UPDATE: Provantage WILL honor their pre-order 6800 price

[Spudd]

Originally posted by: DefRef

Originally posted by: Spudd
You realize your post to Coldbrew and your email to provantage are at odds, don't you? :beer:

I don't think so. My comments to him were in response to his attacking the guy who pointed out this isn't a bait-and-switch, while my letter to Provantage was merely inquiring why they seemed incapable of running their business in a satisfactory manner.

You said to Coldbrew that you thought this wasn't a bait and switch. Then in your letter to provantage you wrote: "it's obvious that this company has no qualms about enticing customers with the lure of a good price, only to leave them with the ridiculous non-choice of either agreeing to ransom their merchandise at the highest price on the Internet...or canceling their order and having to scramble for an alternate supplier to meet their needs with a negative impact on their budgets.
"

Bait-and-switch= "a sales tactic in which a customer is attracted by the advertisement of a low-priced item but is then encouraged to buy a higher-priced one."

You said they "enticed" customers to buy at a good price then left them with the "non-choice" of either buying at a much higher price or cancelling.

Don't you realize what you're telling Coldbrew to calm down about is exactly what you're complaining about in your letter to provantage? :beer:

 

[rms]

So....Has anyone who has received the 'your card has been shipped but no tracking number yet' email from provantage, but has not had their order cancelled or raised in price, actually contacted them to see if a few of us slipped through the cracks? Or was their 'order cancellation script' just not complete enough to kick us out of the system ?

rms

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: ColdBrew
As for what they did being alright because they have a statement saying it is ok, doesn't make it right. I don't know the laws in your state, but in mine that is called bait and switch and it is illegal.

You have no clue what bait and switch is. This certainly is not an instance. Too many people have heard that term and use it out of context.

Link to actual definition

It is the same basic concept, the only difference is that they raise the price on the same item, rather than offer a higher priced item, the end result to the consumer is the same. Arguing semantics is a poor way to discuss anything.

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: Spudd

Originally posted by: DefRef
Lighten up, ColdBrew. This is NOT a bait-and-switch because their policy, which was quite clear and not hidden (people even posted the caveat upthread), stated that on OOS items, the price MAY go up and if it did, they'd let you know about it so you could decide whether to proceed or not. It's not like we had to drive 5 hours one-way for a vanilla 6800 for $99 only to be told that all they have is $500 Ultra.

I'm afraid that too many people are going to react with profanity-laden flames and baseless threats of class-actions suit and a visit with an assault rifle or something stupid like that. Hey, I'm disappointed as much as the rest of ya, but I'm not gonna cry. I AM, however, sending the following reply to their e-mail:

This was to be my first experience with Provantage and it will certainly be my last since it's obvious that this company has no qualms about enticing customers with the lure of a good price, only to leave them with the ridiculous non-choice of either agreeing to ransom their merchandise at the highest price on the Internet (PriceWatch.com currently shows the same item available for $389-$438, including shipping) or canceling their order and having to scramble for an alternate supplier to meet their needs with a negative impact on their budgets.

How is it that CompUSA is able to charge the $399 MSRP and make a profit while Provantage has no choice but to price their wares at a stiff 12% ABOVE the MSRP? Even at the highest sales tax rates, a trip to the store could obtain this product for less than what you're asking and if Provantage is so susceptible to supplier demands or requires excessive markups to keep the lights on, it may be advisable for the owners to consider a different line of business.

Unless Provantage is willing to fulfill this order at the original price quoted, I will have to reluctantly decline your generous offer to pay an additional 32% to bridge the gap between what was promised and what can be delivered.

Please advise me of your intentions with regards to an agreeable resolution of this issue. Thank you.

- DefRef

That ought to send them running for a dictionary and thesaurus!

You realize your post to Coldbrew and your email to provantage are at odds, don't you? :beer:

I was thinking the exact same thing.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: rms
So....Has anyone who has received the 'your card has been shipped but no tracking number yet' email from provantage, but has not had their order cancelled or raised in price, actually contacted them to see if a few of us slipped through the cracks? Or was their 'order cancellation script' just not complete enough to kick us out of the system ?

rms

I've not yet contacted them, no. Although I probably will tomorrow if I still have no tracking number.

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: DefRef

Originally posted by: Spudd
You realize your post to Coldbrew and your email to provantage are at odds, don't you? :beer:

I don't think so. My comments to him were in response to his attacking the guy who pointed out this isn't a bait-and-switch, while my letter to Provantage was merely inquiring why they seemed incapable of running their business in a satisfactory manner.

