Try...just try to get one WalMart to match another WalMart's price. It's funny to make them try to explain why it cannot be done.

I had the same thing happen at Petco the other day. They advertised Frontline for $41 on their website. I arrived and found out that the in store price was $63. That's 40% more than my vet even charges for the stuff.

Didn't help that the staff was very rude when I suggested that this was a deceptive practice and requested a price match to their own website.

@chaoss13: They will honor another stores price now. Just not their own.

Gah, what is the point of this in-store only if they aren't going to keep the price consistent? Don't bother even listing it on the website if it's not an accurate price!

Stores have a hard enough time figuring out inventory and pricing just inside the store. Using the interwebs just confuses them.

This is what the OP was looking for: [www.target.com]

So on the website it says that the product is offered in store only. Because it says in store only, I would think that the OP has a significant argument that the price should be $59.99. Yes, it also says prices may vary, but that's Target's loophole (everyone else does this too, so I don't necessarily think Target is the devil here). I also think that it's very difficult for Target.com and Target stores to completely line up their pricing. Different markets mean different prices. And Target.com is a different arm of the corporation than Target the store.

...I would have to call them to find out. I find this method of determining store pricing very unfortunate, especially in 2009. I neither have the time nor inclination to make phone calls to stores and be put on hold until someone can determine what a unit's price is. The entire point of a web presence is information, preferably accurate information.

I agree that Target should have given him the price if only because you can't order the hard drive online, and it specifically says "in store only" indicating that the price is, in fact, what is in store. However, I do not agree with the presumption that a website should absolve any consumer from doing his research first.

And even if he doesn't like Best Buy's sales tactics, it's very possible they could have matched the price, because it says "in store only" on the Target.com page.

So... why not buy the one at Wal-Mart? I know the op says he doesn't "like" giving his money to them, but they're the ones who have the item he wants at the better price. I've got news for him--Target treats its workers pretty much the same, and its suppliers are no better or worse than the old Wally (and obviously, this is the same item.)
I hate to say it, but I think the prejudice against Wal-Mart is mostly just reflex at this point.

Did the OP get the drive for the same price at Best Buy? If I recall correctly, Best Buy has one of those price match thingees, so he could have printed out the ad from Target's website and taken it to Best Buy. Of course, the Best Buy people, being at least somewhat reasonable, wouldn't think to call Target to confirm the price ... because it says that it's the in-store price.

Here's the product in question: [www.target.com]

It specifically says "stores only", but it does say "Prices, promotions, styles and availability may vary by store and online" right underneath that. I guess if anyone actually wants to buy something from Target, they'll not only have to find the price online, but confirm it as the actual in-store price for that specific store...

@TCama: Best Buy will not price match with websites, but since the website page says "in store only" I think there's a chance they would have.

@treimel: The wording is a little confusing but I got the impression that Wal-Mart was $20 less than the $84.99.

@squinko: They shouldn't be able to advertise that price if there is no way to actually get it at that price. For all we know there is only one store actually selling it at that price and they are out of stock. Heck, why didn't they go all out and just offer the drive for $0.99 and then say prices may vary in stores, not available online.

@chaoss13: it is actually quite simple, they only match the prices of competitors. walmart.com and walmart stores are not competitors, therefore, no price matching.

So wait.

He contacted the customer service, she got the store to charge 59.99 for it, like the site says, but he went and bought it at Best Buy anyways?

There's something missing here. When did he contact the CSRs? A few days later? Hours? When did he buy it at Best Buy? Immediately after leaving Target or later?

If Target is going to price it at 59.99, why can't he return the BB one and get it at Target for cheaper?

Something is amiss.

