Has Anyone Else Seen This Scam?

[momaw]

I have seen this in 2 JB stores here in Canberra (we only have 3).

They take a set-top box and connect it to a tv via component and composite cables. They then set the tv to picture in picture side by side option (where one half of the screen in one input and the other half another input). They set it so one half is component and the other half composite.

Then they use this as "proof" that their $300 cables are superior to regular ones. The don't try and claim this improvement is due to the type of connection, but rather the improvement in picture quality is purely down to the "quality" of expensive cables.

Surely this sort of scam should be illegal.

[norpus]

I have seen this in 2 JB stores here in Canberra (we only have 3).

They take a set-top box and connect it to a tv via component and composite cables. They then set the tv to picture in picture side by side option (where one half of the screen in one input and the other half another input). They set it so one half is component and the other half composite.

Then they use this as "proof" that their $300 cables are superior to regular ones. The don't try and claim this improvement is due to the type of connection, but rather the improvement in picture quality is purely down to the "quality" of expensive cables.

Surely this sort of scam should be illegal.

Shame!

On the positive side, at least someone at JB even knows the diff

[mello yello]

Ive seen a similar set up in a Hardly Normal store where they were trying to flog a $1000 Power Conditioner. I didnt bother to look behind but suspected a similar deceptive setup.

I actually liked the "non conditioned" picture better

I cant believe they are stooping that low.

Depending on the claim made..would defintely be misleading..... but whether claiming that more expensive cables (as a general claim...regardless of how they set it up )......would yield a better picture is debatable..and has been many times...and is the loophole they are probably exploiting.

I cant beleive they are that stupid to try and pull that one off...........JB?...YES THEY ARE.

[02ard]

JB,You've done it again !

[DaveMews]

JB,You've done it again !

I wonder if that sales method would be described as CRAZY! or SMASHED! or INSANE! or UNBELIEVEABLE! or CRUNCHED! ?

[betty boop]

I have seen this in 2 JB stores here in Canberra (we only have 3).

They take a set-top box and connect it to a tv via component and composite cables. They then set the tv to picture in picture side by side option (where one half of the screen in one input and the other half another input). They set it so one half is component and the other half composite.

Then they use this as "proof" that their $300 cables are superior to regular ones. The don't try and claim this improvement is due to the type of connection, but rather the improvement in picture quality is purely down to the "quality" of expensive cables.

Surely this sort of scam should be illegal.

harvey norman do exactly this to show the power of monster cables. someone should take some pics and get the story of the scam to current affair or today tonight or whatever harvey norman usually trolls its rubbish stories on.

[kamma]

I wonder if that sales method would be described as CRAZY! or SMASHED! or INSANE! or UNBELIEVEABLE! or CRUNCHED! ?

i believe it was PULVERISED!

[Cooksta59]

harvey norman do exactly this to show the power of monster cables. someone should take some pics and get the story of the scam to current affair or today tonight or whatever harvey norman usually trolls its rubbish stories on.

Good idea Al; I suspect a lot of Joe average consumers out there have no idea what total BS these demonstrations are.Maybe if one of these current affairs shows highlighted this scam then more buyers would not be sucked in.Trouble with the current affairs shows is that they seem at times to be nothing more than "infomercials" trying to sell a product.

Regards Steve.

[the-austrian]

Definitely illegal, no doubt about it. Deceptive behaviour, which in this case lessens competition of the less expensive component cables, is illegal under the trade practices act.

[dvduser]

Trouble with the current affairs shows is that they seem at times to be nothing more than "infomercials" trying to sell a product.

Of course they are that, as well as being the biggest waste of FTA air time with their supposed "do gooder" attitude and "revealing stories"

[Hydrology]

Disgraceful

[glennb]

I have seen this in 2 JB stores here in Canberra (we only have 3).

They take a set-top box and connect it to a tv via component and composite cables. They then set the tv to picture in picture side by side option (where one half of the screen in one input and the other half another input). They set it so one half is component and the other half composite.

Then they use this as "proof" that their $300 cables are superior to regular ones. The don't try and claim this improvement is due to the type of connection, but rather the improvement in picture quality is purely down to the "quality" of expensive cables.