Your letter clearly spells out that you think it is bait and switch as well. I don't want to get into the semantics debate with heroofpellinor so if it makes everyone happy I will call it Bait-and-Switch-Same-Product, meaning that they advertise a low price and then switch it to a higher price on the same product when the product actually becomes availible. This is virtually the same concept.

Also, I could care less about their discalimer, my hammer vs baby example stands I'm not ranting for a law suit or anything like that, I'm just saying its alot of Bait-and-Switch-Same-Product bs.

If that satisfies the semantics monkeys then yay.

 

[ColdBrew]

Originally posted by: Speedy3D!
Yeah, but BFG (they admitted to it) was using a bad LCD transmitter that only allowed resolutions up to 1280x1024 while everybody else does 1600x1200 ... not sure if they fixed it though.

What card has this issue? Does the 6800GT OC?

As for the bait in switch. You can see it however you want. Consider it droped by me.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Johnbear007

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: ColdBrew
As for what they did being alright because they have a statement saying it is ok, doesn't make it right. I don't know the laws in your state, but in mine that is called bait and switch and it is illegal.

You have no clue what bait and switch is. This certainly is not an instance. Too many people have heard that term and use it out of context.

Link to actual definition

It is the same basic concept, the only difference is that they raise the price on the same item, rather than offer a higher priced item, the end result to the consumer is the same. Arguing semantics is a poor way to discuss anything.

Bait and switch is illegal so you're actually accusing them of a crime, which might, itself, be libel. Price changes on the same object are not. Bait and switch is specifically in reference to one item "switched" for another. That's a major distinction, because if you're planning to purchase something, you know it's relative value...when you are suddenly presented with something else you may or may not know it's value and make an incorrect assumption...if they just double the price on the original item, you know you're getting a bad deal and know to walk away.

In most cases, semantics are everything, I don't get your last statement.

 

[edumacated81]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: rms
So....Has anyone who has received the 'your card has been shipped but no tracking number yet' email from provantage, but has not had their order cancelled or raised in price, actually contacted them to see if a few of us slipped through the cracks? Or was their 'order cancellation script' just not complete enough to kick us out of the system ?

rms

I've not yet contacted them, no. Although I probably will tomorrow if I still have no tracking number.

Agreed. However, part of me wonders if I should keep tight lipped and maybe let it "fall through the cracks." How long should it take for a "regional warehouse" to pass on the supposed tracking #...

 

[Spudd]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Johnbear007

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: ColdBrew
As for what they did being alright because they have a statement saying it is ok, doesn't make it right. I don't know the laws in your state, but in mine that is called bait and switch and it is illegal.

You have no clue what bait and switch is. This certainly is not an instance. Too many people have heard that term and use it out of context.

Link to actual definition

It is the same basic concept, the only difference is that they raise the price on the same item, rather than offer a higher priced item, the end result to the consumer is the same. Arguing semantics is a poor way to discuss anything.

Bait and switch is illegal so you're actually accusing them of a crime, which might, itself, be libel. Price changes on the same object are not.

In most cases, semantics are everything, I don't get your last statement.

First of all, bait and switch is only illegal in some states (if we only consider the US). Second, stating an opinion does not meet the standard for libel.

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Johnbear007

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: ColdBrew
As for what they did being alright because they have a statement saying it is ok, doesn't make it right. I don't know the laws in your state, but in mine that is called bait and switch and it is illegal.

You have no clue what bait and switch is. This certainly is not an instance. Too many people have heard that term and use it out of context.

Link to actual definition

It is the same basic concept, the only difference is that they raise the price on the same item, rather than offer a higher priced item, the end result to the consumer is the same. Arguing semantics is a poor way to discuss anything.

Bait and switch is illegal so you're actually accusing them of a crime, which might, itself, be libel. Price changes on the same object are not.

In most cases, semantics are everything, I don't get your last statement.

If you want to play the semantics game that is just fine. That's why I constructed an oh so silly new term just for you. In fact you are accusing me of accusing them of a crime which I am not accusing them of, so that could be considered libel.

My only point was that the concept is nearly the same. Sure, semantics may sometimes mean everything in a legal sense, however I am not debating the legality of what they did, nor accusing them of anything. Also, cosidering that the law comes into being in the judicial branch through interpretation as well as through the legislative, the fact that the concept is very nearly the same is still relevant. The difference between garnering orders on a low priced product and witching to a higher priced one and garnering orders on a low priced item and then jacking up the price is pretty slim. The practice is still essentially that of getting orders with an advertised low pirce and then attempting to get more money from the consumer then was originally asked for.

