Alex tried to beat the rush. He had a dozen roses delivered to his lady’s workplace on Monday, February 11th, paying $96 for the privilege. Whatever he expected, it was not what appears in the photo that he sent: even properly lit, there’s a lot more green and a lot less luscious red rose in that picture than there should be. [More]
Let’s say that you want to order some flowers for your aunt in Omaha. You remember the frequent warnings on this site to go directly to a local florist, so that’s what you do. You type “florist omaha” into Google, scroll past the paid listings and the ones Google has plotted on a map, and choose a shop with a nice-looking website. Perfect! Only this “local” florist isn’t so local. You tried to make the right choice, but are hurting the very neighborhood flower shop you were trying to patronize when you typed those words in Google. [More]
Kyle had a LivingSocial voucher for 1-800-Flowers, and thought that he would put it to good use sending a lovely arrangement to his parents to show that he was thinking of them at Christmas. 1-800-Flowers didn’t really want to cooperate, though. They e-mailed him twice to let him know that the arrangement had been delivered…but it actually hadn’t. Silly Kyle, assuming that one of the messages had to reflect reality. They’ve since promised him a refund and a $20 coupon that have never come. [More]
Maybe MZ should have just picked up some flowers from Walmart or the grocery store instead. FTD sent the order to a local florist, but not a competent local florist. Maybe FTD should learn to search Yelp first.
It’s not a major flower-giving holiday here at The Consumerist without an installment of the Garden of Discontent. Laura (not me, a different one) sent along this disappointing diptych of the lush bouquet that she ordered for her mom from FTD.com and the meager handful of plant matter that was actually delivered, a day late.
On Valentine’s Day, we are expected to show loved ones how much they mean to us by giving them dead plants. For extra style points, we pay strangers to bring these dead plants to the recipient for us. However, florists are unfathomably busy on Valentine’s Day. So busy that we almost feel bad criticizing when things go wrong. Almost. The Consumerist’s annual Valentine’s Day Garden of Discontent is a collection of flower or gift deliveries that aren’t what the recipient had in mind. Such as calling your fianc√©e a whore.
If you’ve got plans to get a loved one flowers for Valentine’s Day, there are more options than picking up something from the display rack at the front of the grocery store or a high-priced arrangement that florists are peddling. You can save money and add a personal touch by making your own bouquet.
Last week’s post about a baffling and possibly incriminating e-mail solicitation from ProFlowers produced a hilarious comments section and a lot of speculation as to the identity of Margaret, the woman (not his wife) to whom reader Chris was being encouraged to send more flowers. We have an update. The good news: Both the offending ProFlowers account and Margaret have been found. The bad news: The couple has no idea who Margaret is, but they have her full name and home address. They still have no idea how Margaret’s info ended up in the account in the first place. [More]
You can’t blame Chris’s wife for being confused. She happened to receive a promotional e-mail from Proflowers, addressed to Chris, thanking him for buying a gift for Margaret. Her name is not Margaret. Chris writes that he hasn’t sent flowers to anyone named Margaret. Either Chris wrote to Consumerist as part of an incredibly roundabout cover-up of an extramarital affair, or something strange is going on here.
After a coworker’s mother passed away, J’s officemates chipped in to buy a very large, very pretty flower arrangement for the viewing. It cost around $200. While delivery and overhead are substantial in the flower industry, they didn’t expect to find that this pitiful thing had been sent in place of the massive arrangement they ordered.
When Joe ordered flowers for his fiancée’s birthday last week, his order wasn’t too fussy. He wanted 24 yellow and orange roses and a stuffed dog, delivered to her workplace, on her birthday. Things happen in the flower-delivery business, we know, and seasonal substitutions are normal and to be expected. What he didn’t expect, for his $70 or so, was to have half the amount of roses he ordered, in the wrong color and with the wrong stuffed animal, delivered to the wrong address, and nearly on the day after his fiancée’s birthday.
On the left are the flowers Brian ordered from ProFlowers for Mother’s Day. On the right are the ones that were actually delivered, late, and found by the janitors at the university she works at unceremoniously left in the hallway.
ProFlowers sends a lot of promotional e-mails, and Barry is on their list. While the deals on flowers get worse as a major dead-plant-sending holiday approaches, the contrast between one day’s deal and the next was extreme enough to make Barry ask, “How stupid do they think I am?”
Dennis didn’t get to take part in this year’s Valentine’s Day Garden of Discontent, but not because he was happy with the flowers that he ordered for his wife. The company didn’t deliver the flowers he ordered, and only dropped off any flowers at all after he called them for five days in a row.
Was the combination of a flower-centric holiday and a controversial Groupon promotion too much for FTD to handle? The network didn’t spend this Valentine’s Day just sending puny flower arrangements to people’s moms. For many people, they just went ahead and didn’t deliver the flowers at all. Two readers who took advantage of the Groupon discount shared their stories.
Reader Greg is not thrilled with FTD’s offer of $10 off the flowers that were not delivered for Mother’s Day. Why? $10 doesn’t even cover the $18.99 in shipping and fees he was charged.