Surely this sort of scam should be illegal.

Saw this just the other day in JB HiFi at DFO (Essendon). Saw the split screen on a big TV and had a look round the back, and they were using a "good" quality component cable and a normal AV cable. I had to look twice though as the TV connections were facing down in 2 rows, and at first glance I thought they were both using the Component input, but a closer look showed that the AV cable was actually just plugged into the normal RCA plugs.

Didn't actually ask what the purpose of the split screen was for, but I suspect it was for the selling of "Quality" cables.

[steveo83]

Exactly why I left HN. It was a joke trying to deceive people like that, I hated that damn display.

Not to mention that everyone had to try to force a $400 cable onto customers who had just bought a $300 set top box.... I sh*t you not.

[yamapro]

Do you still work in retail now Steve? Just out of curiosity???

[steveo83]

Do you still work in retail now Steve? Just out of curiosity???

No, I don't think I could ever work retail in a place like that again, well at least not for a box mover.

I love Home Theatre, but I took the job because I wanted to give people advice on buying what they needed in order to enjoy the same benefits. I don't want to have to convince pensioners to spend their savings on things that they don't need, just so that my wallet (and the company's) gets a little fatter. Don't get me wrong, I can sell like that - I just didn't want to

Do you work in the industry?

[Guest Murray73]

monster cables RAWK!

[yamapro]

No, I don't think I could ever work retail in a place like that again, well at least not for a box mover.

I love Home Theatre, but I took the job because I wanted to give people advice on buying what they needed in order to enjoy the same benefits. I don't want to have to convince pensioners to spend their savings on things that they don't need, just so that my wallet (and the company's) gets a little fatter. Don't get me wrong, I can sell like that - I just didn't want to

Do you work in the industry?

No i don't

Well not officially - I'm a volunteer if you like, dispensing advice (i.e tr listening to X, Y and Z and work out which you like,or exlain new and emergin technologies andhow they will or own't help those who ask!) and setting up systems for friends.

I work in cnstruction in the 'linings' game (ie i build walls and ceilings etc...) and would ideally like to marry that with HT installation... but i'm not even at the first step of that very long path!

All that siad i don't feel much love for HN or JB et al - and wish Joe Public would support the secialist more...as they have a tough gig and are a valuable resource to us all!

[Mannah]

I wonder if that sales method would be described as CRAZY! or SMASHED! or INSANE! or UNBELIEVEABLE! or CRUNCHED! ?

LOL! Good one.

Yeah Steve, the shams that go on in the Harveys chains are rediculous, I used to work for Domayne and it was a similar thing. And whats worse, is half of the salesman swear by the rubbish they push, they actually believe it.

Good pickup but Momaw, at least your spreading the awareness.

[Thudd1503560234]

Wasn't there a virtually identical thread about this recently? I opened this one and thought it was the original thread, then saw the dates and thought "what the.... have the post dates all gone haywire?"

[50mxe20]

Wasn't there a virtually identical thread about this recently? I opened this one and thought it was the original thread, then saw the dates and thought "what the.... have the post dates all gone haywire?"

It's not unususal for new threads to appear on the same topic because many people have not learned (I hesitate to say they are too lazy) to use the search engine properly and find out if the topic has already been discussed. And many also don't realise that they should.

Also unless you are a frequent visitor to the forum it is easy to miss a past topic.

I guess.

[SDL]

Definitely illegal, no doubt about it. Deceptive behaviour, which in this case lessens competition of the less expensive component cables, is illegal under the trade practices act.

I'm not sure its illegal. The only issue under Trade Practices Act is that they don't mislead. Now the cables they are trying to sell are the ones they are using so the picture they achieve is driven by those cables amongst other things. So nothing misleading in that what you see is what you will get. So in my view, what would be tested is have you actually received something that is of lesser capability than you paid for - the answer would be no.

I'm not sure HN state that the other cables are anything other than generic cables so are not making false claims about them.

Do they state that the Monster cables are better than all other cables?

I may be wrong but I think it would be difficult to prove any wrong doing - not that I support what they do.