All it would take is one win in a court case to set a new precedent to include this in bait and switch, so no semantics are hardly everything. Semantics are often redfined legally in a attempt to catch the spirit of a law. This is why stubbornly clinging to a semantic argument is ussually foolish.

All that aside, I defined a new term so your argument is irrelevant. I was never using bait and switch in a
legal sense anyway.

What exactly did you not get about my last statement then? This is why arguing semantic is dumb. You overlook the intent of a statement by focusing on exact word definition. Considering that most word are constantly redefined this is a poor way to discuss anything. This it what it means to have a living language. It is used and it changes constantly. That is why we have to ammend the wording of our constitution frequently because we come to a realization that the wording does not meet the intent or spirit of the document.

Do you get it yet?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Johnbear007
If you want to play the semantics game that is just fine. That's why I constructed an oh so silly new term just for you. In fact you are accusing me of accusing them of a crime which I am not accusing them of, so that could be considered libel.

My only point was that the concept is nearly the same. Sure, semantics may sometimes mean everything in a legal sense, however I am not debating the legality of what they did, nor accusing them of anything. Also, cosidering that the law comes into being in the judicial branch through interpretation as well as through the legislative, the fact that the concept is very nearly the same is still relevant. The difference between garnering orders on a low priced product and witching to a higher priced one and garnering orders on a low priced item and then jacking up the price is pretty slim. The practice is still essentially that of getting orders with an advertised low pirce and then attempting to get more money from the consumer then was originally asked for.

All it would take is one win in a court case to set a new precedent to include this in bait and switch, so no semantics are hardly everything. Semantics are often redfined legally in a attempt to catch the spirit of a law. This is why stubbornly clinging to a semantic argument is ussually foolish.

All that aside, I defined a new term so your argument is irrelevant. I was never using bait and switch in a
legal sense anyway.

I'm sorry, but this isn't even semantics. What you're saying is that any price mistake not honored is bait and switch. Give me a break.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: edumacated81

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: rms
So....Has anyone who has received the 'your card has been shipped but no tracking number yet' email from provantage, but has not had their order cancelled or raised in price, actually contacted them to see if a few of us slipped through the cracks? Or was their 'order cancellation script' just not complete enough to kick us out of the system ?

rms

I've not yet contacted them, no. Although I probably will tomorrow if I still have no tracking number.

Agreed. However, part of me wonders if I should keep tight lipped and maybe let it "fall through the cracks." How long should it take for a "regional warehouse" to pass on the supposed tracking #...

Yeah...and I'm deciding whether to contact them or not too, especially because some comments about Provantage posted on Pricegrabber (by users in Texas, no less) make mention of very fast shipping - as in receiving the shipment one to two days after ordering it. So I am still hopeful.

Edit: Although at this point, I imagine there isn't much we could do anyway. If our cards have in fact been shipped (which I hope they have!), then they can't really "recall" the shipment as far as I know. And if the cards are coming, then they certainly can't charge us more than we agreed to - that would be illegal. On the other side of the coin, if they haven't yet shipped, they certainly have no incentive to give us our cards if we called - they seem to be so intent on getting $450 for them now. So maybe it really would be best just not to bother with contacting them - hopefully we'll have something (either a tracking number, or a card) tomorrow though! :beer:

 

[Trikat]

Bah, Provantage should just follow Best Buy's footstep's and ship 1 card per household/person/address yada yada...
This keeps MOST people happy and will probably reduce the complaints to zero.

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Johnbear007
If you want to play the semantics game that is just fine. That's why I constructed an oh so silly new term just for you. In fact you are accusing me of accusing them of a crime which I am not accusing them of, so that could be considered libel.

My only point was that the concept is nearly the same. Sure, semantics may sometimes mean everything in a legal sense, however I am not debating the legality of what they did, nor accusing them of anything. Also, cosidering that the law comes into being in the judicial branch through interpretation as well as through the legislative, the fact that the concept is very nearly the same is still relevant. The difference between garnering orders on a low priced product and witching to a higher priced one and garnering orders on a low priced item and then jacking up the price is pretty slim. The practice is still essentially that of getting orders with an advertised low pirce and then attempting to get more money from the consumer then was originally asked for.

All it would take is one win in a court case to set a new precedent to include this in bait and switch, so no semantics are hardly everything. Semantics are often redfined legally in a attempt to catch the spirit of a law. This is why stubbornly clinging to a semantic argument is ussually foolish.

