Baskin robbins Complaint - False advertisement - advertisement

Posted by Crown Jules on 2010-04-29:

The website also says that price and participation may vary. Baskin Robbins stores are franchises and I would imagine that each owner can decide whether or not to participate in a particular program. This one apparently has decided to make a separate donation to the local schools. It's not false advertising, you just went to a store that wasn't participating.

Posted by msnanny on 2010-04-29:

I'm sure you were disappointed but CJ is right. Although most did, not every store participated. Luckily ours did! Total of 9 scoops for the family, $3.04! Big fun!

Posted by PepperElf on 2010-04-29:

cj - that's what i figured.

privately owned locations are not legally obliged to go along with the chain's sales etc.

but you know it sounds pretty cool that the location in question here donated some of the money to a charity. to me that's worth a compliment for them

Posted by Anonymous on 2010-04-29:

Step right up ladies and gentlemen and view for yourself the valid complaint. See how this franchisee decided not to participate in a national promotion while at the same time benefiting from the increased traffic brought on by this national promotion. Ask yourselves ladies and gentlemen is it fair, right or just for a franchisee to duck out due to some vague weasel clause that doesn't even list those stores not participating. As reasonable people we can say of course not. As reasonable people we can see that this franchisee is nothing but a deadbeat who wants to benefit from the participation of other franchisees while he himself proudly hides behind the weasel clause. And what do call such a person? Indeed, a freeloading weasel who doesn't deserve our money.

Thanks everybody for taking this second to view the -- VALID COMPLAINT.

Posted by PepperElf on 2010-04-29:

stew - it doesn't matter if they benefit or not from the campaign

legally they cannot be forced to honor the campaign since the contracts of privately owned franchises allow for it.

and the ad it self says that it's only for "participating locations"

lastly, they posted a sign up at the entrance so that people knew the truth before going in.

Posted by Anonymous on 2010-04-29:

PepperElf, Doesn't matter this franchisee is still a freeloading weasel that should be avoided and this is still a VALID COMPLAINT. Also, I would bet you that the franchisee agreement gives Baskin Robins the power to make participation mandatory just like Burger King made the 99 cent double cheeseburgers mandatory for their franchisees despite franchisee opposition.

Posted by Anonymous on 2010-04-29:

It reminds me of certain companies that use a namesake to further their own agenda. I was vacationing in California last year and I took the family to Universal Studios. It's funny that in the nearby neighborhoods surrounding the area, they have places called Universal Cuisine, some advertise Universal burgers, etc...They're just betting on the misdirection and misconception of tourists. We just laughed and drove by.

Posted by Anonymous on 2010-04-29:

Who moved my 31Cents comment? I thought it was witty and cute in the same breath!

Posted by Anonymous on 2010-04-29:

At least it wasn't titled: Ejack's 31 Flavors of Flatulence...

Posted by PepperElf on 2010-04-29:

stew - what's your point?
did i say "this isn't valid!"?


all i posted was that privately owned franchises are allowed to do that
and that i thought it was cool that they were donating funds to a local school

Posted by Anonymous on 2010-04-29:

My point is that this franchisee is a freeloading weasel and this complaint is valid.


So PepperElf then you agree that this is a VALID COMPLAINT?

Posted by PepperElf on 2010-04-29:

stew i have no opinion on valid or invalid so i won't bother deciding.


you might dislike that a privately owned franchise can do that, but it's up to the corporation to change their contract with the POF.

cos like or dislike... we have no legal ability to change that contract.

Posted by Anonymous on 2010-04-29:

One could argue that the store's heart was in the right place Stew, but Pepper, one could also argue that the means in which they were going about getting the customers there in the first place was misleading and unethical.

Posted by tnchuck100 on 2010-04-29:

Many people seem to try to make legal and moral equal quantities. They are not.

This complaint is 100% valid from a moral perspective. They are benefiting from corporate advertising bringing customers in only to find this location is exercising their "legal" option to not participate.

My personal response to this location would be to walk away and NEVER patronize them again. Exercising MY option to spend my money elsewhere.

Posted by PepperElf on 2010-04-29:

"On the door for Baskin Robbins was a sign saying there ice cream isn't 31 cents."


how is the local franchise misleading?

the local franchise does not have control over what advertising the main company puts out

Posted by Anonymous on 2010-04-29:

PepperElf, Can you please forward me this contract you keep talking about or at least provide a link to it so I can see exactly what you're talking about. I've read over a few franchisee contracts in my time without exception they all have legalize clauses that allows the franchiser to make promotion participation mandatory.

Posted by Anonymous on 2010-04-29:

If the franchisee doesn't want to participate in national promotions that they benefit greatly from then they should cease to be a Baskin Robins and go it on their own. Obviously though this franchisee doesn't want that. This franchisee want's all the spoils of a national promotion but wants other franchisees to pay the price of participation. Because this franchisee is special. Like I said freeloading weasel.

