BEWARE: 50% off Premium Accounts Very Misleading

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I beg to differ with you Qie, which is something I rarely do.

I don't think it would be difficult at all for some people think that the offer is for multiple quarters. Not permanently, but more than one quarter. I do think it's misleading. It would have been very easy to change the word "per" to something that's actually true. At the very least, the way they've done it can be misleading.

---

It's possible for a reader to think it might be for more than one quarter.  They are clearly told that the 50% off is a limited time discount.  So after seeing the bubble they would have to wonder what number of quarters is covered by this limited time.  They would have to read futher to determine the number of quarters.  They would find out quickly that the number is one.  Anyone thinking it will be 12 quarters or 3 quarters or whatever is guessing wrong.  There is no suggestion in the 'ad" that there is any specific duration until you read the actual duration.

While some people may insist that the term 'per' always means more than one that isn't in the definitions I've seen.  In examples given you will see things such as "The cloth was x dollars per yard."  In which case the cost of a single yard of cloth is x.   There is no requirement to buy multiple yards of cloth by the way.  Even though it is priced per yard.  That doesn't imply that only multiple yard purchases are available.  If I pay $11.25 for one quarter and then downgrade to basic what rate did am I pay per quarter?

It turns out that the discounted quarterly rate is a good deal for almost anyone who wants to begin a premium membership.  Of course the secret to the best deal is knowing when your going to leave.  Here's a little spread sheet showing the running cost of premium membeships month by month.  For the first 18 months going quarterly starting with the discount is often the best deal.  I don't go into all permutations but then who knows when they're going to leave in advance.

---

I generally interpret "limited time offer" to mean that the offer will be available for a limited time, not that the offer's advantage persists for a limited time.

On the same page as that offer, I find the following grammar errors...

"Linden Homes are ready-to-move-in homes that belong to a themed community and available only to Premium Members."

"

Join friends in an fun jungle..."

 

I'd say that LL's wording of the offer is consistent with other evidence of their competence.

---

I hope we're not splitting hairs cuz mine is tiny and short.

It's true that two things are for a limited time.  The

duration of the offer

and the

duration of the discount

.  I'm thinking 'Limited Time Discount' refers to the duration of the discount.  But perhaps I'm being too generous to the LL.  Because it's a 'Discount offer' there could be confusion regarding what the as yet unstated duration is and what it applies to.  All is revealed in the 'TERMS & CONDITIONS FOR 50% DISCOUNT' which is immediately below the listing of periodic rates.  So while it may be slightly confusing to some and slightly misleading to others I'm still in the group that feels it's definitely not

very

misleading.

I'm sure that the phrase 'very misleading' varies in meaning for people so I'll give an example of what I call moderately misleading.  My cable company runs ads that offer high speed internet for $10 per month.  Then they flash the T&C on the screen for maybe 1 second that is unreadable even if you pause your DVR and move up close.  So I know there are details that I don't have yet.  I also know I won't be getting high speed internet forever for $10 per month.  It's moderately misleading because the ad itself didn't tell me the duration was  limited.. except in the unreadable T&C.  I have to chase down the details on some website or call the sales staff and get the hard sell.

After being in the thread awhile I now know that what I consider slightly misleading is what some other people call very misleading.  It's just a personal threshold thing.   So while to me it's very misleading to call the LL offer very misleading I understand that that also  is just a personal threshold thing.

 

---

I don't think the offer was "very misleading'. That sorta suggests an intent. Would it be too cynical of me to believe that, if LL had malicious intent, their incompetence would limit the threat?

;-)