From NJ.com:

State officials said the company will no longer sell non-prescription drugs or infant formula beyond their expiration dates, nor will it sell merchandise for more money than the displayed price. Target also created a new position to monitor the company's compliance with the settlement for the next two years.

The state's Division of Consumer Affairs sued Target, Walmart, and Drug Fair in September 2008, after finding that despite earlier agreements with the state, they were still selling expired products and charging wrong prices. Lawsuits against the other two retailers are still pending.

"Target reaches $375K settlement with N.J. for selling expired baby formula, charging different prices" [NJ.com]
(Photo: j.reed)

The LA Times says:

The price cuts are welcome news for movie studios because it could spur demand in a year of flagging DVD sales. The wholesale price paid by Walmart and its competitors remains unchanged at about $18, meaning studios will make the same profit despite the discounting.

It's normal for retailers like Walmart to price DVDs below their wholesale cost at stores and online to draw customers who often spend more money on other items.

Although discounting is not unusual for Walmart and Target, the new $10 price means the retailers will incur a big loss on each sale.

It comes as the two companies and Amazon engage in a price war over books that has driven down the price of some hardcovers to $9.

Will these new unsustainably low prices get you to skip Redbox or Netflix and actually buy a DVD?

Walmart, Target slash online prices of popular DVDs [LA Times]

Reader Costner says:

Attached are two images taken the same day in the same Target. The two products are literally inches apart from one another, but one is $4.79 for the 80 count Lysol wipes while the other is $4.79 for the 110 count Lysol wipes. Now I'm not real strong at math, but I'm guessing the 110 count just might be a better deal. The sad part was the 110 count appeared to be full while the space holding the 80 count was partially empty.

...I opted to buy the 110 count version which actually rang up at the correct price of $4.79.

(Thanks, Chris!)

See previous installments in the "Target is Crazy" series here.

Tim says:

So for many reasons I'm leaving behind my Tivo and switching to a comcast dvr (it's cheaper, among other things - the entire story why I'm switching is for another email). When I went to Tivo's website to cancel my subscription I encountered the classic "But wait - you're such a good customer we'll give you discounts if you stay!!" message. Curious, I decided to see what sort of savings they're offering. Below is a screenshot of my findings. Tivo, like all good companies, apparently fails at math.

I can save $100 by upgrading my Tivo Series 2 dvr to a Tivo HD dvr. So instead of paying MSRP of $299.99, I only have to pay $249.99!!! Or if I go with a Tivo HD XL dvr, I don't have to pay the $599.99 - I only have to pay $549.99!!! This is such a great deal, that I felt compelled to pass it along. The only way I can see their claim of saving $100 is if I buy one of each. But that's a long stretch.

Yeah, we'd probably pass on this one.

Sure, everyone was afraid of what might happen to satellite radio subscription prices after Sirius and XM merged, but nobody imagined paying $10,000 for an iPod converter. We'd rather go out and buy a car with that money instead.

Target now has some competition in the field of crazy price tag exploits.

We're going to guess that not many of those customers doing research online beforehand were planning to buy their new TV from Best Buy, anyway.

Last week, at least, employees didn't seem terribly aware of the discrepancy:

When asked about the pricing discrepancy, a blue shirted clerk replied that he was unaware of it, adding that he would "price match" Bestbuy.com's online prices, if he could verify them. Isn't that wonderful?

Well, as long as they're price-matching from their actual web site and not a secret intranet, it's not so bad.

Best Buy: A New "Dual Price" Strategy? [HDGuru]

Exhibit A:

Alex says:

I've never sent anything in like this before, but I saw this price tag at my local Target in Orlando, FL and it immediately reminded me of the countless Target articles, displaying their screwed up price tags, on the site.

So was it $13.99 before? Or not? The world may never know.

Exhibit B:
Bridget says:

Attached is a picture I took at our favorite place for goofs - Target.

Their "exciting" new Up & Up brand cleaning wipes appear to be on sale for $2.01, but the regular price tag states they are, in fact, $1.74.

And if that wasn't enough, when I purchased them, they rang up at $1.54.

I dunno, guys. Maybe Target just likes being on the site.

The increases vary by line, the company said, with most but not all product lines affected.

