Sephora RANT & ?

I finally decided to pick up a few things with the Sephora Friends & Family
discount (code FF2005).
I looked for a couple of standards, specifically Talika Lipocils and Blinc
Kiss Me Mascara. The Lipocils is now $55 (up from $35 very recently). And
the Kiss Me is $24 for all the colors except black; THEY ARE CHARGING $34.92
FOR THE BLACK MASCARA!
What possible justification is there for charging $10 more for black mascara
than for the same stuff in "brown/black"? And why did the Lipocils go up
$20 while the other Talika products seem to have stayed at the same price?
I didn't buy either one. And it makes me wonder what other prices have been
raised to "gouge" levels.
Okay, ready to be chided or flamed for missing something that's incredibly
obvious to other a.f.ers,
cofarb

I finally decided to pick up a few things with the Sephora Friends & Family
discount (code FF2005).
I looked for a couple of standards, specifically Talika Lipocils and Blinc
Kiss Me Mascara. The Lipocils is now $55 (up from $35 very recently). And
the Kiss Me is $24 for all the colors except black; THEY ARE CHARGING $34.92
FOR THE BLACK MASCARA!
What possible justification is there for charging $10 more for black mascara
than for the same stuff in "brown/black"? And why did the Lipocils go up
$20 while the other Talika products seem to have stayed at the same price?
I didn't buy either one. And it makes me wonder what other prices have been
raised to "gouge" levels.
Okay, ready to be chided or flamed for missing something that's incredibly
obvious to other a.f.ers,
cofarb

Hmmmm, I've deleted them and had no similar problems.
I guess this is a YMMV, hm?

$1.99 in the KC area (Shawnee Mission). But I was up north yesterday and
got some for $1.95 at the QT at I–29 & Barry Rd.

Thanks, Stacy. I appreciate you taking the time to post such an
in–depth explanation. In NY state, we frequently hear that the
legislature is going to look into "accusations of price gouging" when
it comes to, say, gas–powered generators after an ice storm or,
recently, the price of gas. But it seems we never hear their definition
of gouging or their rationale for abandoning the issue (which they
seem to do more often than not).

cofarb wrote:
same thing happened to me with a Smashbox brush I was thinking about. It
went from something like $52 to $65!
Try clearing your cache...that worked for me...the brush went down to the
normal price, then the code worked on top of that.
Jean

"cofarb" wrote:

Yes, isn't it in the same category as bread and water?

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 15:05:25 –0500, "cofarb" wrote:
To put on my cynical hat:
Their rationale for starting the investigation: "Because it makes good
film at 11:00," the traditional East Coast news time. (FOX and WB in
Houston at 9:00, big three at 10:00)
Their rationale for stopping the investigation: The big boxes won't
dare get caught gouging (in fact, Wal–Mart and Home Depot actually
lose money because they won't raise prices in fear of being accused of
gouging and they do engage in extra expense to prestage supplies to
rush in post–disaster) and the mom 'n' pop stores don't have enough
market power to gouge that much.
Also, if the legislative branch wanted to investigate, they could
spend the first 500 years whacking the low–hanging fruit at the
Federal Emergency Mismanagement [sic] Agency. I know when I was in a
shelter for Rita, the help we got all came from the State of Texas. It
was delivered in Texas Department of Criminal Justice trucks.
PS: From the context she writes, jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjulie is somewhere
inside the Beltway... does she work for FEMA? <grin/duck>

whirlygirly" wrote:

Come to CA where it is $2.43 where I live and it's considered one
of the lowest prices in the state :(

That's the Missouri side where the fuel taxes are lower and the roads
are better. KDOT used to complain it was because of all the roads they
had to maintain in Kansas.

