On Jul 24, 6:31*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Though it would seem he should have examined the deal
> with Groupon more carefully before agreeing to it.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178256

He sounds like a nut, grasping at any excuse for failure.

Though it would seem he should have examined the deal
with Groupon more carefully before agreeing to it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178256

On 7/24/2012 3:31 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
> Though it would seem he should have examined the deal
> with Groupon more carefully before agreeing to it.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178256
>

A lot of businesses are like that these days. I process credit cards and
sometimes that 4 day or so lag before the money gets credited to the
account is a killer. I'd rather take a check but I love payment in cash!

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 17:31:41 -0800, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>Though it would seem he should have examined the deal
>with Groupon more carefully before agreeing to it.
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178256


They sold 132 deals, or just over $1000. Sure, that will buy a lot of
syrup, if it puts you out of business, you were not properly financed
to begin with.

I don't see the Groupon thing to be a great deal for customer or
seller though.

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:43:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 17:31:41 -0800, Mark Thorson >
> wrote:
>
> >Though it would seem he should have examined the deal
> >with Groupon more carefully before agreeing to it.
> >
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178256
>
>
> They sold 132 deals, or just over $1000. Sure, that will buy a lot of
> syrup, if it puts you out of business, you were not properly financed
> to begin with.
>
> I don't see the Groupon thing to be a great deal for customer or
> seller though.

It can be a good deal for the customer, but I'm still not
understanding how it can be any good for the business.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

The Other Guy wrote:

> BUT, Groupon is STILL a site for fools (business AND customers),

Customers can save themselves from coupon abuse with a simple trick: call
the business and pretend they already bougth the coupon, it's the only way
to see how the real "treat" is. A friend did that with a restaurant near to
a cinema he often goes to, and only after he said that he had the coupon he
got to know that the offer was available only on tuesday nights'
second-time. Prime time is from 8PM to 10:30PM while second time starts at
10:30PM, and this is very uncommon here, nobody goes to a restaurant after
10:30PM, we're not Spain. Obviously this strict limitation wasn't stated in
Groupon's ads, as usual, and obviously my friend didn't buy that coupon.
For businesses, they just need to read carefully Groupon's offer just as
they do with every other offer: only a fool whines about Groupon's payback
methods just because he didn't check them before signing in.

Mark Thorson wrote:

> Though it would seem he should have examined the deal
> with Groupon more carefully before agreeing to it.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178256

Here in Italy a restaurant owner sued Groupon because he told them to sell
100 coupons and they sold 1000, obviously Groupon sais that the agreement
was for 1000. We'll see.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 00:36:42 -0700, sf > wrote:



>>
>> I don't see the Groupon thing to be a great deal for customer or
>> seller though.
>
>It can be a good deal for the customer, but I'm still not
>understanding how it can be any good for the business.

I guess it could be. If it gets you in the store and you buy
additional merchandise and keep coming back to become a regular
customer.

Rather than go back, my guess is many typical Groupon users will just
move on to the next great deal. If you have to offer gimmicks to get
people in, you are probably in trouble anyway.

On 7/24/2012 9:43 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> They sold 132 deals, or just over $1000. Sure, that will buy a lot of
> syrup, if it puts you out of business, you were not properly financed
> to begin with.
>
> I don't see the Groupon thing to be a great deal for customer or
> seller though.


Exactly. Selling 132 discounted meals over the space of a few months
put this guy out of business? I don't think so... he is just whining.

FWIW... we use Groupon from time to time but more often than not, we use
Restaurant.com. Last week we went to a local BBQ place... paid $2.40
for a $15 certificate. The bill was $23... we paid $8 in cash plus the
coupon.

So we got a $23 meal for $10.40 It would be unusual to pay more than
half for a meal if you use them right.

George L

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> >> I don't see the Groupon thing to be a great deal for customer or
> >> seller though.
> >
> >It can be a good deal for the customer, but I'm still not
> >understanding how it can be any good for the business.
>
> I guess it could be. If it gets you in the store and you buy
> additional merchandise and keep coming back to become a regular
> customer.

Restaurateurs believe that filling tables one night leads to more
tables filled on later nights. They hold that as a Holy Truth, so it
must be at least somewhat true.

The Other Guy wrote:

> BUT, Groupon is STILL a site for fools (business AND customers),
> much like Quibids and many others.

Sez you, Mr. Ignorant. If you think it's foolish to buy a restaurant
meal for 40% off, then it's a good thing you never go to restaurants.
I'm sure you're the one who leaves a 5% tip and ****es off the waiters
for the rest of us.