"Cooper raising prices on most consumer tire lines" [TireBusiness.com]
(Photo: www.ericcastro.biz)

The WSJ says that the price of Pepsi's "Aquafina" has dropped by half in some cases — and is still more expensive than store brands.

"It used to be $6.99 for a 24-pack, then $5.99," said Michael Bellas, chief executive of New York consulting firm Beverage Marketing Corp. "But $2.49? That's the lowest I've seen."

There is speculation that as Pepsi absorbs other bottlers and lowers its costs, the price could drop even lower. The botted-water makers told the WSJ that the low prices are just promotional and are common ahead of Labor Day.

Bottled-Water Price War Heats Up as Demand Falls [WSJ]
(Photo:Charliux)

When Jeremy saw an external hard drive he wanted was $59.99 in-store only, he overlooked the tiny print that said "Prices, promotions, styles and availability may vary by store and online." And then he got into some trouble that caused him to write this letter to Target customer service:

I went in the Target store located in Charlottesville, Virginia to purchase a Seagate 250GB external hard drive. According to my research on the target.com website before I arrived, the in-store price was $59.99. However, when I arrived to purchase it, the price had gone up to $84.99. I had the electronics clerk take a look to verify pricing. He checked the website and it continued to state that the cost was $59.99. The clerk then requested the store manager 'David' to come to the front. David verified that the website indicated a cost of $59.99, but he pointed out that the fine print said that 'prices may vary'. Unfortunately, the website didn't indicate the range of prices that I may have to pay, much less indicate that the price may be up to 40% more than advertised.

I contacted guest relations and spoke with Kelly. She was very polite and helpful. She called the store in question and informed me that the in-store price was indeed $59.99 and that a mistake had been made. As I needed the item quickly, I had to use another retailer. Not only did I end up having to shop Best Buy, I wasted time going into the
Target store just to find out that I could get it for almost $20 less at Wal-Mart.

As I don't like to give Wal-Mart my money and I simply dislike Best Buy's sales tactics, I was very pleased to have a Target store open in my area. However, needing this item on short notice and doing the proper research to determine price, location and availability, I was under the impression that Target would be able to provide me this unit at the price indicated at the store indicated. I learned that I was mistaken.

Kelly informed me that to know what a price was at a particular 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.

Prior to the Target store opening in my area, I had to shop Wal-Mart or Best Buy. For all their other, serious issues, they at least had accurate information on their website. I could determine online what the actual cost was as well as availability.

I would request that I'm contacted when this oversight is corrected so that my family can start shopping Target again.
Thank you for your time and consideration.

Despite the total ubiquity of these "web price may vary" policies at retailers, we get a lot of angry emails like this one. 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. The dance will likely never end.

(Photo: pdxmac)

It's not that Target is dangerously insane. It just has a bit of a reality problem. Here is more evidence, sent in by alert Consumerist readers and Target shoppers from across our great nation.

Thanks to Jill in Illinois, Geoff, joyosity, shakerdesigns, FAIL Blog, Scott in Rochester (NY), Mike, and Adam.

Previous installments in the "Target Is Crazy" series:
Target Saves You Money In Ways You Can Only Imagine
Do Not Fall Into Target's Evil Sunscreen Trap!
Target's Continuing Descent Into Madness Affects Courtesy Phones, TVs
Target Is Losing Its Mind
Target Shelf Tag: This Is Not A Sign

Zach says:

I was shopping at my local (Chicago, IL) Jewel-Osco this past Friday when I came upon this gem. Not being a very discerning wine drinker I was looking for something inexpensive and already chilled to bring home to my girlfriend. Imagine my surprise when I saw what "Big Relief" Jewel-Osco had in store for me! Needless to say I passed over this deeply discounted bottle of wine and settled for something more in my price range.

I'd say this price tag pretty much sums up the Jewel-Osco shopping experience as I remember it. You know, there are a lot of things I miss about home now that I live in Brooklyn, but you'll be shocked to discover that "coming with to the Jewels" isn't one of them.

Len says:

I was in my local Bottom Dollar, a low end Food Lion, grocery store (Gaithersburg, MD) and saw the attached pricing. They are selling 20 frozen burritos $10 with your savings card. The only problem is that there is a limit of 5 mix or match.