There's usually a few cents difference, but right now they're pretty
much the same.. the 7–11 by me is $1.96, and there was a Phillips right
next to the QT on Barry Rd that was $1.99. $1.97–1.99 seems to be the
norm all over town.
To think, I was so excited about paying $2.15 when I went to OK last month!
becca

––
"I like that people say it's harder to quit smoking than to kick heroin.
This makes me feel really good because now I know I can develop a heroin
addiction and quit it. Obviously I'll be able to." –Pamie

Cofarb, if you go to the blinc website, you can get the black mascara
for 25.00.
Sandra

I finally decided to pick up a few things with the Sephora Friends & Family
discount (code FF2005).
I looked for a couple of standards, specifically Talika Lipocils and Blinc
Kiss Me Mascara. The Lipocils is now $55 (up from $35 very recently). And
the Kiss Me is $24 for all the colors except black; THEY ARE CHARGING $34.92
FOR THE BLACK MASCARA!

I finally decided to pick up a few things with the Sephora Friends & Family
discount (code FF2005).
I looked for a couple of standards, specifically Talika Lipocils and Blinc
Kiss Me Mascara. The Lipocils is now $55 (up from $35 very recently). And
the Kiss Me is $24 for all the colors except black; THEY ARE CHARGING $34.92
FOR THE BLACK MASCARA!
What possible justification is there for charging $10 more for black mascara
than for the same stuff in "brown/black"? And why did the Lipocils go up
$20 while the other Talika products seem to have stayed at the same price?
I didn't buy either one. And it makes me wonder what other prices have been
raised to "gouge" levels.
Okay, ready to be chided or flamed for missing something that's incredibly
obvious to other a.f.ers,
cofarb

"Jean" <highs...@suscom–maine.net> wrote in message
news:437B39C2.30...@suscom–maine.net...
Wow, thanks, Jean, it worked. The Kiss Me Mascara was going for $31.92 on
my machine before I cleared the cache. I don't understand why that
happened, but thanks for the fix. Now Audrey's Fresh deodorant is still
showing up at $22 instead of $16...
Smokey

"Smokey" <SmokeyinNewEngl...@yahooey.com> wrote in message
news:ssudnVMGw6VAo–beRVn–...@comcast.com...
Furthering my own post, the Fresh Sugar Lip Balm price on Sephora.com is
$29.04, while the going price for it seems to be $22. I've cleared my
cache, so now I'm confused. Does it show up at that price for others? It
doesn't seem likely that Sephora would pick such an odd price...and at
such a premium over what it usually charges. Makes me want to take
another look at the FF2005 order I placed the other day.
Smokey

IMO, a very sensible and appropriate response, Audrey (although I would
amend it to have it sent to everyone who ordered from the site during
the time the glitch was in progress as not everyone on the mailing list
made an order and not everyone who made an order is on the mailing
list).
alt.fashion is a teeny, tiny part of Sephora's customer base. Always
has been and is even moreso these days.

cofarb wrote:
Sounds like they're using the cookies to keep track of who is a
regular customer and who isn't to give an undocumented "first time
buyer" discount to new folk to get them "hooked" Tricky, make new
folk think those are the regular prices so they won't flee, but once
they're hooked milk em for all they're worth.

"Smokey" <SmokeyinNewEngl...@yahooey.com> wrote in message
news:DaOdnVLitMs3oubeRVn–...@comcast.com...
With private coaching from Jean, I just cleared my cache but the Lipocils

still showing up as $55. I just refuse. I *can't* pay that much for it.
cofarb

cofarb wrote:
I just tried this. I get $35 for the lipocils, and $24 for the black
mascara.
I've read about sites that cookie you, then set higher prices based on
your shopping habits. But this totally SUCKS!
I'm one of those oddballs who hates makeup counters, so most things are
purchased online. But if this is Sephora's way of operation, I might
have to reconsider.
Barbara

Wow. It's as if you live in New York, Charlie. How did you know?

(Like you said: just in time for "film at 11".)