On 7/24/2012 10:43 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 17:31:41 -0800, Mark Thorson >
> wrote:
>
>> Though it would seem he should have examined the deal
>> with Groupon more carefully before agreeing to it.
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178256
>
>
> They sold 132 deals, or just over $1000. Sure, that will buy a lot of
> syrup, if it puts you out of business, you were not properly financed
> to begin with.
>
> I don't see the Groupon thing to be a great deal for customer or
> seller though.
>
I'm not surprised to be hearing about problems with this whole
Groupon thing, it didn't seem as if they could sustain the initial
excitement. Notice I'm no great entrepreneur, so what do I know.

What I do know is that guy was a fool not to take the 6 BILLION
for Groupon that he was offered by Google.

nancy

On 24/07/2012 9:31 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
> Though it would seem he should have examined the deal
> with Groupon more carefully before agreeing to it.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178256
>


It sounds to me like a crock. If slow payment on 132 coupons put him out
of business he didn't have much of a business to begin with. The sign
about $450 waffles and by appointment only would be enough to turn most
sane customers. The owner sounds like a jackass and that probably has a
lot more to do with him going out of business than Groupons. Hell,
three months??? That is not even long enough for most real businesses to
go out of business.

Maybe his waffles were as horrible and horribly overpriced as most of
the other waffle joints.

On Jul 25, 6:23*am, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > >> I don't see the Groupon thing to be a great deal for customer or
> > >> seller though.
>
> > >It can be a good deal for the customer, but I'm still not
> > >understanding how it can be any good for the business.
>
> > I guess it could be. If it gets you in the store and you buy
> > additional merchandise and keep coming back to become a regular
> > customer.
>
> Restaurateurs believe that filling tables one night leads to more
> tables filled on later nights. They hold that as a Holy Truth, so it
> must be at least somewhat true.

Restaurants open and close and I'm not even aware of their existence.
New restaurants need people to discover them. Restaurants have gone to
great lengths to offer coupons to get new customers, including the old
"Entertainment" books. But mostly, these never get used.

Groupon buyers have skin in the game. They will lose money if they
don't follow through.

On Jul 25, 8:30*am, spamtrap1888 > wrote:
> On Jul 25, 6:23*am, George M. Middius >
>
> Restaurants open and close and I'm not even aware of their existence.
> New restaurants need people to discover them. Restaurants have gone to
> great lengths to offer coupons to get new customers, including the old
> "Entertainment" books. But mostly, these never get used.
>
> Groupon buyers have skin in the game. They will lose money if they
> don't follow through.

Although I haven't got one recently the Entertainment Books were
(are?) a great deal for the consumer. I have never understood the
coupon business. It seems better business practice to physically go
to local houses and businesses and hand deliver flyers and coupons
yourself. You are then hitting the local trade and must have a much
higher percentage of return customers (if your product is good).

http://www.richardfisher.com

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 06:00:48 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> If you have to offer gimmicks to get
> people in, you are probably in trouble anyway.

Maybe it's the last gasp for a failing business (I don't know); but
it's also a good way for new businesses to make themselves known
(which I do know). I don't use Groupon, but I do use Blackboard Eats.
Unlike Groupon, most of their passcodes are free.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:15:13 -0400, Nancy Young
> wrote:

> What I do know is that guy was a fool not to take the 6 BILLION
> for Groupon that he was offered by Google.

Much agreement here.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 7/25/2012 4:50 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 24/07/2012 9:31 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
>> Though it would seem he should have examined the deal
>> with Groupon more carefully before agreeing to it.
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178256
>>
>
>
> It sounds to me like a crock. If slow payment on 132 coupons put him out
> of business he didn't have much of a business to begin with. The sign
> about $450 waffles and by appointment only would be enough to turn most
> sane customers. The owner sounds like a jackass and that probably has a
> lot more to do with him going out of business than Groupons. Hell,
> three months??? That is not even long enough for most real businesses to
> go out of business.

The guy was horribly under-capitalized. Most businesses are severely
under-capitalized and can hang on for months or years before folding.
Don't be surprised if the merchant starts running when he sees you
coming with a groupon clenched in your fist. :-)

>
> Maybe his waffles were as horrible and horribly overpriced as most of
> the other waffle joints.

This sounds good. I'll go make some. I'm making my waffle batter on the
thin side and flipping the waffle maker over. This makes for a crispy
and airy waffle. I'm investigating how far this scheme can be taken.

>
>

On 7/24/2012 10:43 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> I don't see the Groupon thing to be a great deal for customer or
> seller though.

It usually really is a good deal for the consumer. My issue with
Groupon and the massage therapist was resolved by Groupon giving me a
refund to my credit card just by asking once after I had all that
trouble with them not responding. They were just a little slow, but they
made good. Out of about 10 groupons now, that was my only misfortune.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> sf > wrote:
>
>>It can be a good deal for the customer, but I'm still not
>>understanding how it can be any good for the business.
>
> I guess it could be. If it gets you in the store and you buy
> additional merchandise and keep coming back to become a regular
> customer.

