We understand that consumers are opening their wallets with caution during this time of economic uncertainty. So, to help stimulate the economy and your senses, we're offering you a comfortable 20% off the following:
Special Order Upholstery:
Select from 450+ frame styles available in 340+ fabrics and leathers. Save hundreds on: sofas, sectionals, sleepers, chairs, dining chairs, beds, ottomans and more. Delivered to you in approximately six short weeks.
All Tables/Storage:
Our end tables are just the beginning of your savings. Choose from cocktail tables to media consoles to dining tables and everything in-between: all 20% off.
This is of a piece with this now-ubiquitous ad:
I mean, thanks, guys, but my idea of cutting back does not involve buying expensive furniture at 20% off; it involves not buying new furniture at all. And I'm preserving my sense of "living well" by never, ever, ordering (shudder) pizza from Dominos--at least not while I still have a jar of peanut butter to my name.
Meanwhile, the hosts on QVC have apparently started prepending the phrase "We're all watching our money these days" to exhortations to buy teddy bears infused with daffodil-scented soy candle wax and similar necessities. Apparently we're all watching our money from a distance, as it disappears into the gaping maw of Mastercard.
The one industry not ostentatiously offering to help me save money is the banking industry, which hasn't been trying to entice me into their savings vehicles with high rates and low fees. We have a long way to go before the American savings culture turns into what it should have been all along.
Any post where Megan references some absurd item sold on QVC is an automatic winner in my book.
So are you saying I should stop prefacing all of my sentances with "in these tough economic times"?
Such as "in these tough economic times, I need to go take a poop".
Times are so tough that you're taking them? I, personally, prefer to leave them...
I think that the car commercials are the worst.
"We know you're having a hard time, so here's some lame discount to get you to sink some money into our failing industry!"
well, so long as companies say they're "going green" instead of "being cheap" as an excuse to charge higher prices for shoddier materials, this is pretty par for the course.
To play devil's advocate: for many, the recession is psychological and we can still afford to spend money. We're not spending as much because the downturn has affected our perceived permanent income. (I still have faith in Friedman, even if many don't.) The depression schtick isn't so much about people who are financially suffering from the recession as it is about people who are afraid they might start suffering financially. Granted, we've spent far too much for far too long, but socking money isn't going to lift us out of this mess. So, I have more sympathy for businesses who are trying to stay afloat with gimmicky adds and sales that purport to "help" me in these dire times. I'd much rather those business continue to bring in revenue and pay wages than the opposite. There simply isn't enough money to be made from essentials to keep the economy moving. We need those non-essential sales.
Well said.
Sounds more like Depression Chic than Depression Schtick.
Considering that you have posted about camping out all night in front of an Apple store to buy a $400 iPhone, and analogized that night on an air mattress with your boyfriend to the plight of refugees, it seems a little churlish of you to give companies like Dominoes crap for offering people deals during the recession.
More power to those companies and their innovative ad campaigns. Americans didn't get negative savings rates by ordering from Dominoes; they got them by buying more house and car than they could afford. The Suze Orman shtick about cutting out the lattes is penny-wise and pound-foolish. Let people enjoy their small pleasures. They can use moderation in their big-ticket expenses to live within their means.
Incidentally, P.F. Chang's e-mailed out a promotion earlier this week offering 15% off everything on April 15th. We took them up on it yesterday, and the place was packed -- there was 20 minute wait for a table. Not bad for a school night during the worst recession in a quarter century, and good for the waiters, cooks, managers, bar tenders and everyone else there whose jobs depend on people dining out.
I don't think the "latte factor" is completely wrong. The point is that if you have a small purchase that you make regularly, the cost adds up. If you buy a $5 latte every weekday and work 50 weeks a year, that's $1250.
Not that thee is anything inherently wrong with spending $1250 on coffee a year, as long as you realize that you are and prefer it to spending it on something else. But once some people do the math, they realize they would rather take a travel mug of home-brewed coffee and spend the extra grand on something else. It's especially true for people who are living paycheck to paycheck, or worse - if you have a giant chunk of credit card debt at 30%, then buying a daily latte is no more responsible than taking out a neg-amortizing teaser-rate no doc zero-down ARM.
"The point is that if you have a small purchase that you make regularly, the cost adds up. If you buy a $5 latte every weekday and work 50 weeks a year, that's $1250."
