Re: Dog food pouch deal
Well, this morning I was on the phone with Catalina and P&G.
It seems this promotion was very regionalized and I'm getting to the bottom of this! It is not my intention to waste time and gas not to mention getting up in people's faces about what is or is not in their promotions. Reading and understanding English was never difficult for me so if they allow products in one area to be valid but the same products in other areas don't qualify...they should have made this clear to their consumers! Instead, P&G rolls out a generic promo and then hides behind catalina and Albertsons. No, no, no! I will not be made to look like a fool. Frankly, I'm too intelligent!
Here's what I know up to this point:
P&G insists all their products are participating.
Jewel says the Iams dog food pouches UPC codes are not on their list of valid codes for this promo.
Catalina says that the deals were regional as were the run dates of the promotion. In my area, (Chicago suburbs) a list of UPC's were given to the stores. 272 UPC's to be exact with an additional 50 UPC codes as wild cards. That's right, WILD CARD UPC CODES. This means that the first 5 numbers are for an entire family of products that are valid for the promotion. Which means that 100's more products qualify. Only seven Iams UPC codes qualified (in my area).
The interesting thing is that:
a) no one will tell me who generated this UPC list. P&G, Catalina or Albertsons.
b) Only UPC codes were given to the stores. No one at the stores or catalina for that matter can identify the upc's with the products! That's why there were no X's marking participating products in the stores. It was just too difficult to do. If they don't know, how the he11 should I know?
Talking with P&G, my position is that they have a deceptive advertising campaign. I even pulled down their in store promo piece that lists BRANDS and not individual products as evidence. For my time and trouble, P&G is sending me a $10 check along with a detailed explanation as to what went wrong with this campaign.
It had better be good because I threatened to contact consumer reporters.
|