Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Best Buy Confirms 'Secret' Version of its Website

Posted by Zonk on Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:43 PM
from the probably-should-have-kept-that-under-wraps dept.
Iberian writes "The Courant site confirms an oft-rumoured possibility: Best Buy does indeed maintain a second website for what one could assume is for the purpose of defrauding its customers. State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal ordered the investigation into Best Buy's practices on Feb. 9 after columnist George Gombossy disclosed the website and showed how employees at two Connecticut stores used it to deny customers a $150 discount on a computer advertised on BestBuy.com. Says Gombossy, 'What is more troubling to me, and to some Best Buy customers, is that even when one informs a salesperson of the Internet price, customers have been shown the intranet site, which looks identical to the Internet site, but does not always show the lowest price. [State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal] said that because of the fuzzy responses from Best Buy, he has yet to figure out the real motivation behind the intranet site and whether sales people are encouraged to use it to cheat customers.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] News: Best Buy Accused of Overcharging 301 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Connecticut's Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has accused Best Buy of overcharging its customers. His accusation is that customers see one price on Best Buy's website, in stores salespeople would show them a different internal site from a kiosk. Best Buy denies the charges. 'Previously, the company confirmed that store employees have access to an internal Web site that looks nearly identical to the public BestBuy.com site, but the company's policy is always to offer customers the lowest quoted price unless it's specifically identified as a deal available only to online shoppers. Jerry Farrell Jr., Connecticut's consumer protection commissioner, said the lawsuit should be a warning to companies to be more transparent in their business practices.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • .....err, never mind.
  • GeekSquad (Score:3, Funny)

    by AmigaHeretic (991368) on Friday March 02 2007, @11:51PM (#18215218) Journal
    The GeekSquad charges a $29 Software Installation fee to let you use the "real" internet inside BestBuy so this lady would have only saved $121.00 anyway.
  • I've seen it. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pupstah (78267) on Friday March 02 2007, @11:52PM (#18215222)
    I checked a price online last week, went in, and they checked and it was different.

    Wait for the flood of OMG CORPORATIONS posts to follow...
  • by proxima (165692) on Friday March 02 2007, @11:56PM (#18215246)
    Companies will go to great lengths to price discriminate (i.e. sell to different customers at different prices). If intentional, this particularly dirty trick might have the following reasoning: A customer sees a price online, but wants the item more quickly. So the customer heads to the local Best Buy, where the prices are supposed to be the same as what's online (unless specifically marked as an online-only special). By this time, the customer has demonstrated his or her willingness to buy the product and invested the time and energy required to get to the store. At this point it's likely that they are willing to pay more than the online listed price, and buy the item anyway.

    Another possibility is just that Best Buy doesn't want to market online prices as "online only" and that people who walk into the store and pay a higher price won't notice unless they look for the same item online (which most presumably don't).

    This reminds me of the whole amazon.com pricing PR disaster from a few years back. IIRC, it involved people who were logged in seeing a different price than those who were just surfing casually. By knowing your previous purchasing history, amazon.com could reasonably mark up items it thought you might be willing to pay more for. I don't know what happened to the program, I thought it just went away because of the PR nightmare.

    It'd be interesting to know just what's legal and what's not with some of these new tactics. Not all price discrimination is illegal; consider "student" or "senior" discounts, for example. Of course, avoiding a PR mess is probably enough to keep most companies from trying legal but dirty tactics.
    • by WhiplashII (542766) on Saturday March 03 2007, @12:05AM (#18215292) Homepage Journal
      It sounds like an open and shut case of bait and switch [wikipedia.org] or false advertising [wikipedia.org] to me.

      Those are illegal, and will get you in big trouble with the FTC.
        • by ktappe (747125) on Saturday March 03 2007, @07:55AM (#18216854)

          It isn't bait and switch because you're told the higher price before purchase.
          It most certainly is bait and switch, as they bait you to the store with a lower price and then present you with a higher price once you're there. It's a textbook example of bait & switch in fact.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2007, @12:05AM (#18215294)

      By this time, the customer has demonstrated his or her willingness to buy the product and invested the time and energy required to get to the store. At this point it's likely that they are willing to pay more than the online listed price, and buy the item anyway.
      I had EXACTLY this situation happen to me with a certain home-theater-in-a-box. On their web site they listed it for a certain price that I found very reasonable compared to online vendors so I headed down to Best Buy and found it was $50 more in the store. When I confronted the customer service people about it they proclaimed that that was an online only deal (it didn't say anything about being online only) and offered me a "comparable", lower-quality home theater system instead. It pissed me off enough that I actually walked out of the store, drove home, ordered it online and used the pick-up-in-store option. Then I drove back after receiving the e-mail about my order being ready and walked over to the customer service desk and talked to the same exact girl I did an hour earlier. That's just stupid to make customers jump through hoops like that to make a quick buck.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2007, @12:49AM (#18215524)
        It pissed me off enough that I actually walked out of the store, drove home, ordered it online and used the pick-up-in-store option.