Charlie Perrin wrote:

There's usually a few cents difference, but right now they're pretty
much the same.. the 7–11 by me is $1.96, and there was a Phillips right
next to the QT on Barry Rd that was $1.99. $1.97–1.99 seems to be the
norm all over town.

To think, I was so excited about paying $2.15 when I went to OK last month!

cofarb wrote:
I just tried this. I get $35 for the lipocils, and $24 for the black
mascara.
I've read about sites that cookie you, then set higher prices based on
your shopping habits. But this totally SUCKS!
I'm one of those oddballs who hates makeup counters, so most things are
purchased online. But if this is Sephora's way of operation, I might
have to reconsider.
Barbara

"Jean" <highs...@suscom–maine.net> wrote in message
news:437B39C2.30...@suscom–maine.net...
Wow, thanks, Jean, it worked. The Kiss Me Mascara was going for
$31.92 on my machine before I cleared the cache. I don't understand
why that happened, but thanks for the fix. Now Audrey's Fresh
deodorant is still showing up at $22 instead of $16...
Smokey

"Smokey" <SmokeyinNewEngl...@yahooey.com> wrote in message
news:ssudnVMGw6VAo–beRVn–...@comcast.com...
I haven't had time but plan to call Sephora tomorrow or Friday about the
price difference.
Audrey

My guess is it's just a glitch BUT, you may be onto something. I read
an article about "dynamic pricing", which adjusts online prices
according to the shopper's profile. I'm not sure what merchants do
this, and I think the legality of it is up for debate. But because
online shopping allows this so easily, I'm sure some sellers would love
to take advantage this way.
JD

My guess is it's just a glitch BUT, you may be onto something. I read
an article about "dynamic pricing", which adjusts online prices
according to the shopper's profile. I'm not sure what merchants do
this, and I think the legality of it is up for debate. But because
online shopping allows this so easily, I'm sure some sellers would love
to take advantage this way.
JD

cofarb wrote:
This is similar to something that happened once when my husband and I
were booking tickets on American Airlines within the past year or so.
He looked at ticket pricing on the web, and then went back a day or two
later to purchase the tickets, but the price was substantially higher.
We then looked at the prices under my account, and the tickets were
back to the original price. My husband is a frequent business
traveller, and I'm not, so AA must have had a pricing algorithm that
decided he'd be willing to pay more for the tickets. I wonder how many
companies are gouging the repeat customer––seems like it would be very
risky.
Julianne X

I've read about sites that cookie you, then set higher prices based on
your shopping habits. But this totally SUCKS!
I'm one of those oddballs who hates makeup counters, so most things are
purchased online. But if this is Sephora's way of operation, I might
have to reconsider.

I think this is different....airlines are NOTARORIOUS for price changing
even on the same day. If you're holding a reservation, the price can
change (up or down) until you actually purchase it. They've been doing
that for *years*.
This is a first for Sephora.

I stopped even looking at Strawberry.net ads because I noticed they were
grossly inflating the retail prices, often "discounting" items and *still*
charging more than list price. Phooey on that!

Following some suggestions, I went to my browser, clicked Tools, then
Options, then deleted the cookies. Then I got the cheaper prices.

They say the website was having difficulties

the prices on my order were NOT adjusted automatically, so I am
really suspicious.

I had no idea that they sell on ebay!

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 08:13:58 –0500, "cofarb" <do...@cofarb.com> wrote:
Semi–interesting thing happened to me a few months ago with
Strawberry.net
I really wanted one of the old Escada Tropical Punch EDTs. Just had a
hankering for it. Looked on eBay and it was around $100 for the
largest size. I Googled it and saw Strawberry.net had it for $49, so
I bought two and put one on eBay. A lady in Japan won the auction at
around $100 (I think it was $103 or something like that).
Just out of curiosity I checked a week or so after that to see if they
had any more in stock, as I figured surely I couldn't be the only one
who had found them for half the going price on eBay. They still had
them in stock, but now the price was $100.
I know they also sell on eBay, so I assume they caught on to the fact
they were selling the Tropical Punch for half the eBay price.
Not that I begrudge them their pricing. I just thought it was a
little *too* coincidental, if you know what I mean. So I wonder if
more items of theirs aren't priced according to eBay trends.
Leigh
––
Consequences, shmonsequences, as long as I'm rich. – D. Duck