I hate to burst your bubble, but WalMart pulls the same crap. Coroline Special Ed. CD was ~$18 on the website, got to the store it was $25. They told me I would have to order it and then wait for it to be shipped dispite it being in my hands. What a waste of my time and the enviroment cause they had to ship something the store had. I am now only shopping at Walmart when up north cause there isnt much up there and am gonna try to resist buying stuff up there too as much as possible. Walmart wants to mark the carbon foot print of products being made, but yet they are not very green. Plus they wasted me time cause now the gas to from walmart and Best Buy eat up the savings I would have gotten, but now lost and the other few dollars to BB. Next time, I will just get it at Best Buy or preferably another store but not walmart.

I work at Target during holiday. All employees have the right to change a price up to $20. They could have charged you $69. Although I don't know if that would have satisfied you.

This makes no sense. They had the drive and for the price advertised (after the call) but you drove to another store to get it? Why? What are we missing in this story?

@TinkishDelight:

Ahh, that does make things clearer. Still, for instant gratification, it still beat the Target price.

If the item can't be bought through target.com and is only available in-store then the website shouldn't show a price. It should simply say something like, "contact your local store for pricing and availability."

To post a price on the website for something you can't buy online invites confusion. And to post the price along with fine print that translates to "or not" will eventually lead to angry customers.

Let's say a grocer owns two stores and posts a sign in the window of one that advertises a gallon of milk for $1. Every customer who comes in and asks for milk is told, "Oh, we don't carry milk in this store. You can buy milk in my other store across town." Wanting the cheap milk, the customers drive to the other store, bring the milk up to the register and are surprised to be charged $4/gallon. When they complain they are told that milk is not on sale at this store. This is no different than what Target/target.com is doing (fine print be damned).

How is it the store's fault that you do not have the time to shop around for the best deal? Target is just another big box retailer, and is set up to run on a high volume, low margin model. They are not a boutique. If you want exemplary service and that personal touch, go to a locally owned retail store. If you want it cheap, go online. If you need it now, pay for the convienance. A 20oz pop costs 200% more cooled and seperated from the six pack at a quick mart, but it is more convienient than buying it at a grocery store and cooling it yourself. Yes it is a pain that a large corporation has confusing web pricing, but they are in business to sell things at the highest mark up they can without losing sales. If they lose enough sales, they lower prices. IF they lose too many customers, they go out of business. It is basic economics.

"Prices, promotions, styles and availability may vary by store and online."

Translation: We don't sell it at the price advertised, it may not be on sale even though it's advertised, the one we advertised as being on sale actually isnt, even though its on sale we don't have any.

This wouldn't have happened with a Mac.

...what's everyone looking at?

@steveliv:

There was no mention of walmart.com. chaoss13 is talking about 2 actual, physical Walmart stores price matching one another.

Whether these are considered competitors or not, I can't say. I would guess not, since they are earned by the same entity.

@TCama: I have price matched at Best Buy before on the Target website. 30 Rock DVDs were $34.99 at Best Buy and only 19.99 on Target's website. Best Buy matched them and I even got a $5 best buy gift card as well based on a NBC DVD promotion going on.

Wow..and to think that before finding this site I used to think Target was above the like of BestBuy and Wal-Mart. Too bad too because there are not many other good choices. Looks like if I can't get it at Costco it's going to have to be Amazon or NewEgg.

You'd think by now one of these idiot retailers would figure out that rising above the others might actually draw in customers.

@katstermonster: Better question: how is driving all the way over there to find out quicker or less time-consuming than calling the store and asking?

The in-store-only variable may change by the day/week, so from a programming standpoint it may be quicker to merely change the in-store/web-available description instead of changing prices, depending on how the dbase is set up.

Perhaps the fine print should say that Target is having a sale on xyz merchandise and the sale price may or may not be honored until you get to the check out line. Get in your car, drive to the store and take a gamble.

Hey, if they guy can verify the $59.99 price, he should get it no matter what. It shouldn't even be a discussion.

It's been a while but I did notice that prices for the same item at Wal Mart are the same whether online, in a store in Maine, Kansas, California or Hawaii.

@Exit86A: I've never heard of that, and I've worked for them in the past for a year plus. I call hoax.

