False advertisement for the 6 month Subscription

[Charctic-silvermoon]

@Aprix-frostmane

I was able to make that assumption because there is nothing preventing me from assuming otherwise .

Having a bit more common sense would have prevented you from thinking otherwise.

[Gráinne-earthen-ring]

@Aprix-frostmane

I was able to make that assumption because there is nothing preventing me from assuming otherwise .
Now the real question is why do you assume no-one else can think the same way as me . They might even think something else entirely .Heck why do you assume that the people who think like you assumed correctly in the first place ?

OK. So I actually looked at the offer, and see it’s -13% rather than -15%. (Actually 13.4% or something, but who’s counting?)

Why do I assume so-one else will think the same way as you? I don’t. As I said, we ALL misread or bring mistaken assumptions to situations quite often. The trick is recognising that you do that, and checking your thinking.

Why do I assume that the people who think like me assumed correctly in the first place ?

1. The price for one month, 3 months, 6 months are shown (WHY are they showing in $???) and the minimal assumption is that any copmparisons are between the numbers shown.
2. Because the actual saving vs a monthly sub actually IS -13%. Because I looked at it, and calculated it. Now, if they had said that the saving was 18%, I would look at it and go “Huh? Wha? Have I missed something? Do they mean something different?” I would not have immediately accused them of false advertisement without checking whether another reading makes sense.

Now, I can sort-of understand asking for a more specific explanation, like “13% savings over a monthly sub”, but that 13% is already shoehorned it, and Marketing types hate messing up their nice simple sales pitches with conditions and explanations that people might think about. You might legitimately have responded saying that.

I can also, much more easily, understand someone complaining about being shown the price with a US Dollar sign in front, instead of a Euro or Pound sign.

[Clergy-the-shatar (Clergy)]

This post is really dumb

[Brigante-argent-dawn (Brigante)]

@Aprix-frostmane

on the hot water taps in England it says beware hot water .

Err, you what? I have never seen that on a single hot water tap in all my 40+ years. Ever.

@Aprix-frostmane

It is the reason why on your coffee cup

Actually that is something to do with a case where an exceptionally stupid woman in the USA sued a company for selling her a coffee, knew it was hot, and then when -she- spilled it, was surprised that it was hot. To cover themselves the American companies, both coffee only vendors but fast food vendors as well, generically print off these cups, which are the same ones that they ship out to their overseas branches. In Britain we generally learn the difference between Hot and Cold as a toddler, and don’t need it spelling out for us…

@Aprix-frostmane

Now I`m assuming that you people are trolling .

I think we can safely assume -someone- here is trolling, but it is not the people patiently explaining it to you.

@Aprix-frostmane

The page needs to explain exactly what is being shown and compared otherwise this is false advertising .

Actually rather amusingly, it does not. Is the information factually correct? Yes. Therefore is the advertisement making a false claim?
No.

@Shayrala-kul-tiras

It lists a “saving per year” and if you do 12 times 12.99 that’s 155.88 and 12 times 10.99 that 131.88 so yes, that’s 24 Euro per year saving. Blizzard just ASSUMES that someone who buys a six-month sub will do it again so they’re telling that person they save 24 Euros because they they did it.

If they keep that six month sub going for a year in total, that is how much they will save in a year, That is what it is saying. Which is correct. Now unless we are assuming that someone paying by card is unaware there are 12 months in a year, then that is a perfectly adequate explanation. If a person thinks there are 6 months in a year, I would question their ability to carry out financial transactions in such a manner, as they are clearly a vulnerable person, and should get the assistance of their carer, or perhaps their bank, so as better to understand the nature of the transaction.

@Epigramx-silvermoon

Based thread. I think advertising in general should be ILLEGAL to include lies

Well, I mean it already is?

@Epigramx-silvermoon

it’s pretty clear it’s one of the most evil things in the universe to lie to CHILDREN

How many minors of 12 and over the age of 12 think there are only six months in a year? (Because any younger than that and they can’t make such a payment anyway in most countries. ) If they’re over 12 and don’t understand that, they probably should be having their parent(s) assist them with online banking.

@Aprix-frostmane

People assumed that the world was flat and killed other people over it , simply because it suited them better . Doesn`t mean that’s true .

When did they do that by the way? The ancient Greeks, Romans and Egyptians all certainly knew it was a globe, bar a couple of philosophers who were laughed at, likewise The Church never said it was flat, apart from a few demented clerics who again were told by the Church to stop being stupid.
It’s a historical myth to allow us to feel superior to those ‘thick people from history’

[Spiketcat-draenor (Spiketcat)]

The OP has 27k achievement points, so has obviously been in the game for many years! This form of advertising has been present for many years, so I’m wondering, why now? Why has this offer suddenly confused them, and why the continued refusal to understand what the other posts on this thread have explained to them?

[Valtharíen-magtheridon (Valtharíen)]

I would be embarrassed if i were you! Lmao

[Garaidh-magtheridon]

Whether it’s down to false advertising, poor application of maths, inflation, exchange rates…I don’t think this thread will reach a general consensus.

Let’s be honest, there are bigger issues with this game than a Chinese New Year mount that happens every year. If it bothered the OP so much then report your concerns to an independent reviewer and see how far you get with that.

[Epigramx-silvermoon]

@Brigante-argent-dawn

@Epigramx-silvermoon

Based thread. I think advertising in general should be ILLEGAL to include lies

Well, I mean it already is?

You don’t understand. It’s ROUTINE to hear absolute lies from ads and nobody does anything about it; “our product is the best” for example; if you took them to court they could claim "but we THOUGHT our product is the best’ while they know very well they are lying.

