2010-04-20
2010-04-15
Pizza Pizza Scam Scam
(Sent 26 January 2010 to sparweez223@pizzapizza.ca; no reply)
Dear sir:
On Sunday 17 January 2010, around 2:10 in the afternoon, I entered the Pizza Pizza restaurant at the Centrum Plaza in Kanata.
I ordered a slice of pepperoni and a can of pop. Whereupon the employee assisting me conducted the transaction illustrated in the attachment 'pizza.jpg', a scan of the receipt from that transaction.
When I was informed the total, I handed over the money to pay. However, since I had been standing there for a minute or two, I recalled that the cash register had been displaying the deal illustrated in the attachment 'IMG00209.jpg', a camera-phone picture of the cash register displaying the promotion "A New Walk-In Special, slice & pop $3.49".
Although I had not seen my receipt at this point, I quickly calculated that the transaction price of $3.49 would not result in a total after-tax price of $4.74. I asked the employee, and I was informed that since I had not requested the deal advertised, I could not have it as the transaction could not be reversed. I was assured that if I requested the deal next time, I could have it.
I completed my transaction, and enjoyed my pizza.
I do note that although the camera phone photo is blurry, the terms and conditions displayed on the offer appear only to limit the deal to certain types of pizza, certain types of clients (ie walk-in), and advise that appropriate taxes will be applied. Nowhere on the terms do they indicate that the customer must specify that they wish to have the deal instead of having the elements charged individually.
So I have some questions regarding this.
1. Is this a general policy to Pizza Pizza, or is it specific to this individual store, that requires customers to specify that they wish to have the deal?
2. If yes to either, why is this policy not posted on the offer?
3. If it is not a general policy, and it is not a policy specific to this individual store, why does Pizza Pizza point-of-sale equipment make it possible for a customer to buy things counter to the current set of promotional offers? Could you provide me with a contact email for the corporate Pizza Pizza person or department which is responsible for point-of-sale policies that might be able to explain this?
I would like to tell you that at this time I still consider the full price of the items reasonable value, and I still intend to visit this and other Pizza Pizza locations in future. However, like everybody else I don't wish to spend any more money than I have to. So if by specifying the offer I can save money, I will do so in future; caviat emptor.
It has long bugged me that even though many point-of-sale devices are completely computerized, the onus is still on the customer to arrange his order in such a way to minimize the expenditure. I work with computers, and I don't understand why if you have a deal that is 'a slice and a pop for $3.49', and the customer orders 'a slice and a pop', the point-of-sale device can't recognize that as a qualifying deal, and charge the deal price instead of the individual prices.
Thank you for your attention; I look forward to your reply.
Dear sir:
On Sunday 17 January 2010, around 2:10 in the afternoon, I entered the Pizza Pizza restaurant at the Centrum Plaza in Kanata.
I ordered a slice of pepperoni and a can of pop. Whereupon the employee assisting me conducted the transaction illustrated in the attachment 'pizza.jpg', a scan of the receipt from that transaction.
When I was informed the total, I handed over the money to pay. However, since I had been standing there for a minute or two, I recalled that the cash register had been displaying the deal illustrated in the attachment 'IMG00209.jpg', a camera-phone picture of the cash register displaying the promotion "A New Walk-In Special, slice & pop $3.49".
Although I had not seen my receipt at this point, I quickly calculated that the transaction price of $3.49 would not result in a total after-tax price of $4.74. I asked the employee, and I was informed that since I had not requested the deal advertised, I could not have it as the transaction could not be reversed. I was assured that if I requested the deal next time, I could have it.
I completed my transaction, and enjoyed my pizza.
I do note that although the camera phone photo is blurry, the terms and conditions displayed on the offer appear only to limit the deal to certain types of pizza, certain types of clients (ie walk-in), and advise that appropriate taxes will be applied. Nowhere on the terms do they indicate that the customer must specify that they wish to have the deal instead of having the elements charged individually.
So I have some questions regarding this.
1. Is this a general policy to Pizza Pizza, or is it specific to this individual store, that requires customers to specify that they wish to have the deal?
2. If yes to either, why is this policy not posted on the offer?
3. If it is not a general policy, and it is not a policy specific to this individual store, why does Pizza Pizza point-of-sale equipment make it possible for a customer to buy things counter to the current set of promotional offers? Could you provide me with a contact email for the corporate Pizza Pizza person or department which is responsible for point-of-sale policies that might be able to explain this?
