Navigating the new world of work

Category: UX Fail

Scamming Supermarkets

There is nothing new about misleading supermarket offers, they have been reported on numerous occasions, not to mention most recently in the Guardian. Buy one get one free, or buy three for two, or bulk buy to save pounds. Most famously, our friends Tesco and Ocado, have been upping the price the week before an offer so that they can then legitimately say they’ve brought it down in price, when in fact it’s either normal or still overpriced. Which? research has already highlighted the problem for consumers:

“It’s unacceptable that shoppers are confused into thinking they’re getting a good deal”

Quite right. So. Have they learned any lessons? Many stores claim that the pricing were simply a mistake on their part. Is this true? I doubt it. Most of their labels are deliberately not cross compatible. E.g. one is units and one is kg so you can’t directly compare. That can’t be a mistake too, can it?

To prove they’ve made no effort to change, I have an example of my own. Recently I was in Asda, and I was on the hunt for some Kiwis. I found a pack of four, which is what I wanted, at the ‘bargain’ roll back price of £1.25. BUT. Right next to it. Literally right next to it, I find loose kiwis at 22p each. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that’s a saving of 37p. It might not sound like much, but it adds up.



But what does this mean for consumers? Well, primarily that their trust in the supermarkets is being undermined. Customers are not going to believe they’re being treated fairly, and if one supermarket decides that this isn’t good practice and doesn’t carry on, then they might well be the ones on top. If not just because no one can be bothered to do the maths just to work out if they’re being scammed or not. The other problem is of course the excess in packaging on their scam bulk buys, which annoys everyone and seems unnecessary. Others have outlined the better service and quality of food at other sources such as local grocers and farmers markets where you can get a cheaper (and much fairer deal), but not everyone has access to these – at least not on a regular basis. So when are supermarkets going to step up to the mark and stop scamming their own customers? It also begs the questions are these going to the infiltrate the online supermarkets? Maybe they already have.

Times Newspaper Form Fail

The Times recently launched a competition to win an iPhone 4S. You just had to fill in a form with about 7 or 8 questions and tell them some of your Times buying habits in order to enter. I think perhaps, that the construction of this form was a bit last minute.

‘Saturday’ isn’t really the answer to this question, and it’s therefore slightly confusing. It would have been better to ask people on what days do they buy the Times. At the bottom of the form you’re presented with the ‘Submit’ button and a ‘Reset’ button.

Only, really they’re in the wrong place and if you’re a fast typer and clicker you could easily click reset (as I very nearly did) erasing all of your work as most buttons in order to proceed, such as Continue or Next is nearly always on the bottom right. And this isn’t convention by accident. Just getting someone to run through this form properly would have probably fixed these issues. I suppose, you can’t really expect people to take too much notice of semantics when they’re purely only entering to win something, but you may miss out on gathering details if they reset their form, and can’t find the energy to fill it out again. It’s really small details like this, and lack of attention to them could be causing you to lose huge customers or create dips in conversion rates, which is really the point. Additionally, there is likely to be a correlation between well written forms and trust as well. People are less likely to hand over their information if the form asking for it doesn’t ask them questions that make much sense.

© 2025 Bella Slade

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