        It pissed you off enough that you purchased from bestbuy.com?

        Man, that's sticking it to 'em.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      I thought about Amazon.com too. One thing I have noticed that hasn't changed is that they will change the prices on things left in your cart--sometimes down, but mostly the price goes up. But the price doesn't seem to change in the wish list. It may be just because they don't notify you that the price has changed, but I've got a pretty good memory for what things cost. So what I've been doing is putting items to hold in my wish list and then only moving them over to the cart when I buy them.

      One thing that i
    • by gosand (234100) on Saturday March 03 2007, @12:59AM (#18215566) Homepage
      A customer sees a price online, but wants the item more quickly. So the customer heads to the local Best Buy, where the prices are supposed to be the same as what's online (unless specifically marked as an online-only special). By this time, the customer has demonstrated his or her willingness to buy the product and invested the time and energy required to get to the store. At this point it's likely that they are willing to pay more than the online listed price, and buy the item anyway.


      I recently bought a DVD recorder... I did exactly this, and checked prices online. I wanted a specific model (Pye PY90DG) and Circuit City had it. When I got to the store, it was about $9 more. I asked the guy at the returns counter (nobody there) if they matched their online price, and he said they didn't because they were different systems (or something like that). For $9... I was just going to buy it and pay the extra, but he could see it wasn't sitting well with me. It was only $9, but the price was around $90. That is a considerable percentage! He took me over to one of their net-connected PCs, and let me order it online for in-store pickup. Then I went and took one off the shelf, walked it over to his register, and picked it up. He said they do it all the time, because their online prices are lower than the store prices quite often, and they didn't think that was very fair. I was very happy with my purchase, and would go back there for that reason.

        • by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Saturday March 03 2007, @02:43AM (#18215926) Journal
          Honesty is honesty.

          Reminds me of that movie, Miracle on 24th street (I think), where Santa -- the real Santa -- is employed as a Mall Santa. He sits in the mall, and kids come up and tell him what they want, and the management has given him a list of all the Macey's products that he's supposed to be pushing on the parents -- which he then ignores, and tells the parents where to find exactly what the kid wants, at the best price in town.

          At first, the managers are enraged, but then they realize that they've just built up a shitload of customer loyalty. Moms are walking out with bags and bags of stuff, just because they love Macey's so much for having such a great Santa.

          Now, of course, the Managers have the ulterior motive here, and Santa is pure. But does it really matter whether Santa is pure or not?

          In fact, I honestly don't give a damn what's going through the salesman's head. If it actually does mean I'm getting a better deal, and if they consistently try to build brand loyalty in a way which actually benefits me, I win, whether it's out of the goodness of their hearts or because they're planning to rip me off sometime down the road.
      • by proxima (165692) on Saturday March 03 2007, @12:26AM (#18215400)

        Holy smokes, I never knew that particular incident about Amazon.com.. did it ever make the big news? I'm thinking that something like this should've caused so much consumer anguish / mistrust / lost confidence in Amazon that they would have had lost a lot of business.

        Where was the consumer uproar??

        A quick Google search turned up this Slashdot article [slashdot.org]. I didn't realize it was almost 7 years old, though. I read about it here, and amongst people who heard about it, there was definitely some uproar.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Thus, the second website is just one that reflects in-store pricing.

        In that case they should not be using the second website to verify online prices!

  • i remember that... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2007, @12:00AM (#18215268)
    yea used to work in the Big Blue and I remember that... To put a little foot forward for at least my store and me, I figured out that the intranet site listed store prices after the second person complained to me. After that I used one of our laptops with wireless to get onto the internet site.

    Honestly, I think it's not a management plan to rip people off, they just like to keep the internet best buy and store best buy separate so when a rep logs onto the computer you see your store's price... and reps' ignorance ends up screwing people over.

    Anyway my $.02 to try and throw out some facts and before everyone replies I know it was/is still a bad idea just throwing the facts out as I heard them
    • by proxima (165692) on Saturday March 03 2007, @12:07AM (#18215312)

      Honestly, I think it's not a management plan to rip people off, they just like to keep the internet best buy and store best buy separate so when a rep logs onto the computer you see your store's price... and reps' ignorance ends up screwing people over.