@ecvogel: It's common for web-order prices to be different from in-store prices at places like Walmart and Target. Annoying, but common. What's really stupid about the situation the OP described is that the website claims a particular price is available only in the store, but the store won't sell for that price.

I've run into the same thing with Target and an "in-store only" price from the website. In my case, after 45 minutes of trying to get it resolved in the store, somebody finally telephone a senior manager to get a price override authorized. Supposedly the "in-store only" price was scheduled to start the next day, but the website was advertising it too soon. Or something like that.

I got so sick of having the same exchange with various employees:

Them: "I'm sorry, but we don't price match websites, even our own."
Me: "But it's not a price match, it's your company's website saying that's what the price is supposed to be here in the store."
Them: "I'm sorry, but we don't price match websites."

@pecan 3.14159265 (now with star power): And, for all the Best Buy Bashing here, and most of it deserved, I have never had Best Buy tell me that the price on the website would not be honored in the store. Or even that it would be a different price if I went to a different Best Buy.

Jeremy, I live in C-ville, too. Can't blame you at all for preferring to give your money to Target. Our Walmart and BestBuy do not (to put it mildly) provide as pleasant a shopping experience as Target. In almost any category I can think of. I've had very good experiences with customer service at that Target. But you're right. It does seem as if they should be able to link store inventory and prices to the website. Maybe someday...

"Customers want to use the website to research prices and availability at a given store, but stores have yet to develop a way for consumers to reliably do so."

Then the website should not have any pricing information. I looked and this hard drive is available at the stores close to me. I would be pissed if it was not available at the listed price. I think I will go check it out this afternoon.

@pecan 3.14159265 (now with star power): I know I'm quibbling here, but coupled with the ubiquitous fine print the only thing "in store only" really means is "not online."

It's lousy advertising. It's bad customer relations. But if they want to lose a customer (or how ever many thousand they manage to alienate) they are technically accurate. Stupid, but accurate.

@ablestmage: It's been like that for at least 10 ten years.

@katstermonster:
Isn't that essentially what bait & switch is? OP should file a complaint with his state's attorney general. Several stores in my area (Frys among them) have been sued several times because of shenanigans like this.

I also don't understand the OP's feeling that "it's OK to shop at Target again". Is it really? Did Target even offer anything for wasting your time and gas driving to a store that wouldn't sell you the item at the price they advertised it for? I can understand needing to go to a store if you need something immediately, but otherwise, there's NewEgg and Amazon, which should pretty much take care of anything you'd buy at Best Buy, Target or Walmart.

@bishophicks: Mmm...more akin to a grocer having four stores, a sign that says "$1, but not at this store" with fine print saying "or at all of our stores, just some." If Target had said "in Charlottesville store only" the analogy would hold.

Not saying it's good practice. It's asinine. But the fine print always taketh away, and the consumer ought always read the fine print. Target wants to lose customers this way? Let them. But they're not being illicit. Just really stupid about customer retention.

@pecan 3.14159265 (now with star power):

No, just saying "prices may vary" is not a valid excuse. So you're telling me it's OK that the exact same item (same item #) can cost a different amount of money in the store, and even at different stores, than what the website says? Not only is that against the law, but it basically tells me that Target isn't worth bothering with. Why should I waste my time on the whims of the local store manager? Is saving $20 on a hard drive really worth the gas and the hour of my time to fight what's probably a losing battle?

Frys used to pull these stupid tricks all the time. They've been sued several times by the AG for deceptive advertising as a result. Of course that hasn't stopped them. They run the same type of ads, but now say "Only 1 of this model" underneath it. This means that so long as one of their stores, somewhere, has at least 1 of those model numbers at that price, they're safe. Of course, none of the stores you visit will actually have the item, and they claim they can't tell you which one does/did - oh but ask about anything else and suddenly they can tell you precisely how many boxes of that they have in their warehouses, "in the back" at each store, and even how many are on the shelves.

