If you purchase this 55″ Panasonic plasma screen TV from Best Buy, they’ll throw in a home theater system for only only $150. This is an impressive deal, considering that the list price for that package is…$149.99.
Reader Ben spotted this amazing deal in the print flyer of his local paper and snapped a picture using his phone, but the same exact thing is promoted in Best Buy’s online flyer. Here’s a large, clear screenshot of it.
Nope, making it more legible doesn’t make it any less stupid.
More From Consumerist
-
Beware The Bounteous Retail Bonus Programs: There Is Such A Thing As Being Too Loyal
-
Best Buy Founder Gets A Little More Time To Figure Out How To Buy Company Back
-
Funny Pictures: Not Always Funny On Second Glance
-
Yep, Shoppers Started Camping Out For Black Friday This Wednesday
-
At Best Buy You Can Pay $3 More For Someone Else To Open A Product For You
Buy one product, get the other one at… the Manufacturer’s Recommended Sales Price! 8D
Simple mistake. Looking up the SKU shows a price of $299.99. Misprint. Move along.
Should have posted the link:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Panasonic—2.1-Ch.-Home-Theater-Speaker-System-with-Wireless-Subwoofer/4841411.p?id=1218541224975&skuId=4841411
Not a misprint, just fuzzy advertising. If the price is $299.99, and you spend $150 on it, you’ve saved $149.99. Hence the “value” statement, which really isn’t clear at all.
rabble rabble rabble BestBuy apologist rabble rabble…
/s
And this, children, is how you correctly use the sarc tag. Was it obviously sarcastic? No; someone could well have made an inane comment like this and meant it. Hence the application of the tag.
Moving on to the poster’s assertion that “Canadian Bacon is best bacon!”, we quickly learn that even people with addled syphilitic minds can learn to use the sarc tag effectively, so you should too.
Thank you, Professor, I have been not only educated, but enlightened all at once.
/HA!!!
Canadian Bacon is decent ham, but it’s not good bacon.
I see it as a misprint. Someone simply goofed.
Corrected:
“A savings of $149.99.”
“A $299.99 value.”
Either way, it was a simple mistake and there is an actual deal. The article claims the “list price” is $149.99. It’s not.
It’s just a misprint, simple mistake, you know, the things we make everyday, but expect everyone elese ot be perfect.
It’s not that we expect everyone to be perfect, but ads should go through several rounds of proofreading before going to print.
If any site shouldn’t be posting about an editing error it’s this site.
And actually it really isn’t a misprint, its more so a bad choice of words. The $149.99 value is the value of the savings, not how much the product normally costs. Confusing yes but probably not even a misprint.
I actually read it as a paying only $150 is a $149.99 value, as in the full price $299.99. Poor choice of words on their part I guess.
Rather. It’s a $299.99 value and $149.99 is the amount saved. It’s not misleading, it’s just bad ad copy. =P
Somehow, this is the OP’s fault
Wouldn’t it be nice if Consumerist did the groundwork, instead of posters having to sort out what is real and what is just a grabber headline?
Then they would be more like Consumer Reports, that is, “professional”.
Must be getting tough for Best Buy who is apparently getting their creative ad team on the cheap by employing students fresh out of high school.
I remember the good ol’ days, when news was actually news
Maybe I’m different, but if this was my website, I would be completely embarassed with such an article.
I love the Consumerist and never really saw it as a news site. There’s better places to go if you want the news.
Ever read the back page of Consumer Reports? They print stuff like this all the time – including ad typos. It makes sense that their blog would do the same on occasion.
And if I ran Best Buy, I’d be embarrassed if the above ad ran on mine.
I.gotten agree…why is consumerist in the business of printing stories on typos?
I’m reading it as a value of $149.99 saved + $150 spent, which amazingly enough is the retail price of $299.99. The OP’s ignorance could be excused since he was looking at a print flyer and couldn’t look see the original price, but Laura apparently looked online to see the same price and didn’t bother to look any further.
Maybe the writers could spend some time verifying all the stories on here in general. It seems every time they get a Best Buy story they just rush and post it, without doing any research. Looks very sloppy and 2nd rate.
This isn’t even an error in the ad. The ad says clearly that it’s a $149.99 value, as in, the deal is worth $149.99. Thus, the item is worth $299.99.
Reading comprehension fail, maybe, but nothing else…
And, for reference, here’s the referenced item on Best Buy’s site, at the retail price of $299:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Panasonic—2.1-Ch.-Home-Theater-Speaker-System-with-Wireless-Subwoofer/4841411.p?id=1218541224975&skuId=4841411
“This isn’t even an error in the ad. The ad says clearly that it’s a $149.99 value, as in, the deal is worth $149.99. Thus, the item is worth $299.99.”
If the value or worth of the service is (according to them) $299.99, and the sale price is $150, then the discount is $149.99. So yes, this is an error. ‘Value’ does not mean ‘discount’.
If an item can be misunderstood, the fault lies with the speaker. If that’s what they mean, they need to work on their communication skills.
The ad is poorly worded–some copy editor fell down on the job. To me, it looks at first glance that the service regularly has a value of $149.99. If they meant a $149.99 discount or savings, that’s what they should have said.