All that aside, I defined a new term so your argument is irrelevant. I was never using bait and switch in a
legal sense anyway.

I'm sorry, but this isn't even semantics. What you're saying is that any price mistake not honored is bait and switch. Give me a break.

Did I say that? Nope, so I guess that isn't what I said, so you give me a break in fact it isn't even what I meant. In my opinion this was not a price mistake, you obviously have a different opinion, good for you! Conduct your business as you see fit based on your opinion, I certaintly am not going to try to convince you not to. I don't really care if you have a different opinion. The only reason I ever responded to you is because you were playing semantic games with coldbrew with the bait and switch issue. I wouldn't have said anything to you if you handn't been confrontational in the first place. I'm sorry that other peoples dissatisfaction with this company bothers you so much, but it sounds like a personal problem to me. This is a pretty sill argument that was based on your need to rigorously define bait and switch when it is quite obvious that this practice fits the definition. Whether or not provantage engaged in this practice is a matter of conjecture for us because we have no way to confirm or deny their true internal motivations. Your explanation is as good as mine, so it really just comes down to a guess on whether or not they did anything decpetive on purpose.

 

[adelphi]

mebbe a few hundred of us can order something cheap from them and mass refusing shipment at the door, explaining that inexplicably our manufacturer( parent) /superiors (gf/wife) has 'suddenly raised hell for our excessive shopping so therefore we cannot accept/ honor the price of this order unless they lower it -30%MSRP"
dunno if UPS/fedex might charge them for both trips, but at the leasat this should give provantage some additional work

 

[Spudd]

Originally posted by: adelphi
mebbe a few hundred of us can order something cheap from them and mass refusing shipment at the door, explaining that inexplicably our manufacturer( parent) /superiors (gf/wife) has 'suddenly raised hell for our excessive shopping so therefore we cannot accept/ honor the price of this order unless they lower it -30%MSRP"
dunno if UPS/fedex might charge them for both trips, but at the leasat this should give provantage some additional work

bwhahaahah

 

[DefRef]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I'm sorry, but this isn't even semantics. What you're saying is that any price mistake not honored is bait and switch. Give me a break.

It's pretty sad that so many people are content with sloppy, imprecise language that they'll go to the mat to defend their ignorance when called out on such ignorance. The fact that I even listed a specific example of what would be a bait-and-switch instead of a last-minute price change and people still wanted to make an issue shows that some people would rather fight over being wrong than admit that I was right. Get over yourselves, fercryingoutloud.

I dare you to try and float this "semantics don't mean nuthin'" argument by telling your Significant Other that you "like" them instead of "love" them. When she's ready to throw something heavy at you, just tell her that since both words are generally positive in meaning, they should be considered the same. (No, I won't send flowers to your hospital room.)

I'm laying a guilt-trip smackdown on them by questioning thier ethics, business practices and intelligence in a manner that doesn't shrilly accuse them or make threats if I don't get my way. Please note the manner in which I tell them I'm not interested in paying their higher price. (Yes, I do think I'm clever.:evil

No futher response is required for the nitpickers. HeroOfPellinor, congrats on caring what words actually mean.:beer:

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: DefRef

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I'm sorry, but this isn't even semantics. What you're saying is that any price mistake not honored is bait and switch. Give me a break.

It's pretty sad that so many people are content with sloppy, imprecise language that they'll go to the mat to defend their ignorance when called out on such ignorance. The fact that I even listed a specific example of what would be a bait-and-switch instead of a last-minute price change and people still wanted to make an issue shows that some people would rather fight over being wrong than admit that I was right. Get over yourselves, fercryingoutloud.

I dare you to try and float this "semantics don't mean nuthin'" argument by telling your Significant Other that you "like" them instead of "love" them. When she's ready to throw something heavy at you, just tell her that since both words are generally positive in meaning, they should be considered the same. (No, I won't send flowers to your hospital room.)

I'm laying a guilt-trip smackdown on them by questioning thier ethics, business practices and intelligence in a manner that doesn't shrilly accuse them or make threats if I don't get my way. Please note the manner in which I tell them I'm not interested in paying their higher price. (Yes, I do think I'm clever.:evil

No futher response is required for the nitpickers. HeroOfPellinor, congrats on caring what words actually mean.:beer:

: "it's obvious that this company has no qualms about enticing customers with the lure of a good price,

This is your own quote. Incomplete, but the relevant part. I don't even take issue with the fact that this isnt traditional bait and switch in the legal sense. My point is that the ENTICEMENT part is exactly the same. They entice you with a low price, and then try to hit you with a high one.