Unfortunately, I did not have time to find out if that was 5 x 20 (100 burritos) or just 5 total.

We are sort of afraid to meet the person who has to be limited to "only" 100 frozen chimichangas. Ya know?

"AT&T Says Forget About Cheaper Data Rates For The iPhone 3G S" [mocoNews.net]

If you're a new customer, consider the Palm Pre instead. Since AT&T didn't announce a lower data plan yesterday, the Palm Pre is more affordable on a month-to-month basis. It's hard to compare the 3G S and the Pre side by side because their features don't match up, but basically if you want auto-focus and the ability to record video, you want the 3G S; if you want a physical keyboard and the ability to multi-task, the Pre is a better bet.

Your other option, of course—if you can't or don't want to jump ship to Sprint—is to take a deep breath and wait it out. The introduction of the Pre is a great thing for customers, and it's still possible AT&T may drop the price of its data plan for the iPhone in the coming weeks. Prices for either phone may drop further depending on sales. And if you're a current iPhone 3G owner, the free OS upgrade later this month should make you feel like your existing phone just got a tune-up, which may hold you over for another 6-12 months until, hopefully, prices fall. In the meantime, apps like Quick Shot and Reply Butler can bring some added functionality to your existing iPhone 3G at nominal cost.

(And of course, don't forget Android phones. The OS is awesome, even if the $179 G1 phone on T-Mobile is a bit clunky.)

"Real Cost of iPhone 3GS: About $218 More Than You Think" [Gizmodo]

He writes:

I was buying a small NY strip steak at Food Lion the other day and noticed a very high price for a such a small cut of strip. I looked closer at the sticker and peeled it away to see a much lower priced sticker underneath. The pictures are self explanatory.

If this were us, we'd get a scale and then argue for the lowest unit price available. Or we'd just get some ground chuck and cook up a tasty burger.

From Reuters:

"Prices are still high, costs are down, so overall performance has been pretty good," said Christopher Shanahan, analyst with Frost & Sullivan.

Food companies raised prices last year when costs for feed grains and other input items sped higher. Now, prices for many of those inputs, particularly feed grains, have moved back down, which has helped companies like Hormel, he said.

Sales of Hormel's signature Spam and Dinty Moore brands remained strong as shoppers sought value amid the weak economy. In addition, sales improved for some convenience items such microwaveable meals, the company said.

Hey, at least someone is making money. And let's face it... you didn't really expect them to lower prices once costs went down... did you?

UPDATE 3-Hormel serves up strong Spam sales, profits [Reuters]
(Photo:catastrophe girl)

Do not fall for this.

It is a trap.

"It tells me, they don't care," David Lazier of Sacramento County Weights and Measures told Kurtis. He says it shows, "their business model, their business practice (that) sloppiness is okay".

The Kohl's store in Elk Grove failed it's September inspection. The report shows inspectors were charged $44.99 for a set of sheets supposed to be $22.49. It also shows a jacket on sale for $50, rung up $69.99. Inspections reports reveal the Kohl's in Natomas has also overcharged customers, as did a location in Modesto. The store on Antelope Boulevard in Sacramento County failed two inspections in 2008.

The first person Kurtis could find outside the Kohl's Antelope store said she's been overcharged. "It's happened a lot, at least five or six times".

Sacramento County fined Kohl's stores more than $2000 last year, but Lazier says the department store hasn't fixed the problem.

"The information they gave us is we were too busy to get around to get that taken care of, well that's not the consumers problem, that's store management problem," Lazier told Kurtis.

The Sacramento District Attorney is investigating the pricing discrepancies and could haul Kohl's into court, where the fines reach far higher than $2,000.

Call Kurtis Investigates: Kohl's Overcharges [CBS13]
(Photo: dno1967)

The reason we said Kodak Gallery was poor value was because they recently changed their online storage policy. Now you have to make a purchase of at least $4.99 from them once every 12 months to keep your account active if you have 2 GB or less stored on their servers; the requirement jumps up to $19.99 annually if you go over that limit.