Jean wrote:
We've experienced the price–changing of airlines many times, but in the
incident I mentioned the the price difference was based on who was
looking at the website (i.e. different cookies)...just like what seems
to be happening with Sephora.
Julianne X

<juliann...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132163200.914077.196...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
(I've had the airline thing happen to me, too, twice. I've logged in,
started scouting prices (I'm usually flexible about dates and times but
USAir doesn't let me search flexibly.) If I don't commit to a price the
first time I make my selection but try to go back to those flights MINUTES
later, during the same session, the price jumps. It's as if they are
slapping my wrist for not accepting their first "offer". The first time
it happened, I thought I'd been hallucinating. I think you can avoid this
pitfall if you just open a bunch of new windows.)
The customer service rep at Sephora claimed the site was experiencing
difficulties and that's why the wrong prices were visible. I'm not buying
it because some a.f.ers were logging on and seeing the correct (i.e.,
lower) prices at the same time others were logging on and seeing the
higher prices. A site–wide problem wouldn't give those results. And the
*moment* I deleted my cookies, the lower prices appeared (while some
a.f.ers were still seeing the higher prices on their computers).
Getting it straightened out was a time–consuming nuisance. Next time I
want to order from Sephora, I'm going to research the prices on the
brands' sites (or nordstrom.com or...) so I know what the list prices are.
What a pain!
cofarb the vigilant

Following some suggestions, I went to my browser, clicked Tools, then
Options, then deleted the cookies. Then I got the cheaper prices.

"cofarb" <do...@cofarb.com> wrote in message
news:A5SdnUsFi4Av6ObenZ2dnUVZ_sadn...@adelphia.com...
I sent Sephora an email and suggested that they post their explanation for
this issue on alt.fashion.

Smokey wrote:
First, why should Sephora have to explain this to alt.fashion in
particular?
Second, do you all honestly think that a company like Sephora, which is
so dependent on repeat business, and which is so heavily discussed on
the ether, and with absolutely no history of doing anything of the
sort, would really try something like this on purpose?

"jjjjjuliep" <jjjjju...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1132185094.093404.73...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
First, I don't think Sephora should have to explain this to alt. fashion
in particular. I think Sephora might *want* to explain it to alt.fashion,
since a lot of potential Sephora purchasers read alt.fashion and the
question was raised here about Sephora's pricing practices. If I were in
Sephora's position, I would want to know about and clarify any
misconception about what was happening when Sephora appeared to be
charging different prices to different buyers. That is why I suggested
that Sephora might want to provide an explanation to alt.fashion.
I don't honestly think one way or the other about Sephora and whether it
would do this. It would be a dumb marketing move, in my view. I do
honestly think, however, that without an explanation of the varied
pricing, some people would stop doing business with Sephora, so it would
make sense for Sephora to address the issue.
Smokey

dellap...@netscape.net wrote:
Thanks for posting the jargon term for this. I was curious about it,
but wasn't getting any search results until I used "dynamic pricing."
There are lots of articles out there––this one has a short description:
http://www.cmomagazine.com/read/110105/dynamic_pricing.html
It's definitely something to watch out for.
Julianne X

Thanks for posting the link to the article. The whole experience––and the
a.f. posts––makes me wonder what "price gouging" is. When gas prices
soared in September, my state's legislature announced that they were
going to "look into price gouging" but they never defined the term
or explained the difference between gouging and supply & demand.

I wonder if it's like obscenity: you know it when you see it

(not to mention the fact that the prices were obscene).

I can't afford to overspend on products discussed in this forum.

