Retailers are duping shoppers with ‘misleading discounts’ on pricey TVs, Which? has warned.
The consumer watchdog found that some retailers make out their ‘Was/now’ deals are better than they are.
Which? analysed more than 1,600 television sales across five retailers: Currys, Argos and the online shops Very, AO.com and Amazon.
Investigators found more than half (56%) of the ‘was’ prices used in promotions were not the most recent prices before the discount.
Often, these higher previous price tags were only in place briefly, or the prices had changed several times over a few weeks.
Four in 10 TV sets had a ‘was’ price tag only in effect for less time than the discounted price, giving the illusion of a saving.
A third of all the TVs reviewed (33%) were doubly misleading, with the ‘now’ price and promotional period longer than the ‘was’ price.
Nearly nine in 10 (87%) of TV deals on Very used a ‘was’ price that wasn’t the most recent.
An LG OLED65B46LA, 65-inch, LED, 4K UHD, Smart TV on the shopping website had a £1,499 price tag in November, with its ‘was’ price at £2,499.
Yet Which? said this discount is ‘less impressive’ than it seems, given the model had been sold for seven different prices since the ‘was’ price in June.
Electronics store Currys was criticised by Which? after it found three-quarters (75%) of its 608 TV deals had outdated ‘was’ price stickers.
Nearly seven in 10 of the TVs had a higher price for a shorter time than the slashed one, such as the LG UT73 50-inch TV, which had an earlier price of £399.99 before ‘now’ being £299.99.
Yet Which? found the higher price tag had only been in place for 25 days, compared to 207 days at the lower one.
One third of TVs sold by AO.com also listed a ‘was’ price that wasn’t the most recent.
But Which? said they ‘weren’t likely to mislead shoppers’ as the online store lists the date the ‘was’ price was last used as well as stressing that intervening prices may have applied.
Argos performed the best out of the four retailers, with nearly all of its ‘was’ prices reflecting the price immediately before the promotion.
Amazon used a slightly different playbook to flogging discounted TVs, Which? said. Four in 10 TVs sold on the market platform had a ‘was’ price that wasn’t the most recent.
But Amazon considers the ‘was’ price not as the most recent one, but the ‘median selling price paid by customers for that product on its website’.
Which? said: ‘We’re also concerned that the exclusion of promotional prices may mean those so-called ‘was’ prices are higher than they might have been. We believe this approach could be confusing for shoppers.’
Lisa Webb, Which? consumer law expert, added: ‘Shoppers deserve clear, honest pricing – not smoke and mirrors.
‘If retailers are using dodgy was/now discounts to create the illusion of a bargain, then we expect the competition regulator to take enforcement action.
‘Anyone in the market for a new TV or any other expensive purchase should take any such discounts with a pinch of salt and check price tracking sites like CamelCamelCamel or Price Runner to ensure they are getting a genuine deal before making a decision.’
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