Also, i'm sorry but your like/love example is a bad one. The essential meaning is different. I have never argued anything but that (to borrow your word) the aspect of enticement is the same, and even went so as to coin a new phrase to satisfy any semantic issue, so I am not exactly sure what you are arguing about.

You don't think it is bait and switch? That's fine, I gave it a new name long before this response. You are not even agreeing with HeroOfPellinor. He thinks that this was an honest price mistake, while you obviously do not. You aren't disagreeing with me, because i'm not even calling it bait and switch, so you must be still hammering on coldbrew for suggesting it was in the first place?

lol this is ridiculous, I'm done with this thread. Good luck to everyone, I hope those that got their cards shipped get them!

This is from YOUR e-mail.

 

[artemicion]

when he says that this was a "bait and switch" I, for one, knew exactly what he was talking about.

They baited us with a tempting low price, and switched it on us at the last minute.

Regardless of what the precise legal definition, and what some web-site states, I am led to believe that most intelligent readers of this thread know exactly what he was talking about, and those crying foul against it are either lawyers for provantage, or just plain argumentative to the point of annoyance.

I don't think anybody can argue against the fact that regardless of whether or not it was PNY's pricing mistake, provantage has moral responsibility for presenting a price which they have no intention of backing up. If we allowed this, there would be retailers popping up all over the place offering all pre-orders for any type of product for lower than what they intend to sell it for. Imagine stores sending out advertisements for items below what they intend to sell for. Even if it's just by some marginal value like $5.00. What if EVERY store did this?

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: artemicion
when he says that this was a "bait and switch" I, for one, knew exactly what he was talking about.

They baited us with a tempting low price, and switched it on us at the last minute.

Regardless of what the precise legal definition, and what some web-site states, I am led to believe that most intelligent readers of this thread know exactly what he was talking about, and those crying foul against it are either lawyers for provantage, or just plain argumentative to the point of annoyance.

I don't think anybody can argue against the fact that regardless of whether or not it was PNY's pricing mistake, provantage has moral responsibility for presenting a price which they have no intention of backing up. If we allowed this, there would be retailers popping up all over the place offering all pre-orders for any type of product for lower than what they intend to sell it for. Imagine stores sending out advertisements for items below what they intend to sell for. Even if it's just by some marginal value like $5.00. What if EVERY store did this?

And before everyone points our there clause... What if every store did this and had that lame little clause....You would never know what to expect to pay for anything.

 

[digitalemperor]

they offered a price, with a cavet that they could change the price before shipping the item, and they would notify you before they charged you.

they did just that. they didn't charge anyone without letting them know of the price change. they allowd people to cancel. does it suck that provantage did this? yes. was it illegal? no.

let the thread die and lets find a better deal.

 

[artemicion]

i know of resellerratings, but are there any other reseller ratings type feedback sites we can all storm to? I really feel like burning them back for this mess.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: digitalemperor
they offered a price, with a cavet that they could change the price before shipping the item, and they would notify you before they charged you.

they did just that. they didn't charge anyone without letting them know of the price change. they allowd people to cancel. does it suck that provantage did this? yes. was it illegal? no.

let the thread die and lets find a better deal.

There are a few of us who received confirmation that our orders shipped, and I think it'll be interesting to see what happens with that. Hopefully we did really "get in on the deal."

 

[DefRef]

To the can't-let-it-go semantics freaks: Blah-blah-woof-woof.

I am genuinely bewildered by the incredible lack of reasoning and reading comprehension skills exhibited here. How you can read the opening paragraph and interpret that as an accusation of bait-and-switch shows more disregard of what words REALLY mean. I am NOT saying, "You guys are shameless scammers you tricked us into ordering when you knew all along the price would be higher." What I AM saying (for those still to obtuse to understand) is, "You don't seem to care (or realize) that people may not easily accept an extreme leap in price regardless of whether you got caught in a bind or not." If you refuse to understand this, I can't help you.

If Provantage hadn't skyrocketed the price to waaaaaaaaay over MSRP and/or had found a fair (we can't expect them to offer to lose money) alternative - maybe a gift card for X amount off a future purchase, whatever - then there'd be a lot less raw feelings around here. If they fulfilled the orders (at cost, for instance) they took during the EIGHT DAYS they were taking orders at the lower price, we'd all be saying how great Provantage was and how they would be remembered for their fair dealing...

Instead, they decided it would be better to be hated for free. Not only will they not profit from this debacle, they'll continue to lose in the future.

Sometimes it doesn't pay to be cheap.