"Smokey" <SmokeyinNewEngl...@yahooey.com> wrote in message
news:DKadnc5XIIjEcubeRVn–...@comcast.com...
I second Smokey's idea. Sephora doesn't *have to* post an explanation
or aplogy, but it would be a nice idea if they want to have their
customer base feel safe and secure placing their orders through them.
You can be sure they lost a lot of business when people saw prices
like $55 (vs $35) for Lipocils. I had spent awhile searching for
stuff on the site. They could have suspended the site rather than
overcharge customers. Again, I got the feeling that the refunds are
not being made automatically.
cofarb

Fortunately, they're settling back to less stratospheric levels. The
Houston Chronicle had a picture of a price under $2 on their front
cover yesterday.
OTOH, it's hard to find much under $2.199 in this the area of metro
Houston surrounding JSC. Close proximity to the biggest tourist trap
in Texas (Space Center Houston) is one of the reasons. Drive a few
miles in any direction, and you'll buy fuel for less.

Charlie Perrin wrote:
$1.99 in the KC area (Shawnee Mission). But I was up north yesterday
and got some for $1.95 at the QT at I–29 & Barry Rd.
becca
––
"I like that people say it's harder to quit smoking than to kick
heroin. This makes me feel really good because now I know I can
develop a heroin addiction and quit it. Obviously I'll be able
to." –Pamie

"cofarb" <do...@cofarb.com> wrote in message
news:w9–dnYt23qRkn–HeRVn–...@adelphia.com...
They could simply send a mass e mail to their entire mailing list. I
get daily e mails now from so many sites that it is just about as bad as
spam, but an apology for technical problems on the site could go a long
way to improve customer relations.

"whirlygirly" <whirlygirlygirlSPAMF...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:IDlff.1813$js5.1...@tornado.rdc–kc.rr.com...
Come to CA where it is $2.43 where I live and it's considered one of the
lowest prices in the state :(

Veronica Moonlit wrote:
Really? And you have the inside information and the hard evidence to
back up this possibly libelous claim? Otherwise, personally, I'd be
extremely cautious about making unfounded and possibly damaging
allegations about things I know absolutely nothing about.
Website glitches happen. I ordered some stuff online this weekend and
I had filled up my cart the day prior to the sale beginning to save
some time. First I had trouble getting the site, and my basket to
load, and then when it did, the prices were different––the site had
changed some prices because of the upcoming sale: some items were now
no longer discounted, and other items were. I didn't start a totally
unfounded and unsubstantiated rumor about how the website was trying to
cheat me.
(I don't even particularly like or dislike Sephora––but I am a bit
surprised by the ease so many people had in starting and perpetuating a
rumor with zero evidence.)

Really? And you have the inside information and the hard evidence to
back up this possibly libelous claim? Otherwise, personally, I'd be
extremely cautious about making unfounded and possibly damaging
allegations about things I know absolutely nothing about.

I didn't start a totally
unfounded and unsubstantiated rumor about how the website was trying to
cheat me.

(I don't even particularly like or dislike Sephora––but I am a bit
surprised by the ease so many people had in starting and perpetuating a
rumor with zero evidence.)

Coincidentally––or not––the people who had cleared the cookies
from their browser's history saw lower prices. One person with whom I was
in real–time contact was looking at the $35 Talika price; when she refreshed
her screen, she immediately saw the $55 price that I'd been looking at all
morning. She cleared the cookies and temp internet files from her computer
and *immediately * got the $35 price again. DURING THE EXACT SAME TIME,
SAME TIME ZONE, I continued to get the $55 price. I closed my connection to
the site; re–entered and continued to see $55. I then deleted the cookies
and temp files and IMMEDIATELY got the lower prices.

Regardless of whether the Sephora glitch was deliberate or inadvertant, many
a.f.ers were overcharged on their orders and––afaik––to date, Sephora has
not notified any of them that they were owed a refund.