No; make that absolutely illegal; the judge should fine them massively if they can’t answer the question “prove with a peer reviewed process of people without a financial interest in your profits that your product is the best” because often they sell junk on purpose.

[Spiketcat-draenor (Spiketcat)]

Advertisements you describe there, now have to have a disclaimer by law that says something along the lines of 'please check xxxx. com for verification, or has the wording xx out of xx stated they preferred such product. It is illegal to claim anything without the option to prove verification. UK at least, no idea if that stands for EU.

For example, if there is a car advertisement in the UK and it shows an EU model, it has to display the wording 'Car shown not UK specification

[Dreamkore-silvermoon]

On my screen it says (in green and larger font) EUR 65.94 (in grey and smaller font) EUR 77.94 (in green) -15%

How is that misleading or false in any way?

[Epigramx-silvermoon]

@Spiketcat-draenor

Advertisements you describe there, now have to have a disclaimer by law that says something along the lines of 'please check

Those are insufficient patches enjoyed by lobbyists in order for their companies to save face and they are absolutely inadequate to solve the problem.

A child is not going to check the fine print of “please check” when they sell them junk food as “the best food” and even an adult is not infallible at that.

It should be absolutely illegal; no pompous declarations of “best” without independent proof; it is their responsibility but the money is big.

[Spiketcat-draenor (Spiketcat)]

@Epigramx-silvermoon

Those are insufficient patches enjoyed by lobbyists in order for their companies to save face and they are absolutely inadequate to solve the problem.

And yet that is the law and the fact of the matter.

@Epigramx-silvermoon

It should be absolutely illegal;

It is, as I described in my post above.

@Epigramx-silvermoon

and even an adult is not infallible at that.

Then that is down to the adult, and is in no way, shape, or form a fault of the advetisers!

Anyhow, this is going to derail the thread, the OP stated that Blizzard are accused of False Advertising, they aren’t as I’m sure the army of lawyers and professionals who work in advertising with have told them so.

[Kosejarl-ravencrest]

I miss the last 10 minutes before I knew this thread existed. Why did I click into this?

[Pickpawkit-argent-dawn]

My annoyance with it has and always will be it’s subscription only, and if you pay for six months of game time in a block say using your bnet balance you cannot get the same rewards.

[Spiketcat-draenor (Spiketcat)]

To be fair, the mount is available in the store if, like me, six months is excessive.

[Tokyojoe-eonar]

From what I gather the OP got confused and thought they might be getting ripped off because 59.94 divided by 6 is 9.99. One month sub. 6 months cost 52.14 is 8.69. and they put 2 and 2 together and got 5. /blush

[Shammoz-terokkar (Shammoz)]

I believe it’s the Strikethrough pricing that has caused the incorrect assumption. Some retailers have hit the news in recent years using strikethrough pricing on special offers illegally which may had added to the OP’s confusion, so for clarity…

Special Offer Pricing
If a temporary special offer is in effect and the old price is shown as a strikethrough price, that price MUST have been charged to customers during the previous 3 months (time period can vary between regions and their local laws)

Bundle Pricing
In this respect, the strikethrough pricing should indicate what the items would cost if purchased OUTSIDE the bundle, i.e. same quantity at their single unit price. You see this in supermarkets where Mix/Match and BoGoff deals apply.

The 6 month sub comes under Bundle pricing and the strikethough indicates the total cost at it’s single unit price to provide a comparison to the bundle deal.

The way it is advertised is correct and legal as in no way does it specify that the 6 month sub is on any kind of “Special Offer”.

[Linaori-ragnaros]

When I open the webpage (because the launcher doesn’t show me)

6-Month Subscription Special Offer 
€10.99/month BEST VALUE
Save €24.00 per year

3 Months 
€11.99/month
Save €12.00 per year

1 Month 
€12.99/month

€65.94 --€77.94--

It clearly shows the price per month. I suppose the rules on how it’s displayed vary per country if there are laws that would conflict. I couldn’t find any rules regarding strike-through displays in the Netherlands for example, here it’s explicitly as a “previous price” vs “current price” combination which is displayed in Dutch as “van €10 voor €7”. There are more explicit rules for which price should be shown here due to price fluctuations used to make it look bigger than it really is.

That’s not the case here, it’s just showing you how much you save when you take a 6 month offer vs if you were to pay monthly. I think this falls more under volume discount than just being a plain discount.

[Epigramx-silvermoon]

@Spiketcat-draenor

that is the law

in no way, shape, or form a fault of the advetisers!

You ignored totally what I said. Exactly because it is the law and exactly because legally it is the fault of the adults: it’s absolutely horrendous; it’s big money lobbying for the abuse of the truth itself; it’s more profitable to them to manipulate people than to tell the truth.

And you didn’t even address the absolute fact that they repeatedly abuse the truth against children; a fine print is absolutely inadequate; and an adult can not stop their children being bombarded by ads in their real life unless they lock them up in a prison.

[Aesedai-cthun]

@Epigramx-silvermoon

You ignored totally what I said. Exactly because it is the law and exactly because legally it is the fault of the adults

Very nice but you are wrong. What the 6-month advertisement is not only legal, it is also true. It says that buying a 6-month subscription saves you 13% of the price because that is an absolute mathematical truth of how much money you save with the 6-month subscription. Even if they have chosen to not show that % in the advertisement it still would be true that you save 13%. Even if the OP lie pretending to not understand it, it still will save 13% with the 6-month subscription.