I take it restaurant owners are over confident that anyone who tries
their food will become a regular. Without such confidence who'd go into
business in the first place. With such confidence it still takes some
amount of business savy.

One place we started with a Groupon and have been back a few times
since. From our end that's not a good enough percentage. Were I an
owner I would not want such a deal.

> Rather than go back, my guess is many typical Groupon users will just
> move on to the next great deal. If you have to offer gimmicks to get
> people in, you are probably in trouble anyway.

For this year's anniversary dinner we used a Groupon. For the price of
a regular fancy anniversay dinner we were able to go to a place extra
fancy enough for a 10th or 20th anniversary dinner. We loved it but
we will not be back without a Groupon. There are enough extra fancy
places around that we could use a Groupon every year and not repeat
before we move to another metro area to retire.

dsi1 wrote:
>
> I was at a hardware store and they were selling the compact florescent
> bulbs in a 6 pack for 1.50. This seems awfully cheap to me. That's why I
> didn't buy it. My spidey sense was tingling. :-)

Are you talking about the new swirly screw in bulbs? Only one costs way
more than that here. I would have bought a case of them before they
discovered their pricing mistake.

Gary

On 7/25/2012 10:03 AM, Gary wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>>
>> I was at a hardware store and they were selling the compact florescent
>> bulbs in a 6 pack for 1.50. This seems awfully cheap to me. That's why I
>> didn't buy it. My spidey sense was tingling. :-)
>
> Are you talking about the new swirly screw in bulbs? Only one costs way
> more than that here. I would have bought a case of them before they
> discovered their pricing mistake.

You are correct that they should cost more than the $3.00 for 12 as
advertised. They should raise the price up to $5.99 a 6-pack to sell
more. I'll go see if it's still in stock and buy some. What the heck,
they're only a buck fifty. I predict that they'll explode and shoot Hg
vapor all over the room and I'll get glass fragments in my eye. This
will be bad but at least we'll know why they're so cheap. :-)

>
> Gary
>

On 7/25/2012 8:48 AM, Chemo wrote:
>> I was at a hardware store and they were selling the compact florescent
>> bulbs in a 6 pack for 1.50. This seems awfully cheap to me. That's why I
>> didn't buy it. My spidey sense was tingling. :-)
>
> It's called paranoia.

You're absolutely right. I'll go out and buy a case. If the bulbs blow
up and spray Hg all over the room and shoots glass fragments in my eyes,
you'll hear from my lawyer, sir!

dsi1 wrote:
>
> On 7/25/2012 10:03 AM, Gary wrote:
> > dsi1 wrote:
> >>
> >> I was at a hardware store and they were selling the compact florescent
> >> bulbs in a 6 pack for 1.50. This seems awfully cheap to me. That's why I
> >> didn't buy it. My spidey sense was tingling. :-)
> >
> > Are you talking about the new swirly screw in bulbs? Only one costs way
> > more than that here. I would have bought a case of them before they
> > discovered their pricing mistake.
>
> You are correct that they should cost more than the $3.00 for 12 as
> advertised. They should raise the price up to $5.99 a 6-pack to sell
> more. I'll go see if it's still in stock and buy some. What the heck,
> they're only a buck fifty. I predict that they'll explode and shoot Hg
> vapor all over the room and I'll get glass fragments in my eye. This
> will be bad but at least we'll know why they're so cheap. :-)

I'll bet they are just fine and priced wrong.
I'll check my price here at the grocery store this Saturday morning. Those
new bulbs last a long time but they are very expensive. Because of the high
price, I'm still buying the incandescent ones.

Gary

On 25/07/2012 2:48 PM, Chemo wrote:

>
>> I was at a hardware store and they were selling the compact florescent
>> bulbs in a 6 pack for 1.50. This seems awfully cheap to me. That's why I
>> didn't buy it. My spidey sense was tingling. :-)
>
> It's called paranoia.



Spidey sense is probably about right. Anything too good to be true
usually is. A couple years ago my wife came home from a discount store
with a pair of running shoes she bought for $14. I needed a pair and
went to that store and got an even better deal... I thought.... $12.
They started falling apart the second time I wore them,

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 25/07/2012 2:48 PM, Chemo wrote:
>
> >
> >> I was at a hardware store and they were selling the compact florescent
> >> bulbs in a 6 pack for 1.50. This seems awfully cheap to me. That's why I
> >> didn't buy it. My spidey sense was tingling. :-)
> >
> > It's called paranoia.
>
> Spidey sense is probably about right. Anything too good to be true
> usually is. A couple years ago my wife came home from a discount store
> with a pair of running shoes she bought for $14. I needed a pair and
> went to that store and got an even better deal... I thought.... $12.
> They started falling apart the second time I wore them,

I buy running shoes and I buy cheap work shoes. I would never buy cheap
running shoes.