It's not price–gouging. The company has the right to charge what it
wants when it wants and I have the right to buy or not to buy.

That's because the bottom line is that customers agreed to buy the
items at the prices posted and signalled their agreement by providing
payment information and placing an order. If you were overcharged,
call or email Sephora and ask for an adjustment.
The moral of the story is always the same: caveat emptor.

"jjjjjuliep" <jjjjju...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1132232843.336946.95...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Julie,
Enough already. Why is it "zero evidence" because *you* believe it is
zero evidence? I'm telling you that there were several a.f.ers
looking at Sephora at exactly the same time. Using the Lipocils as an
example because it is the one I was watching: Some of us were seeing
one price, others another. Coincidentally––or not––the people who had
cleared the cookies from their browser's history saw lower prices.
One person with whom I was in real–time contact was looking at the $35
Talika price; when she refreshed her screen, she immediately saw the
$55 price that I'd been looking at all morning. She cleared the
cookies and temp internet files from her computer and *immediately *
got the $35 price again. DURING THE EXACT SAME TIME, SAME TIME ZONE,
I continued to get the $55 price. I closed my connection to the site;
re–entered and continued to see $55. I then deleted the cookies and
temp files and IMMEDIATELY got the lower prices.
I had ordered two other items that were consistently $27 and $26.60
until I deleted the cookies. They immediately dropped to $20. (There
is no evidence that the pre–Friends & Family prices were discount
prices; the ones with which I was familiar were the companies' list
prices.)
During that time, another a.f.er started emailing me. She was still
looking at the inflated prices after *my* cookie–less connection was
showing the lower prices. When she followed my instructions on
deleting the cookies, guess what happened?
I'm not a computer expert, and maybe the evidence isn't "beyond a
shadow of a doubt", but it's a lot more than "zero", too. Maybe it
was still some sort of so–called "glitch" but it was a glitch that
they should have recognized sooner. (I know of at least one a.f.er
who had ordered and paid seemingly inflated prices at least a day
before I noted the $20 increase in the Lipocils.) As far as I know,
she has not received notification from Sephora that there may have
been a problem and that her account would automatically be credited
for the amount she was inadvertantly overcharged.
BTW, the recent experience you describe, in which a website changed
prices "because of the upcoming sale: some items were no longer
discounted...", might be considered price–gouging in some states.
Many states have laws against *raising* prices before a sale; there's
a fine line between "ending a previous sale" and ripping off the
consumer. I am not the judge, but neither are you.
Regardless of whether the Sephora glitch was deliberate or
inadvertant, many a.f.ers were overcharged on their orders
and––afaik––to date, Sephora has not notified any of them that they
were owed a refund.
cofarb

"jjjjjuliep" <jjjjju...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1132232843.336946.95...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Julie,
Enough already. Why is it "zero evidence" because *you* believe it is zero
evidence? I'm telling you that there were several a.f.ers looking at
Sephora at exactly the same time. Using the Lipocils as an example because
it is the one I was watching: Some of us were seeing one price, others
another. Coincidentally––or not––the people who had cleared the cookies
from their browser's history saw lower prices. One person with whom I was
in real–time contact was looking at the $35 Talika price; when she refreshed
her screen, she immediately saw the $55 price that I'd been looking at all
morning. She cleared the cookies and temp internet files from her computer
and *immediately * got the $35 price again. DURING THE EXACT SAME TIME,
SAME TIME ZONE, I continued to get the $55 price. I closed my connection to
the site; re–entered and continued to see $55. I then deleted the cookies
and temp files and IMMEDIATELY got the lower prices.
I had ordered two other items that were consistently $27 and $26.60 until I
deleted the cookies. They immediately dropped to $20. (There is no
evidence that the pre–Friends & Family prices were discount prices; the ones
with which I was familiar were the companies' list prices.)
During that time, another a.f.er started emailing me. She was still looking
at the inflated prices after *my* cookie–less connection was showing the
lower prices. When she followed my instructions on deleting the cookies,
guess what happened?
I'm not a computer expert, and maybe the evidence isn't "beyond a shadow of
a doubt", but it's a lot more than "zero", too. Maybe it was still some
sort of so–called "glitch" but it was a glitch that they should have
recognized sooner. (I know of at least one a.f.er who had ordered and paid
seemingly inflated prices at least a day before I noted the $20 increase in
the Lipocils.) As far as I know, she has not received notification from
Sephora that there may have been a problem and that her account would
automatically be credited for the amount she was inadvertantly overcharged.