No other popular online photo service forces you to buy from them to keep your photos stored online. However, yesterday we received an email from Kodak Gallery announcing that they will soon allow free downloads of your photos in their original sizes. That's something no other service offers—you'll pay $10 or more (sometimes far more) to retrieve your high-rez stored photos elsewhere.

So that's the trade off, and now Kodak Gallery might not be a bad choice if you're the following type of customer:

• You naturally spend at least $20 annually on photos and photo gifts anyway (rendering the "minimum purchase" requirement moot)
• You want to be able to rely on the service's online storage as an affordable backup system for your photos.

There are plenty of other online photo storage solutions, and the most affordable one for you depends on the size of your photo collection and your usage patterns. Don't focus solely on retail sites, either. For example, if you host a website through Dreamhost, your account comes with 50 GB of dedicated file backup space (it grows to "unlimited" if the photos are part of a website and not just stored as a backup). For $25 a year, you'll get unlimited archive space on Flickr with free downloads should you need to retrieve the pics.

If you frequently buy photo products anyway, though, Kodak is back in the running as a valid option to consider.

Note: Although this is definitely an improvement in their policy, the don't state the date it will go into effect—just "soon." If you're not currently a Kodak Gallery user, we certainly don't think you should run over to their service until we see what really happens.

(Photo: Stephen Cummings)

Comcast says:

The NFL has been misleading the public by accusing Comcast of depriving cable customers of its network. I would like to set the record straight.

The truth is that Comcast wants to carry NFL Network, and we have been working hard to come to an agreement to do just that before our current contract with the NFL expires on May 1. In fact, we have offered to continue to carry the network under the terms of our current contract, but the NFL has refused.

You may wonder why. We're asking the same question.

The NFL is the most sophisticated, lucrative, and powerful professional sports enterprise in the world, with a special exemption from antitrust laws that helps it maintain its monopoly on televised football. The NFL already makes more than $20 billion through long-term deals with ESPN, CBS, Fox, and NBC - more than the television-rights fees collected by the NBA, NHL, and NASCAR combined.

But the NFL wants more, and it's trying to use its enormous market power to force millions of our customers to pay for games they have always seen for free. (On top of that, it denies tens of millions of cable customers access to hundreds of games provided exclusively to DirecTV.)

Comcast currently makes NFL Network available on the dedicated sports and entertainment tier. We view this as the best and fairest way to provide NFL Network's expensive programming, because viewers who want to watch the channel can do so, while those who prefer not to aren't forced to cover the network's high costs.

NFL Network provides only eight live, regular-season, out-of-market games a year. The vast majority of the network's programming is filler such as training-camp coverage and draft analysis, which may interest the super-fan, but not most cable customers. And yet the network wants to charge higher fees than virtually any other national cable network.

Since the NFL doesn't like the terms of the contract it signed, it has repeatedly asked the courts and government authorities to require that the terms be changed. Contrary to the NFL's recent claims, though, the Federal Communications Commission has made no final determinations as to whether the NFL's claims of discrimination by Comcast are valid or bogus.

But despite our offer to do what's in the best interests of fans, we anticipate that the NFL may terminate Comcast's right to carry NFL Network. No matter what happens, though, Philadelphia fans will still see every Eagles game and all the NFL games on CBS, Fox, NBC, and ESPN. In fact, we carry more than 250 NFL games across the country every year.

Nobody can doubt Comcast's passionate commitment to giving our customers the best sports programming. We own the Flyers and the Sixers, and we bring thousands of professional, college, and local sporting events to our customers each year.

We have reached hundreds of agreements with other cable networks, and we typically renew our network agreements without any interruption of service. We would like to continue to carry NFL Network. But we will do so only on terms that are fair to our customers.

The NFL should join us in putting the interests of fans and the viewing public first.

You can review the NFL network's side of the story here. And, of course, there's actually a third side of the argument, the consumers who don't care about football and don't want their basic cable rates to rise to pay for the NFL Network.

So, Consumerists, let's settle this once and for all. Who's right? Does Comcast have the right to charge whatever it likes for cable channels as part of its business? Or is it unfairly singling out the NFL channel as the league claims? (Comcast apparently does not put the channels it owns or has ownership interest in (Golf Channel, Versus and MLB Network) on a sports tier.)