      There has to be a better, faster interface for finding in-store prices than an exact mock-up of the bestbuy.com website. Not to mention that an intranet site could have more useful info like items in stock, when more are expected in that store, what section/aisle of the store it's located in (or whatever).
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        It doesn't even have to be a mock-up of the "real" BestBuy website, especially when one considers that the prices are loaded from the database and displayed dynamically when the pages are served to the browsers. It would not be difficult for the BestBuy.com website to employ the same cloaking [wikipedia.org] techniques used by the search engine optimizers to display one set of content to visitors from the public Internet and a different set of content to visitors from the BestBuy intranet (i.e. in-store computers at any of
  • CC doesn't (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2007, @12:02AM (#18215280)
    This happened to me a year or two ago when I went to buy a digital camera at BB. The camera was cheaper online and when I told the salesman he tried to verify it and it wasn't there. I ended up going across the street to Circuit City which has full internet access...ordered the camera from bestbuy.com with in store pickup, went back to bestbuy and picked it up for that internet price.

    Annoying though, and I hope they get a lot of heat for it (was also in CT btw)
  • by AusIV (950840) on Saturday March 03 2007, @12:13AM (#18215334)
    I highly doubt sales people would be in on such a conspiracy. A company like Best Buy has sales people coming and going all the time. If someone got pissed because they were fired, the first thing they'd do would be blow the whistle on this. If these price differences are even deliberate, it's done strictly by the people managing the two websites. The sales reps would be told to sell at the intranet website's price, and are probably unaware of the fact that there's a different version of bestbuy.com at work than there is at home, let alone that the prices are different in order to screw the consumer. It may be a conspiracy, but it's not involving every sales rep at every Best Buy in the country.
    • I totally agree with you. BestBuySux.org [bestbuysux.org] is a pretty popular and well known website detailing bad customer experiences as well as the typical ex-employee willing to tell all about their three month "job of hell". I go there every couple months to read up on the latest posts if I'm in need of a laugh (or a cringe) and I don't remember reading about this secret website very much, if at all. Actually, I would bet the very existence of this website keeps Best Buy Corporate from revealing much of anything of what goes behind the scenes to the typical college student selling computers.
  • Are people STUPID? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Creepy Crawler (680178) on Saturday March 03 2007, @12:16AM (#18215344)
    Why do people continue to shop at a Retailer who is known for treating customers like E-Tards and continually abuses them and lies to them and most likely commits bait-n-switch?
  • by Talgrath (1061686) on Saturday March 03 2007, @12:24AM (#18215386)
    ...to never shop at Best Buy.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Ok, so if I want a computer, I can get one directly from Apple or Dell, and they're better than the ones at Best Buy with superior service. If I want a digital camera I can go to Black's or Henry's or somewhere that specializes in photography, and I'd probably get a better camera with better service than I would at Best Buy. If I want a TV or home entertainment system, I can go to a store that specializes in that sort of thing. I live like 30 minutes from a place called East Hamilton Radio, who specializes
  • by queenb**ch (446380) on Saturday March 03 2007, @12:27AM (#18215402) Homepage Journal
    I have a domain that I bought on ebay for a dollar. It's misspelled but it's also extremely handy. Each time I have to go register on a web site some where, I register as (nameofwebsite)@mydomain.com. Then if I start getting spam, I know who sold me out. I bought something on-line from Best Buy's web site and so of course I register as bestbuy@mydomain.com. Lo and behold, I start getting a ton of spam addressed to bestbuy@mydomain.com. My first missive was polite, asking why they're sending me these emails. When I contact them about it, I'm told that it can't possibly be coming from them.

    When I write them the second time, I'm still polite and explain that they must be sending them because that's the only place I've used this particular email address. They write back and insist quite rudely that I must have used this email address to register somewhere else. Furthermore, they're quite rude in insisting that they're not spamming me and asked me why I was so stupid as to think that they were. "Surely you realize that a reputable company like Best Buy wouldn't spam you."

    My third missive wasn't polite at all. I rather pointedly asked them if they were mentally deficient or inbred, since they seemed to be too slow to pick up on the fact that they were corresponding with me at the email address of bestbuy@mydomain.com. And as I pointed out to them, I am not likely to be using this anywhere else. It has be used in one place and one place only and that is their web site. I also tell them that they don't get my email address back from people that they have so rudely, and in violation of their own privacy policy, ho'd it out to, that I'll be doing some spamming of my own. Groups like the State Attorney General's office, FCC, UseNet, anyone and everyone else I can think of that might be remotely interested.

    Finally I got a letter back from Best Buy claiming that a security breach had "liberated my email address". I called the person that sent me the letter. He was rather nicer than the nimrods I'd been dealing with. When I asked if they had filed the proper disclosure, which is required in several states in which Best Buy operates, I got a long awkward pause and he finally admitted that one of their employees had been busted selling email addresses harvested by the web site. When I asked if they were at least terminating the miscreant, I was told that they were not. That was the last time I ever purchased anything in a Best Buy.

    2 cents,

    QueenB.

    • by tm2b (42473) on Saturday March 03 2007, @12:48AM (#18215516) Journal
      Careful, you can't be so certain.

