopping for a pool for my children, 1 and 3 1/2 earlier this summer and remember seeing this model. but fortunately, I do my initial ‘shopping’ online, so I read a bunch of reviews saying it was smaller than it appeared, so I didn’t bother checking it out in the store. I ended up buying just a plain circle wading pool (2 rings high) with toys for less than $20.
@rellog:
But it does mean something…. and pointing out that the dimensions are on the box in this thread should in no way make you an inappropriate poster.
As for how much that information is worth in terms of the scam factor…. well that’s up for debate. I agree with you mostly, but there is accurate information on the box and I think that is a consideration that’s worthy of discussion here. I shop a LOT (a WHOLE LOT) on Amazon and am very careful to read the specs in detail. It’s saved me from a fair amount of heartache IMO. In a bricks and mortar store I carry that habit with me so I find myself studying the boxes carefully. I’m not blaming the OP… but you get the idea, right?
Isn’t that what being a savvy consumer is all about?
@astroglide:
“But if Apple built a special iPhone that was 50% bigger than the actual product and passed it off as a real iPhone in the photoshoot, that’s wrong, regardless of what the dimensions say.”
Agreed… although many companies are not as honest in their photo shoots. For instance, ice cream is often Crisco (real ice cream melts), and in one shoot I saw personally beer was motor oil (I don’t know what the foam was). How about all the fake sushi in restaurant windows?
I think it comes down to intent. In this case the product pictured is different/Photoshopped (I think both) in a way that is (and IANAL) legally actionable. Certainly the FTC could put an end to this… well this product. Until they sell it under another brand and new scam pic (see above comments).
It appears someone took it upon her/himself to upload the picture to the Amazon product page: [www.amazon.com]
I was tempted to upload it myself, but that would have been a violation of Amazon’s terms and conditions because its not my photo. Hopefully, davehwng doesn’t mind that anonymous uploaded his picture.
Perhaps the real reason that this product has a “do not return to store tag” is, if the stores realized what they were selling was fraudulent and deceptive, they would no longer buy the product from Banzai. In my mind, anything that says “do not return to store” is a red flag and should be avoided.
@Ubermunch
We would only use Crisco instead of ice cream, or motor oil instead of beer if in each case the product we were selling was NOT ice cream or beer. Need to sell pilsner glasses? No problem using motor oil to simulate beer. Need to sell chocolate sprinkles? Sure, Crisco won’t melt under the hot lights of the photoshoot. But no agency worth it’s reputation would substitute Crisco for ice cream if they were hired by Baskin Robbins. There are plenty of other tricks to make the client’s product look as good as possible. I’ve personally sat through an ice cream photoshoot for a regional company and we most certainly used the real product.
@timmus: Agree they’re banking that the consumer laws won’t be enforced.
Gee,do you think past experience has anything to do with it? I think this is blantant disreguard for any kind of truth in advertising,deceitful if not criminal.This is the sort a thing grifters do.
just put 150 PSI on this thing and the size will match…
@AgentTuttle: THat’s hilarious – do you happen to have a link?
@cmdrsass: Here: [www.boingboing.net]
@Wubbytoes:
Me too! Nothing I ever got as a kid worked right or was what it was supposed to be.
They look like a couple of orphans whose dog just died. Poor kids!
@astroglide:
Make sense… Although at the shoot I witnessed the beer was the focus and was definitely not the real product at the time I saw it. Of course it was literally 115 degrees in the shade and windy. Something about the wind made the real beer too swirly.
I really am starting to think that the state attorney general needs to get involved with this kind of stuff. Yes, it’s only a water slide that costs $30, but these is just so obviously misleading. The reason the AG should get involved too is because the individual can’t really sue of this stuff. They’re out $30 and have otherwise suffered no damages.
@sean77: There’s a large difference between judging sizes poorly and actively attempting to deceive someone, which is the case here. The goal is to clearly sell the product based in part on the image.
And if you want your babyfood analogy to work, the OP would be complaining about “and there weren’t even two kids included, let alone six!” or something along that lines.
@tc4bI agree…everyone should lighten up, including the moderators. Roz’s comment is like saying “if your opinion differs from ours, its not welcome” and while they have the right to enforce that if they please, im sure its not the best way to get viewers to help make this site grow even further.
I wonder why the company didn’t just make the product as shown on the box, and just increase the price a bit. I know as a consumer, I would rather pay more money for something I would enjoy, then less money to be absolutely disgusted. These poor parents! My kids would be crushed
Thank god I got a good deal on an 18′ intex frame pool…
@sean77: there is nothing “pragmatic” about excusing a company for deceptive marketing. That is, in fact, the kind of OP-blaming that the comments policy is all about.
And what is the “life lesson” you think we are all wiser for learning? That companies will rip you off and if they succeed, you should crawl away meekly and be glad they took your money for the trouble? Again, that’s kinda not the message of Consumerist. As somebody already pointed out, you are free to start your own idiotconsumersarealldumberthanme.com for that line of thinking.
The picture on the box is intended to sell the product. It is deceptive advertising if the product is photoshopped so that it doesn’t look like what actually comes in the box. Using your baby-food example, if a jar of baby food shows a baby eating strained peas, it’s fair to assume that the jar contains strained peas, not puffed starch dyed green and whipped to resemble peas.