NFL Network is not for everyone [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Caroline writes:

I stopped by Duane Reade last night to pick up a few things. I remembered I needed some baggies. Instinctively I almost grabbed the store brand, but fortunately they had a banner on their box saying "Compare to Ziploc", so I did. I noticed the Ziploc brand was 50cents cheaper for the exact amount of same-sized baggies. I grabbed the Ziploc. Now if only all brands did this!

Even though you should always compare absolute prices, don't forget to also glance at the unit price to make sure you're really getting the best deal.

Because we worked at Subway headquarters in high school, we know the reason is that the salad lettuce is actually shredded dollar bills that were removed from circulation by the government and given to Subway in exchange for party subs at the U.S. Mint.

Or someone accidentally put a 5 up there, but seriously, why is a bowl and some extra lettuce any more expensive than delicious, store-baked bread?

Update: Kodak Gallery has modified its storage policy. The minimum purchase requirement remains in effect, but now the service won't charge for downloading high-rez copies of the stored images (something no other photo product service that we know of currently offers).

Both sites charge 15 cents per print, so there's no savings from Kodak Gallery when it comes to printing.

Threatening to delete your photos is bad enough, but Kodak Gallery also overcharges for archive CDs. We're not big fans of the one-way storage solutions offered by most photo storage sites, and Shutterfly is as guilty as Kodak in this regard—you can upload all you want, but will have to pay to get those photos back should you lose your own copy some day. But compare these prices from the two companies (current as of March 23, 2009) for 2,000 photos on an archive CD:

Kodak Gallery: $55
Shutterfly: $25

We're just comparing Shutterfly to Kodak, but there are other services you may want to check out as well. Snapfish, another popular site, falls somewhere between the two: 4x6 prints are only 9 cents and there are no explicit spending requirements to keep your account active, but retrieving your images from them is ridiculously expensive.

If you're going to be downloading lots of your stored images frequently, consider a $25 annual Flickr membership (unlimited storage, free access to high-rez versions of your photos). Otherwise, Shutterfly is far and away a cheaper alternative to Kodak Gallery.

(Thanks to Edward!)

All over the city, formerly busy parking meters are empty, while residential streets are clogged with people looking for free parking.

From the Sun-Times:

Only five Chicago aldermen bucked the mayor on the privatization of parking meters, and one was Scott Waguespack of the 32nd Ward, which includes Wicker Park and Bucktown. It wasn't that Waguespack opposed raising rates, something that hadn't been done in years, but he believed an increase should be "incremental, not drastic" and that the city could have done it on its own.

Now, he says, people in his ward are suddenly seeing not only empty meters but more cars clogging residential neighborhoods in search of free spaces, a problem for people who live there.

The whole purpose of parking meters was as an urban planning tool, used to generate turnover so businesses could see a steady stream of customers who park for a short time, shop and leave, opening spaces for more shoppers.

Now, Waguespack argues, spaces have become solely "a revenue anchor" and the rates have shot "too high, too quickly."

Are we seeing a boycott?

"I'm not so sure yet," said the alderman, "but it's definitely a refusal."

Boycott, boycott, boycott...

Parking meter rate hike sparks a rebellion [Sun-Times via Fark]
(Brian Jackson/Sun-Times)

Deals are everywhere you turn in the airline industry. On Tuesday, American Airlines said it is offering a fare of $299 each way, with a round-trip purchase, for off-peak travel through the end of June from any American or American Eagle city in the U.S. to any of six destinations in Argentina and Brazil. Virgin America launches service from San Francisco to Orange County on April 30, at $59 one way.

BestFares.com has a family-of-four package to Sydney that includes airfare, five nights at the 4-star Marriott Hotel and all taxes starting as low as $799 round-trip per person. It's from $899 if you stay at the five-star Sir Stamford at Circular Bay, a few minutes' walk to the Opera House.

"With the dollar stronger, with 50 percent off airfare, you have wiggle room" to spend more on travel, said Parsons. "You can put more shrimp on the barbie. You could buy shrimp for your whole block."

Anyone making travel plans? Or are you broke?