On 7/25/2012 5:23 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 25/07/2012 2:48 PM, Chemo wrote:
>
>>
>>> I was at a hardware store and they were selling the compact florescent
>>> bulbs in a 6 pack for 1.50. This seems awfully cheap to me. That's why I
>>> didn't buy it. My spidey sense was tingling. :-)
>>
>> It's called paranoia.
>
>
>
> Spidey sense is probably about right. Anything too good to be true
> usually is. A couple years ago my wife came home from a discount store
> with a pair of running shoes she bought for $14. I needed a pair and
> went to that store and got an even better deal... I thought.... $12.
> They started falling apart the second time I wore them,
>
>

Could be it was simply friends he didn't even know he had helping out.
There have been numerous "green" incentives where "government" money is
used to promote CF bulbs etc.

Dave Smith wrote:

> went to that store and got an even better deal... I thought.... $12.
> They started falling apart the second time I wore them,

Weren't you the one who told us about your radioactive feet?

On 7/25/2012 10:48 AM, Gary wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>>
>> On 7/25/2012 10:03 AM, Gary wrote:
>>> dsi1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I was at a hardware store and they were selling the compact florescent
>>>> bulbs in a 6 pack for 1.50. This seems awfully cheap to me. That's why I
>>>> didn't buy it. My spidey sense was tingling. :-)
>>>
>>> Are you talking about the new swirly screw in bulbs? Only one costs way
>>> more than that here. I would have bought a case of them before they
>>> discovered their pricing mistake.
>>
>> You are correct that they should cost more than the $3.00 for 12 as
>> advertised. They should raise the price up to $5.99 a 6-pack to sell
>> more. I'll go see if it's still in stock and buy some. What the heck,
>> they're only a buck fifty. I predict that they'll explode and shoot Hg
>> vapor all over the room and I'll get glass fragments in my eye. This
>> will be bad but at least we'll know why they're so cheap. :-)
>
> I'll bet they are just fine and priced wrong.
> I'll check my price here at the grocery store this Saturday morning. Those
> new bulbs last a long time but they are very expensive. Because of the high
> price, I'm still buying the incandescent ones.

The bulbs look like they're in some kind of packaging for industrial use
and not in pretty consumer packaging. They could be fine. Maybe someone
from the state bought too much of these things and wants to dump it fast.

You might want to stock up on incandescent bulbs. The higher wattage
ones will not be sold any longer. I'm not a big fan of the CFLs. The low
power consumption is great but the price is not that attractive and
neither is the light they put out. A high wattage incandescent bulb puts
out a nice white light.

I have a some LED lamps with are low wattage and put out a brilliant
white light. They're beautiful! They were $20 for 3 at Costco.
Hopefully, they'll be long lasting. These sold-state semi-conductors are
going to be the future of lighting - and television displays for that
matter.

>
> Gary
>

On 25/07/2012 5:28 PM, Gary wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 25/07/2012 2:48 PM, Chemo wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> I was at a hardware store and they were selling the compact florescent
>>>> bulbs in a 6 pack for 1.50. This seems awfully cheap to me. That's why I
>>>> didn't buy it. My spidey sense was tingling. :-)
>>>
>>> It's called paranoia.
>>
>> Spidey sense is probably about right. Anything too good to be true
>> usually is. A couple years ago my wife came home from a discount store
>> with a pair of running shoes she bought for $14. I needed a pair and
>> went to that store and got an even better deal... I thought.... $12.
>> They started falling apart the second time I wore them,
>
> I buy running shoes and I buy cheap work shoes. I would never buy cheap
> running shoes.

I try not to buy cheap shoes of any type. I do a lot of walking and
foot comfort is important. That experienced reinforced my attitude
toward cheap shoes.

ViLco wrote:

> Is there a place on earth where one can make a fraud like that without any
> risk of legal ritortions? I don't know it.

Depends. What are ritortions?

On Jul 26, 8:03*am, George M. Middius > wrote:
> ViLco wrote:
> > Is there a place on earth where one can make a fraud like that without any
> > risk of legal ritortions? I don't know it.
>
> Depends. What are ritortions?

retaliation

While you're generally safe anglicizing Latinate words when
translating from Romance languages to English, every once in a while
you come across a word that doesn't have an exact counterpart. Here,
ritorsione.

spamtrap1888 wrote:

> > > Is there a place on earth where one can make a fraud like that without any
> > > risk of legal ritortions? I don't know it.
> >
> > Depends. What are ritortions?
>
> retaliation

Nope, that's wrong in context. Probably repercussions, or maybe
sanctions (American meaning).

> While you're generally safe anglicizing Latinate words when
> translating from Romance languages to English, every once in a while
> you come across a word that doesn't have an exact counterpart. Here,
> ritorsione.

Grazie.