[governance] Another Immovable Legal Object Meeting AnIrresistable Internet Force (this time it ain't Taipei...

[Roland Perry]

In message 
<CA+=oXBKrACmoXZ86CHBMc7a4bV3vrbnQUH37JC2jaVHdRvpm0Q at mail.gmail.com>, at 
19:10:08 on Mon, 15 Aug 2011, Ivar A. M. Hartmann 
<ivarhartmann at gmail.com> writes
>"Consumers paid for that face value. That was what they agreed to, that
>was what the business promised and that's what consumers should get,".
>I don't believe Mike Berezowsky has a basic understanding of economy. A
>permanent discount was not what the business promised, was it??

I thought the vouchers were complete payment for the product or service, 
not a promise of a discount (with a time limit or otherwise).

For example, if I paid for a meal coupon, then that's the full price of 
the meal. It isn't a promise to give me 50% off a meal.

A different model would be to charge me (say) $5 for a "50% discount" 
voucher that can be used on a meal that might cost $40 - in which case 
I'd have paid the $5 to Groupon plus $20 to the restaurant (=$25) which 
is cheaper than the $40. The difference between these two models is in 
the down-side when the coupon expires. In my hypothetical model above I 
lose $5, in the Groupon model I lose $20.

>Arguably, in Brazil, consumer protection legislation would forbid
>Groupon from not returning your money after the offer expired. But it
>wouldn't force them to pay for the face value of a product or service
>(previously contracted with a discount) at any given time in the
>future.

Consumer protection law will vary from country to country, that's the 
problem. It's quite common for transport tickets to expire (I think any 
credit you have on a New York Subway card expires after a year; in the 
UK the return half of a train ticket expires either at the end of the 
day, or a month, depending on how much you pay) and legislators have 
probably come to terms with that. It's the expiry of vouchers for more 
tangible things which is causing the problem.

>Best, Ivar  
>
>On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 09:15, Roland Perry <
>roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>  In message <117DA8A5-145E-4F76-AEEC-9BBF5B3236C3 at uzh.ch>, at
>  12:31:58 on Sun, 14 Aug 2011, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
>  writes
>
>
>>    Inspired by this discussion, I just bought a half priced dinner
>>    coupon at a small local restaurant on Groupon.  We have four
>>    months to redeem it.  Per usual, the length of the sale was set
>>    by the restaurant.  Of course, the government of Geneva could
>>    pass a law saying such coupons cannot expire.  That would leave
>>    business like this resto with basically two choices:  in effect,
>>    permanently cut their prices by half (for all who see the ad
>>    online), or else never offer online sales via intermediaries like
>>    Groupon.
>
>
>  There's a third option: Offer a coupon online (or as has been the
>  practice in the UK for decades, in a newspaper, magazine or leaflet)
>  which entitles you to a 50% discount when presented in that
>  restaurant within four months (or similar). Such offers can be
>  finessed by saying that they apply to food only (not drinks), or
>  that the second person is free if the first person pays full
>  price[1].
>
>  The specific objection to the Groupon offer, as I understand it, is
>  the need to pay in advance, even if you never turn up and claim.
>
>  I admit I don't know how comprehensive the Canadian displeasure at
>  such things is - would it extend to buying a coupon for 100 minutes
>  of mobile phone calls, which expire at the end of the month even if
>  you've never used them (that's a very normal thing in the UK). On
>  the other hand, I wouldn't expect there to be any difference between
>  buying those 100 minutes in shop, or online.
>
>  [1] I understand that such "buy one, get one free" offers are
>  illegal in Germany.
>
>
>  --
>  Roland Perry
>  ____________________________________________________________
>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>  To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>  For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>  To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t