The "Sales" that weren't

[Taf]

In the 'biggest ever half price sale' at Debenhams, just 21 of 121 pairs of shoes - 17 per cent - were discounted, and just 25 per cent of bags.

The M & S sale offered discounts of up to 50 per cent both online and instore.

But the survey revealed only 20 of 126 shoes were cut by 50 per cent or more, and just 27 per cent of bags and 46 per cent of dresses were half price.

At John Lewis, which also advertised up to 50 per cent off, there were more items at 30 per cent off.

But Next generally offered at least 50 per cent off all the items in the categories and House of Fraser also had more than half of items at the headline discount.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-50-deals.html

This has almost always happened, so why is the Wail going on about it now?

"Up to" should be banned and replaced with "at least".

[Ken W]

Originally Posted by Taf

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-50-deals.html

This has almost always happened, so why is the Wail going on about it now?

"Up to" should be banned and replaced with "at least".

I agree, they always put the Upto in very small size type

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Taf

"Up to" should be banned and replaced with "at least".

We all know we can blame Virgin Media for starting that off.

[cookie_365]

So let me get this straight: the retailers involved said that some of their products were going to be discounted, and some of the discounts would be 50%.

And it turned out that some of their products were discounted, and some of the discounts were 50%.

The Daily Mail must have a lot of space to fill in the gap between Christmas and New Year.

[Zee]

Originally Posted by cookie_365

So let me get this straight: the retailers involved said that some of their products were going to be discounted, and some of the discounts would be 50%.

And it turned out that some of their products were discounted, and some of the discounts were 50%.

The Daily Mail must have a lot of space to fill in the gap between Christmas and New Year.

no, its misleading. you go into a shop with 1000 products, signs and advertisements say up to 50% of, only 1 item is 50% of and the rest are 5-10% of, isn't that going to be misleading to you?

we see this "up to" a lot on this forum do we not

Originally Posted by Zee

no, its misleading. you go into a shop with 1000 products, signs and advertisements say up to 50% of, only 1 item is 50% of and the rest are 5-10% of, isn't that going to be misleading to you?

Except that wasn't the case if you read the OP - it was between 17% and 46% of the items, not 0.1%.....

You appear equally as guilty of exaggeration....

[Jimmy-J]

There's a shop down the road from me that's been having a closing down sale for about 10 years.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Zee

no, its misleading. you go into a shop with 1000 products, signs and advertisements say up to 50% of, only 1 item is 50% of and the rest are 5-10% of, isn't that going to be misleading to you?

you don't have to buy it

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Zee

no, its misleading. you go into a shop with 1000 products, signs and advertisements say up to 50% of, only 1 item is 50% of and the rest are 5-10% of, isn't that going to be misleading to you?

They have not done anything wrong in law. How can it be misleading if you are Well Aware of what they have done ?

The Sales are always rubbish, the discount is always on the RRP so you end up paying pretty much the same as the pre-xmas price.