BTW, the recent experience you describe, in which a website changed prices
"because of the upcoming sale: some items were no longer discounted...",
might be considered price–gouging in some states. Many states have laws
against *raising* prices before a sale; there's a fine line between "ending
a previous sale" and ripping off the consumer. I am not the judge, but
neither are you.

Regardless of whether the Sephora glitch was deliberate or inadvertant, many
a.f.ers were overcharged on their orders and––afaik––to date, Sephora has
not notified any of them that they were owed a refund.

<lengthy previous posts snipped>
BTW, the recent experience you describe, in which a website changed
prices
"because of the upcoming sale: some items were no longer discounted...",
might be considered price–gouging in some states. Many states have laws
against *raising* prices before a sale; there's a fine line between
"ending
a previous sale" and ripping off the consumer. I am not the judge, but
neither are you.
That's ridiculous. I will say it again: In many (most? all?) states, it is
illegal to raise prices before a sale to negate the savings. It is not each
customer's responsibility to be the watch dog for these things. If your
statement above and in the following paragraph––was true, the term "price
gouging" wouldn't exist because there wouldn't be any such animal.

dellap...@netscape.net wrote:
Thanks for posting the jargon term for this. I was curious about it,
but wasn't getting any search results until I used "dynamic pricing."
There are lots of articles out there––this one has a short description:
http://www.cmomagazine.com/read/110105/dynamic_pricing.html
It's definitely something to watch out for.
Julianne X

The law is pretty grey in the e–commerce/privacy areas since the
internet is still relatively new, and online shopping even newer. But
here's a reliable source on how to deal with cookies and other
online privacy issues:

Not a sound strategy. Those most offended are probably those who are
on the mailing list (repeat customers included) but DIDN'T order,
because they were more likely to be the ones aware of the inflated
charges than those who continued the ordering process. Better to send
an apology to everyone on their mailing list and those who ordered but
aren't on the mailing list. But my bet goes to Sephora not apologizing
at all as I'd expect the legal department would advise against it.
Sephora will probably handle the problem on a case–by–case problem, and
only when the customer brings the overcharging to their attention.
On a similar vein, I was talking to a bank teller about the cameras
filming transactions. She told me the tellers are instructed to 'go
after' the customer if the telller realized he/she'd made a mistake
only if the mistake was in the customer's favor. So if the teller
cashed a check and gave the customer too much cash, go after them if
possible to retrieve the overage. If the teller gave the customer too
little cash, don't take action.
Linda

Not a sound strategy. Those most offended are probably those who are
on the mailing list (repeat customers included) but DIDN'T order,
because they were more likely to be the ones aware of the inflated
charges than those who continued the ordering process. Better to send
an apology to everyone on their mailing list and those who ordered but
aren't on the mailing list.