Posted by Fufu487 on 2010-04-29:

Stew, though the OP has a right to be frustrated, this is NOT false advertising because it does state participating stores may vary. Freeloading weasel? please. You don't know the individual or how hard they work for their money.

Posted by Anonymous on 2010-04-29:

holy smokes. price and participation may vary. this baskinrobbin decided to try to do something good for there community by donating to the schools. and rather than the community show some support, they got blasted instead. it never ceases to amaze me what we will gripe about.

Posted by Anonymous on 2010-04-29:

True, I don't know how hard they work for their money but I do know they benefited from a national promotion while weaseling out of it while other franchisees paid the cost by participating. In my book getting something at others expense by hiding behind a weasel clause makes you freeloading weasel. I don't see any other way to view it.

Posted by Fufu487 on 2010-04-29:

if they posted the sign, clearly visible, at the door. I don't see how they are to benefit from the promotion. Anyone coming in for the promotion would turn around and walk away. If there were no sign or anything and you found out while paying at the counter, that would be different. But the owner clearly went out of his way to make sure his customers knew before entering the store that it was not participating in the deal. I disagree with you entirely.

Posted by Anonymous on 2010-04-29:

indeed fufu487. clearly not false advertisement.

Posted by PepperElf on 2010-04-29:

stew - "should cease to be a baskin robin"

that still is only an opinion. i don't need to show you the contract since BR's own ads state the following:

http://www.baskinrobbins.com/Spotlight/31CentScoopNight.aspx

"Participating stores will reduce prices of ice cream scoops to 31 cents*. At some locations, you may also have an opportunity to make a donation to your local fire charities."


you might not like the fact that only "participating stores" have to comply with the price
you may personally feel that if they don't comply they need to be forced to drop the BR name

however personal opinions do not alter the already-existing agreements made between the franchise & the store.

Posted by tnchuck100 on 2010-04-29:

Fufu, my annoyance would be I made a specific trip to take advantage of this promotion only to read his little sign and to have wasted my time and gas for nothing. Many would would probably go in anyway. Hence they benefit from those that did.

Posted by Anonymous on 2010-04-29:

So mom and dad see the national promotion and think by golly kids let's head down to Baskin Robins for some ice cream. They hit the road in the mini-van go the 2 to 10 miles to get there. Unload the kiddos out of the car only to find after all that effort that this freeloading franchisee used the weasel clause to opt out of the promotion. Excuse me but as a parent I'm pretty sure the kiddos got ice cream despite the franchisees weaseling out of the promotion.

Come on now getting people out of the house and to your storefront is about 95% of the battle. Instead of a sign on the door how about a prominent list on the website disclaiming those franchises not participating. Oh but that wouldn't work because it might mean some people might not show up to your storefront full of anticipation. Where's the fun in that. VALID COMPLAINT.

Posted by Ytropious on 2010-04-29:

Everyone is still overlooking the most important part, they are donating to schools. So what if the ice cream isn't 31 cents. They clearly let you know when you arrive and they're still doing something positive.

Posted by Anonymous on 2010-04-29:

stewart I just don't get your logic on this one. why wouldn't mom and dad who obviously have school aged children, be delighted that a local biz decided to use the opportunity to support the community schools?
I just don't get the basis of this entire complaint.
the only opportunity I see for baskinrobbin in this scenario is they could've made a big deal out of this and done some prior advertising in there community. maybe they did for all we know tho.

Posted by Fufu487 on 2010-04-29:

really, the owner isn't profiting from it if that money is going to charity. Is our society THAT selfish? an extra 79 cents in your pocket is so much more valuable to yourself than to someone in need? geesh

Posted by PepperElf on 2010-04-29:

though just because you drove out to someplace doesn't mean you're entitled to get something that store isn't carrying.

otherwise everyone who drives out to a large electronic store is entitled to that xbox or wii because they drove out for it... even if it's not in stock.

or you go to Theatre X but the owner has opted not to play Movie-Y at all. But you drove out so now you're entitled to see the movie anyway?



there's no clause in life that guarantees you will never encounter disappointment

Posted by Anonymous on 2010-04-29:

How do I re-frame thee let me count the ways.

1. The store does 'carry' ice cream. It's just that this freeloading franchisee chose not to be part of the national promotion yet benefited from the increased traffic generated by the franchisees who did honor the promotion.

2. There is absolutely no indication this store was out of ice cream. In fact if that was the case then we wouldn't be reading this review.

3. Ice cream is not movies. The franchisee didn't decide not to show/sell ice cream. The franchisee decided not to honor a national promotional then use 'school donations' as a red herring.

4. True there is no clause in life you will never encounter disappointment but there was a Baskin Robins clause to their promotion that guaranteed the people who visited this Baskin Robins would find disappointment. Corporate didn't care enough to make participation mandatory and obviously this franchisee didn't care. There's also no clause in life that says people should do business with companies who couldn't care any less about the customer so that's why we savvy customers avoid such businesses.

All this re-framing and still we end up with the same conclusion -- VALID COMPLAINT.