I would like to tell you that at this time I still consider the full price of the items reasonable value, and I still intend to visit this and other Pizza Pizza locations in future. However, like everybody else I don't wish to spend any more money than I have to. So if by specifying the offer I can save money, I will do so in future; caviat emptor.
It has long bugged me that even though many point-of-sale devices are completely computerized, the onus is still on the customer to arrange his order in such a way to minimize the expenditure. I work with computers, and I don't understand why if you have a deal that is 'a slice and a pop for $3.49', and the customer orders 'a slice and a pop', the point-of-sale device can't recognize that as a qualifying deal, and charge the deal price instead of the individual prices.
Thank you for your attention; I look forward to your reply.
2010-04-14
Flush Pharma
The Ontario government announced that they want to restrict the price of generic copy drugs to a maximum of 25% of the cost of the original, down from the current 50%. This is an issue because the generic copies are functionally identical -- being a copy of the original and all -- and therefore can only compete on price. The story goes that the current arrangement is for pharmacies to receive "kickbacks" on drugs purchased from particular vendors.
The pharmacies have responded by saying cutting these kickbacks will result in reduced customer services -- ie reduced hours, lower staffing levels, charges for deliveries, increased dispensing fees, etc.
While true, they miss the point.
There is a cost to these services. The services yield higher value to the customer, true, but there is a cost, and the difference is that up until now the customer has not been paying directly for these services. However, through the higher generic drug prices being paid, they are in fact indirectly paying for them.
Having the costs of these extra services laid out for all to see and directly passed on to the consumer is a good thing. Now the consumer can make the choice to have the extra services at an extra cost, rather than paying for services they may or may not actually use.
Memo to the Pharmacies: if you have to trick people into subsidizing services, you are doing it wrong.
The pharmacies have responded by saying cutting these kickbacks will result in reduced customer services -- ie reduced hours, lower staffing levels, charges for deliveries, increased dispensing fees, etc.
While true, they miss the point.
There is a cost to these services. The services yield higher value to the customer, true, but there is a cost, and the difference is that up until now the customer has not been paying directly for these services. However, through the higher generic drug prices being paid, they are in fact indirectly paying for them.
Having the costs of these extra services laid out for all to see and directly passed on to the consumer is a good thing. Now the consumer can make the choice to have the extra services at an extra cost, rather than paying for services they may or may not actually use.
Memo to the Pharmacies: if you have to trick people into subsidizing services, you are doing it wrong.
2010-04-06
Stick a fork in it, it's an Ex-hibition
CBC: The Ex takes money problems to city
Seems like this train wreck keeps looking for a place to happen. The Central Canada Exhibition, or Super Ex, aquired land on Albion Road back in 2002 but still somehow managed to not get kicked out of Landsdown Park until next year. Now they admit they can't pay $200K from last year, and some articles report that unless the city forgives $600K in debt Super Ex might not run at all in 2011.
Oh, they also have no plan. Even though this year is moving year.
Why is it that these "popular" businesses always seem to need government help?
Sure, maybe the CCE was a viable business back in the '70s and '80s... but it obviously isn't one today.
Shut 'em down.
Seems like this train wreck keeps looking for a place to happen. The Central Canada Exhibition, or Super Ex, aquired land on Albion Road back in 2002 but still somehow managed to not get kicked out of Landsdown Park until next year. Now they admit they can't pay $200K from last year, and some articles report that unless the city forgives $600K in debt Super Ex might not run at all in 2011.
Oh, they also have no plan. Even though this year is moving year.
Why is it that these "popular" businesses always seem to need government help?
Sure, maybe the CCE was a viable business back in the '70s and '80s... but it obviously isn't one today.
Shut 'em down.
2010-03-23
CRTC: No to Fee-For-Carriage
I don't think that the broadcasters deserve extra money from the cable carriers.
The cable companies are providing me a service, that is access to a signal of better quality than I can get over the air. For that, I pay.
On the other hand, the cable companies are providing local broadcasters with access to an audience beyond their ability to directly broadcast over the air to, in effect increasing their audience and the value of the commercial airtime that they sell. They do this for free -- in any other business model, the cable companies would charge the broadcasters for carriage, to monetize the extra value that they bring to the local broadcasters.
Witness what happened when the WNPE/WNPI PBS station was almost dropped by the Ottawa cable company. It would have devastated the PBS station. The station reported that Canadian contributions made up 70% of their pledge revenues. Given a choice, I am sure that PBS would have paid a fee to be carried on the Ottawa network.
The fact that cable companies make money reflects the fact that they provide a service that has value to their customers. The fact that broadcasters are losing money reflects the fact that their audience is shrinking due to increased competition for their attention.