Not a sound strategy. Those most offended are probably those who are
on the mailing list (repeat customers included) but DIDN'T order,
because they were more likely to be the ones aware of the inflated
charges than those who continued the ordering process. Better to send
an apology to everyone on their mailing list and those who ordered but
aren't on the mailing list. But my bet goes to Sephora not
apologizing
at all as I'd expect the legal department would advise against it.
Sephora will probably handle the problem on a case–by–case problem,
and
only when the customer brings the overcharging to their attention.
On a similar vein, I was talking to a bank teller about the cameras
filming transactions. She told me the tellers are instructed to 'go
after' the customer if the telller realized he/she'd made a mistake
only if the mistake was in the customer's favor. So if the teller
cashed a check and gave the customer too much cash, go after them if
possible to retrieve the overage. If the teller gave the customer too
little cash, don't take action.
Linda

Thanks for posting the link to the article. The whole experience––and the
a.f. posts––makes me wonder what "price gouging" is. When gas prices soared
in September, my state's legislature announced that they were going to "look
into price gouging" but they never defined the term or explained the
difference between gouging and supply & demand. I wonder if it's like
obscenity: you know it when you see it (not to mention the fact that the
prices were obscene).

"Linda" <figa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1132398835.634427.262...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bank of America has sent me notices that the cash error was added to
my account if the teller made a mistake in the bank's favor.
Audrey

In article <ya2dnXWkvc7iXuDeRVn–...@adelphia.com>,
"cofarb" <do...@cofarb.com> wrote:
Price gouging regulations are not designed to protect consumers from
paying too much for lip gloss. While there are certain grey areas (like
the price of gas, which is why it comes up in "price gouging" news so
often), all of the descriptions of "price gouging" I have read are quite
explicit about the intent of existing regulations. Granted, I haven't
seen every piece of legislation but of the legislation I have read,
"price gouging" applies to the pricing of basic necessities,
specifically in an emergency setting. For example, charging $50/gallon
for water that normally sells for under a buck or raising the price of
Ace bandages to $200/each after natural disasters are clear cases of
price–gouging. They're emergency needs that give the consumer only two
options: pay whatever is asked or dehydrate to death/live without that
bandage and hope you can make it to a safer area without a bandage to
stabilize that badly sprained ankle. Price gouging is a combination of
supply and demand with a crisis situation and takes advantage of
vulnerable citizens who have no other options. It's not exactly
"inhumane" to raise the price of lip gloss under any circumstance and
"price gouging" is clearly not applicable here.
Price gouging, as applied to the price of gas, tends to be a grey area
because one could argue that a transient drop in oil supply or increase
in gas prices is not a true crisis. Is the following scenario a crisis?
A poor family will be eating a generic version of Kraft Macaroni and
Cheese next Thursday because they were forced to spend the entire
Thanksgiving dinner budget on overpriced gas over the last couple of
months. Most would agree that situations like this are heartbreaking but
the debate gets heated over the question of whether or not oil companies
should drop their profits so that everyone can afford to eat traditional
holiday. "Price gouging" would be more clear cut if local stations
raised gas prices to over $10/gallon following an earthquake or flood
because the residents are trying to flee to safety and the price would
have stayed at $2.30/gallon otherwise.
Stacy

You have either deliberately or inadvertently misread what I wrote. My
full statement on this was:
"...some items were now no longer discounted, and other items were."
This is not "raising prices before a sale to negate the savings".
Items that had previously been marked down––not a permanent markdown,
but the kind of rolling markdowns the company does––had been restored
to their original prices, and other items were now marked down instead.
Again, this was perfectly in keeping with their usual practice of
rotating the "on sale" stock.
You're determined to misread and misconstrue what I wrote, and that's
fine. But I didn't experience "price gouging", and the site didn't
practice it.

In article <XaudnXWqccQQ8uLeRVn–...@giganews.com>,
"ahmward" <nospam.ahmw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
My brother was a bank teller a while back and was constantly reminded
that mistakes in the bank's favor were far worse than mistakes in the
customer's favor for very simple reasons. The bank is entrusted to
keep
track of the customer's cash. If the customer thinks he or she can do
a
better job of protecting cash assets better than the bank can, using a
bank is not performing its primary function. While shorting a customer
ten bucks may be another ten dollars of "profit" for the bank, if that
customer loses trust in the bank and moves cash assets to another
bank,
the losses to the bank would far exceed $10.
Stacy

"Stacy Ferguson" <stac...&#