Airfare bargains in 'worldwide distress sale' [SFGate]
(Photo:gumbyliberation)

The Times says that a new report shows that the average cellphone customer pays more than $3 per minute.

Researchers arrived at the average $3.02-per-minute charge by comparing the average number of minutes charged in more than 700 San Diego consumers' telecom bills and dividing by the average number of actual minutes used.

"We knew it was a myth that wireless costs were going down," said Michael Shames, UCAN's executive director. "But we were blown away by the actual costs."

The results are skewed by the small amount of people who pay for a large amount of minutes and only use a few — but even with those people removed the average is from $0.50 to $1 per minute. Of course, you also have to keep in mind that the study seems to only have included "any time" minutes and not the free night and weekend or in-network calling minutes that many cellphone customers get with their plans. Still, it sounds like a lot of minutes may be going unused.

The organization behind the study is pushing for less complicated cellphone bills and simplified taxes so that customers are better able to understand their usage and choose the plan that fits them best.

Talk isn't cheap? For cellphone users, not talking is costly too [LA Times]
(Photo:hellochris)

Kevin writes:

I was looking to buy confessions of a butcher and at the time the "digital list price" was 29.9.95. With the "45%" discount it was still 5+ USD more for a kindle copy. I posted a comment and asked the Author to speak to Amazon, long story short the author (through his wife) responded they thought it was the pits as well but there was a happy ending when Amazon ended up reducing the cost down to 10.76, still not great for a limited use e-book but good enough for me! So the moral is if you have a reasonable complaint, Amazon listens (at least in the case).

Amazon is heavily discounting the price of eBooks to spur Kindle sales, but eBooks won't always be so cheap. Writing over at Slate, Farhad Manjoo warns that if the Kindle becomes as ubiquitous as the iPod, eBooks, which can't be shared, traded, or resold, may soon cost more than their print counterparts. "As the master of the e-book universe," Manjoo claims, "Amazon will eventually call the shots on pricing, marketing, and everything else associated with the new medium."

Can you see yourself paying $30 for an eBook anytime soon?

Confessions of a Butcher-eat steak on a hamburger budget and save$$$ (Paperback) [Amazon]
$29.95 digital list price are you kidding me?!?!?! [Amazon Customer Discussions]
Fear the Kindle [Slate]

Kenneth says:

So, I decided to take a look at my almost-closed circuit city last night for some super deals. I get here and I'm quite disappointed. Please look at the attached picture.

A Standard 6 foot USB A - B cable. No box. No anything. In a zip lock bag. Listed for $30.59. After liquidation discounts.

Hey, let's see what Monoprice charges for this beauty. Cables... USB... A - B.... Wait, does that say... $1.10?

Farecast.com: Track a specific flight over time, see graphs that help you choose the least expensive dates to fly, or just see where it's cheapest to go right now. Sort of fun even if you're not planning a trip.

Seatguru — Identifies the best seats on various aircraft. Never smell that awful bathroom smell again.

Airfarewatchdog — Finds cheap fares with a cheery attitude.

(Photo:jdnx)

The company will be reaching out to existing customers to offer the new pricing, but if you're interested you can always try calling them starting March 1st.

"T-Mobile Prepping New Loyalty Plans for Existing Customers?" [IntoMobile]

Here's what AJ found yesterday:

Forsyth, GA has very few places to eat. When I don't bring my lunch, I end up having to eat at the same places over and over again, and many of them are fast food. So, typically, I tried to find something that I can at least pretend is a bit healthier, like grilled chicken wraps.

Yesterday, I went by Dairy Queen and ordered two grilled chicken wraps. The chicken wraps are $1.39. However, they also happen to be on Dairy Queen's "Sweet Deal" menu, a promotion which I was unaware of. (I hadn't really looked at the promotional poster. I knew exactly what I wanted.)

With the Sweet Deal, you get any two items for $3.00. So, of course, Dairy Queen charged me $3.00 for two $1.39 chicken wraps. I didn't even notice until they handed me the receipt and I had driven off.

(Photo: KellyK)

And now, according to reader Marc, they have two ads running in tandem, right next to one another (on the website of WFMZ) that each display a different advertised price. You know, I don't normally say this, but Verizon... Get help, man.

(Thanks, Brent!)