That point has been beaten to death in countless financial planning articles over the last ten years. I understand the arithmetic, but it's still pound foolish. Many of those who beat that point to death ignored the real expenses that people over-leveraged themselves with: too-big houses, too-new cars, and too-expensive, too-little utility college educations. It also ignores the extent to which small luxuries are often used to substitute for larger luxuries. Instead of a jihad against Starbucks, Suze Orman types might have thought about the couple that saves money by making dinner at home one night, instead of dining out, and then treating themselves to lattes at Starbucks afterwords.
There were probably more useful insights in the 1998 book "The Millionaire Next Door" than in all of the copycat financial planning columns published since.
The problem is that for most people facing financial problems, the "big" costs are already sunk. If you already have student loan debt, or already bought a house or car that you are upside down on, you can't "undo" those things, and if you sell the house or car you will have to pay off the balance owned and still figure out how you are going to get to work or where you are going to live. For people in that situation, the only thing they can cut is discretionary spending, and it makes sense to look at it.
The latte factor isn't directed at everyone, and it's not directed at your hypothetical couple who eats in but enjoys an occasional latte. For a certain group of people - people who have no savings and significant debt, cutting out small but frequently occurring purchases is a good one - and one of the few ways - to work on reducing that debt.
Some of us are even planning to buy couches this year, and discounts are always appreciated. Those who don't need any furniture are still wearing out their clothes and breaking the occasional watch. People ARE buying things, but everyone has an eye out for good deals.
Sorry, but I love Dominos. Especially their deep dish and their white pizza.
Try Pizza Hut's "The Natural" pizza. It's actually pretty good, and even has a whole wheat crust, which is pretty rare to find around here.
Yeah I dunno whats with the domino's hate. I mean, its fast food pizza. Hot and cheesy is about all you have any right to expect.
My own problems with Domino's are these:
1) I've had better frozen pizza at the same price point. If I need cheap pizza and an oven is available, I won't order Domino's.
2) There are better delivery and carry-out options at every price tier north of the Domino's price.
That leaves Domino's with the competitive advantage among buyers who are budget-constrained and don't have immediate access to an oven, and buyers with seared taste buds. Small market.
Damn. I'm in agreement with aMouseforallSeasons. Prepare for imminent UFP (Unidentified Flying Pig) sightings.
Right now, Saturn is running a very funny ad in the NY market touting GM's promise to make payments (if you lose your job) vs Hyundai's promise to take back the car.
The Saturn dealer in the ad says that having to give back the car, on top of losing your job is horrible. He says (pretending to have just gotten home): "Hi honey. Lost my job. Lost the car. What's for dinner?" It's really funny and quite effective.
Humorous and engaging, to be sure, but also underscored by a slightly cruel irony: a year hence, only Hyundai is likely to still exist in a form capable of making good on the promise.
We’re trying to keep 700+ employees working by motivating consumers with a simple and direct message. If everyone just puts the hard brakes on spending for anything other than absolute essentials, the result will be a discussion of what one’s opinion of an absolute essential is…..all while many, many people become unemployed. Our intentions were good….these savings are not always available. We care about our employees well being very much and know how much they value having a job. I do love the expression “depression chic”. We would probably say “mega-recession chic.” Thanks, Mitchell Gold
I find it quite interesting -- and more telling than the ad campaign -- that Megan's furniture retailer noticed her post and (apparently) created an account for the express purpose of leaving this message. It's certainly aggressive and shows blog-savviness, both of which may be useful traits in this economy.
(I'm not knocking the comment itself, or Mitchell Gold; just struck by the fact it was left.)
We have a long way to go before the American savings culture turns into what it should have been all along.
Megan? Weren't you parroting all the Keynesian nonsense about "stimulating aggregate demand" just, like, a month ago?
At least it's a sign of progress. Maybe in another month you'll figure out how the Federal Reserve and bank deposits work.
I still maintain that the far majority of Americans haven't willfully changed their habits. Their spending habits have changed because it's no longer possible to pull out hundreds of billions of dollars a year in the form of mortgage equity withdrawals. Remove all the money (commissions and fees) associated with buying and selling incredibly overpriced properties as well, and you end up with much less spending.
Once the next bubble hits, we'll forget all about this saving stuff because X is going up in value so much that it will function as my E-fund and retirement fund.
These facing-hard-times ads are so common nowadays it must be a sign that the economy has bottomed and is on the mend.