This whole Target vs Walmart thing is asinine. They're sides of a coin. Target positioned itself as a brighter, wider-aisled version of Walmart, with a red color scheme instead of a blue & gray one.

I don't think it should be allowed to advertise a lowest price that is available at only some stores. It's obviously meant to manipulate.

@squinko:

Let's pretend these ads of Target's don't violate deceptive advertising laws for a second...

So, basically, you're saying Target has gone back 25-30 years into the past when you had to call each store (and each branch of each store) to inquire if they had item X, and how much item X cost. Then you would decide which store to drive to and buy the item.

Which basically says Target does not want your business, but they do want to waste your time.

Thanks, but no thanks.

@savdavid:

Step 1: OP goes to Target to buy the hard drive for $59.99.

Step 2: Target says the price is $84.99.

Step 3: The manager of the Target says he can't change the price.

Step 4: OP leaves Target and buys hard drive from Walmart.

Step 5: OP goes home and calls Target corporate to complain.

Step 6: Guest Services rep. says OP should have gotten the advertised price, and apologizes. However, OP needed the hard drive immediately so the apology is too little too late. Target lost the sale.

Guest Services should have offered something, even something like a $5-10 gift card, to try and smooth things over and entice the OP to shop at Target again.

@bishophicks:
If a store advertises something they don't carry - or charges a higher price than they advertise - that store is using deceptive advertising practices and should be reported to the attorney's general for some class action smackdown loving.

Unfortunately a lot of stores do this, but if the AG gets enough complaints, the store gets some unpleasant mail.

@treimel:

Confusion solved by the poster above, but I still like your point. Most of the people I know that hate Walmart and do all their shopping in Target know everything about how evil Walmart is and nothing about how Target is better. Walmart may have some shitty practices. But just for the sheer fact that it chooses to serve poor and rural communities, it makes me roll my eyes less than Whole Foods, for instance.

@savdavid:

The call was made after he bought the hard drive at another retailer. They were unable to solve the problem in the store. Then he called customer service to find out what the problem was and the CSR told him the store had been mistaken. By that time, it was too late.

Oh, this is insane. And that they can't coordinate it is total hooey. I used to work for Dayton Hudson, which at one point owned Target, and each week they would send sheets and sheets listing inventory and where in the store we were supposed to place it. And then they'd have people come through and check it.

So, they can monitor the layout of every single flippin' store to ensure that customers always have the exact same experience no matter where they go, but they can't get it together on pricing? Give me a break. They can do it. They just don't want to.

@amuro98: And good luck getting somebody to answer the phone, and/or to give you an accurate response regarding availability and price. Last year when gas was $4+ / gal, I started calling stores first rather than dropping in. Shops mostly weren't with my program.

@rickinsthelens:

He did shop around for the best deal. Target just didn't honor their advertising. It's obviously not false advertising because of the fine print. But if Target's in-store pricing is bullshit, they shouldn't post it. The point of his letter is, why should he shop at a retailer that throws unnecessary obstacles in front of his buying experience?

Also, considering that the CSR said that the store was mistaken, I don't see how it ISN'T Target's fault. It would be different if Kelly said "tough luck" when he called, instead of "our bad"...

@aguacarbonica: It's always false advertising when you shout one thing and whisper another. A price is a price.

So ... I can say anything I want and so long as I make some sort of disclaimer, I can cancel out my original statement at will, even in the same breath? This is called talking out of both sides of one's mouth, and it's not remotely ethical.

OK, prices vary by store. I can understand that.

BUT!

The supermarkets I use have websites. When you enter to look at prices for the week, they ask for the location you intend to use, or where you are which will bring up a list of stores within ten to fifty miles. Then the advert for THAT store is displayed.

Just why this seems so difficult for other opeartions I fail to understand.

Next time go to NewEgg and get a 1TB ext disk for $40 more than the 250GB disk.