[the-austrian]

It's deception because they are claiming that the $300 component cables produce a better picture than the $10 composite cable. Well, of course it does, but the cable has nothing to do with the picture quality comparison, which is where the deception comes in. The difference in picture quality comes from component vs composite technology.

Now, if they hooked up two component cables, one worth say $50 and the other the same $300 cable as originally, then a fair comparison could be made and I could almost guarantee the average consumer would invariably choose the cheaper cable, hence increasing competition in the market of component cables.

[SDL]

It's deception because they are claiming that the $300 component cables produce a better picture than the $10 composite cable. Well, of course it does, but the cable has nothing to do with the picture quality comparison, which is where the deception comes in. The difference in picture quality comes from component vs composite technology.

Now, if they hooked up two component cables, one worth say $50 and the other the same $300 cable as originally, then a fair comparison could be made and I could almost guarantee the average consumer would invariably choose the cheaper cable, hence increasing competition in the market of component cables.

Without getting into the whole cable debate, I'm not sure that's true. Sure I don't think Monster are value for money, but they do provide better quality than some really cheap brands otherwise we would all use the ones that come with our devices.

I haven't looked closely at the advertising they use, but you would need to show they are misleading the consumer to the ACCC under the Trade Practices Act. You might have a case on the fact that the average person, the consumer, would be misled, but you would need to look at the claim closely (without it being fine print) to ensure that they are not making entirely factual and not misleading claims, and that it would really mislead someone.

Nothing actually states under the Trade Practices Act that fair comparisons need be made, only that you don't mislead. Washing powder manufacturers do it all the time. I will have a closer look myself next time I'm in HN as you may be right if they really have misleading information around the display to suggest that the other cables are similar competitor cables.

[Thudd1503560234]

It's a bit underhanded because it's playing on the lack of knowledge of the average punter to know any different (ie that the cables they're selling aren't the only cables that will provide the same difference).

But in reality it's not a lot different between going in and comparing two televisions in the same shop. Salesdroid pops on a second television of brand X and says "what about this then" and you say "yep, that one's definitely better." Is he misleading in that maybe there's a brand Y that is just as good, or might even be better for a lesser price, but isn't sold by that shop? I don't think any of us would say so, and would advise the consumer to shop around rather than accuse the shop of being misleading for not telling them that brand Y is cheaper and better.

But I can understand where the resentment against this practice for cables comes from because of the massively huge markup on them and negligible difference to vastly cheaper options.

Would we, however, have the same sympathy for someone who walked into a Bose shop and bought one of their systems? Or would we deride the shop for not telling them that the same or greater audio quality can be had for much cheaper?

[the-austrian]

Without getting into the whole cable debate, I'm not sure that's true. Sure I don't think Monster are value for money, but they do provide better quality than some really cheap brands otherwise we would all use the ones that come with our devices.

I haven't looked closely at the advertising they use, but you would need to show they are misleading the consumer to the ACCC under the Trade Practices Act. You might have a case on the fact that the average person, the consumer, would be misled, but you would need to look at the claim closely (without it being fine print) to ensure that they are not making entirely factual and not misleading claims, and that it would really mislead someone.

Nothing actually states under the Trade Practices Act that fair comparisons need be made, only that you don't mislead. Washing powder manufacturers do it all the time. I will have a closer look myself next time I'm in HN as you may be right if they really have misleading information around the display to suggest that the other cables are similar competitor cables.

I don't want to appear rude, but I'm not sure you understand. The original poster stated they (JB) were comparing a component connection with a composite connection and claiming that the cable was causing the difference in picture quality.

It's like the Duracell TV advert that claims "lasts 3 times longer then Eveready super heavy duty", but has the disclaimer at the bottom of the screen "Eveready super heavy duty is a less expensive non-alkaline battery". This is the correct way to claim such a comparison.

In the case with JB they are being deceptive by not pointing out the different connection types. That is, it wouldn't matter if both cables were $5, the component connection will always have better picture quality, and you don't need to spend $300 to get it! Whether different component cables make a difference is whole other debate!