I don't see why I as an end-viewer should have to pay extra to compensate some broadcaster for their inability to attract my attention.
And it will be me as the end-viewer who pays the extra fees. The cable companies would be well within their rights to pass on increased costs to viewers. If such a rate increase costs them subscribers, then everyone loses -- both the cable companies and the broadcasters.
If I am going to be required to pay a per-household fee for these channels, I should have the ability to pick channels a la carte -- why should I pay for channels I don't watch? But even this in the end affects the cable companies, since it will lower their revenues. If revenues drop, profits will drop, and eventually prices will rise.
I remain unconvinced by these "Local TV Matters" commercials telling me what a good thing it is that such-and-such a local interest has access to a local broadcaster to get their message out. The issue isn't about access to a local audience -- it is about who is going to pay for the platform providing access to that audience. And while these local interests are beneficial in the long run for the community, it does not change the fact that I as a cable subscriber am going to have to pay for that platform they use.
The cable companies are providing me a service, that is access to a signal of better quality than I can get over the air. For that, I pay.
On the other hand, the cable companies are providing local broadcasters with access to an audience beyond their ability to directly broadcast over the air to, in effect increasing their audience and the value of the commercial airtime that they sell. They do this for free -- in any other business model, the cable companies would charge the broadcasters for carriage, to monetize the extra value that they bring to the local broadcasters.
Witness what happened when the WNPE/WNPI PBS station was almost dropped by the Ottawa cable company. It would have devastated the PBS station. The station reported that Canadian contributions made up 70% of their pledge revenues. Given a choice, I am sure that PBS would have paid a fee to be carried on the Ottawa network.
The fact that cable companies make money reflects the fact that they provide a service that has value to their customers. The fact that broadcasters are losing money reflects the fact that their audience is shrinking due to increased competition for their attention.
I don't see why I as an end-viewer should have to pay extra to compensate some broadcaster for their inability to attract my attention.
And it will be me as the end-viewer who pays the extra fees. The cable companies would be well within their rights to pass on increased costs to viewers. If such a rate increase costs them subscribers, then everyone loses -- both the cable companies and the broadcasters.
If I am going to be required to pay a per-household fee for these channels, I should have the ability to pick channels a la carte -- why should I pay for channels I don't watch? But even this in the end affects the cable companies, since it will lower their revenues. If revenues drop, profits will drop, and eventually prices will rise.
I remain unconvinced by these "Local TV Matters" commercials telling me what a good thing it is that such-and-such a local interest has access to a local broadcaster to get their message out. The issue isn't about access to a local audience -- it is about who is going to pay for the platform providing access to that audience. And while these local interests are beneficial in the long run for the community, it does not change the fact that I as a cable subscriber am going to have to pay for that platform they use.
2010-03-07
Hooray. Broke 5K on ServerFault today.2010-03-03
There's always an emergency somewhere
Citizen writer Leonard Stern shares his horror at the lack of service in hospitals:
The complete indifference of staff was striking. My friend was still waiting for the doctor to see him, if only to offer pain relief, when the doctor decided to give an improptu computer tutorial to a junior staffer.My comment:
It isn't unbelievable.
Know what? There's always a fire. And in the emergency room, there's always an emergency. (Thus the name). It's probably buried there under a mountain of sniffles and bumps and bruises, but there's probably a legitamete one in there somewhere.
You can't possibly expect doctors and nurses to come to work and treat every walk-in as if he was in trauma-one in ER. You can't run at "emergency" service levels constantly. If fire fighters had to fight fires 12 hours a day, six days a week, they'd get a little relaxed about it. Because, you know, there's always something on fire, and if something's always on fire, there will never be the time to make sure that the hoses are stacked and rotated properly so that they work properly when requied. So some guy would stop fighting the fire, and deal with the hoses, and make sure that the new guy knew how to deal with the hoses. Because there's always something on fire.
Similarly in your job, if there was always someone getting shafted by the system, if someone was going without help because of insufficient funding, if politicians were always treating the laws as something that applied to other people, if innocent people were getting killed by drunk drivers -- well the media would soon start to treat that as a routine state of... oh wait, bad example.
Want to get mad? Get mad at the system which ensures there are not a sufficient number of family doctors. Get mad at the people who come to the ER with a bump or a bruise or a sniffle or to fish for a doctor's note to explain some absence or other.
But that doctor who was making sure the data was entered correctly?
Don't blame him.
There's always somebody waiting on his attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)