      Create some email addresses, and then don't use them, ever.

      There's still a good chance you'll start getting spam, sooner or later. Having done this myself, I can only conclude that some spam list generators use dictionary attacks against MTAs, trying different usernames on known good domains until they find some userids where they don't get immediate bounces.

      Even that aside, there's a difference from an employee selling your email address on the side (regrettably, very common), and corporate actions.
      • by queenb**ch (446380) on Saturday March 03 2007, @01:06AM (#18215598) Homepage Journal
        Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the doctrine of an agent. If you are paying someone, even if they're doing something they shouldn't be they are still representing your company, both from a customer service perspective and a legal perspective. I don't know how the law works where you are, but here....you are responsible for the actions of your employees while you're paying them. I really doubt that spammers go around testing my domain, which has nothing but an MX record for email addresses. There is no web page or anything else associated with it. If they did, it's an amazing coincidence that two days after I place my order with Best Buy that I start getting spam.

        Had he sold out my SSN, Credit Card #, or some other bit of information, he would have likely committed a felony. As it is, he "just" sold out my email address. We're IT people. We handle and process data all the time. We are inherently in positions of trust. If you cannot be trusted, you should not be working. It's not a big leap to go from "just email address" to "just home addresses" to "just credit card #'s." I expect that a responsible and ethical company to have responsible and ethical employees. This person certainly didn't meet either of those criteria. The fact that they chose to keep him tells me that they lack a commitment to ethical behavior and enforcement of standards. You're comments here tell me the same about you.

        2 cents,

        QueenB.
    • by whoever57 (658626) on Saturday March 03 2007, @01:15AM (#18215620) Journal
      You can also use the "+" notation that many mail systems (including gmail) support. What you do is put "+<unique identifier>" between the user and @ parts of your email address, for example, if my email address is:

      blah@gmail.com

      I can also use:

      blah+BestBuySucks@gmail.com

      This works automatically. No setup is needed for gmail and many other email systems. Unfortunately, a lot of website developers think that "+" is invalid wherever it is used in an email address and will not allow such email addresses in registrations.

    • by SpectreBlofeld (886224) on Saturday March 03 2007, @02:13AM (#18215834)
      I work for a Verizon Wireless retailer.

      Once had a customer come in and accuse us of selling his (physical) address information to spammers. Every time he applies for a service, he uses a different middle initial for his name, and keeps a record of what initial he used for what service. Said he used the middle initial 'K' when applying for our service, and soon starting receiving junk mail (of the snail variety) addressed to "John" K. "Doe."

      As you may or may not know, customer privacy is something Verizon takes very seriously (being one of the only wireless providers that didn't hand over call records to the NSA, for instance). Every customer is automatically enrolled in the Do Not Call registry, etc.

      Well, we investigated the matter, and eventually found out what happened.

      The handsets we sold at the time used vendor-issued mail-in rebates, which, of course, require you to fill out and mail in a form with your name and address... and, naturally, this guy used the same middle initial for the rebate submission as he did when he established wireless service, not making a distinction between the two (can't blame him). Investigation found the vendor (or the rebate company they employed) was the one "sharing" the customer info.

      We have since abandoned vendor rebates and now Verizon handles the rebates in-house.

      A piece of advice: Use a unique e-mail or middle initial for any rebates you submit than you do for making a purchase or establishing service. The responsible party may not be who you think it is, nor may they be aware it's even happening.

  • I found out the other day that my hosting company, DailyRazor.com, pulls a cute little trick - they have these offers that say you get x number of months of free hosting with y number of months pre-paid. So you buy the account thinking that as long as you've paid by the deadline, you're ok. It so happens that if you didn't enter a specific "coupon code" when you signed up, you forfeit the free hosting. At the bottom of their sign up form, it says, "Have a coupone? Enter it here..." - when I think of a "coupon" I think of a piece of paper that I might have received in the mail, or seen in a magazine. I didn't have either of these, so I didn't enter anything. I didn't give it a second thought until I saw that they issued my second invoice two months early. I have been going back and forth with them over this, and as of yet, they have refused to make any concessions. If you need servlet-based hosting, avoid the hassle and look for another company.
  • by jcr (53032) <jcr&mac,com> on Saturday March 03 2007, @12:30AM (#18215420) Journal
    This is another great example of the resurgence of reputation as a means of social pressure. Before we had the web, advertising could completely drown out the occasional TV report from your local consumer affairs reporter. Today though, anyone who cares about getting what they pay for can trivially check up on the vendor in question.

    -jcr

  • by fo0bar (261207) on Saturday March 03 2007, @12:38AM (#18215464)
    First of all, I didn't know this was a "secret". I've seen it myself. It may have the same color scheme, but it looks noticeably different (no "top 10 tips to buy a new TV" or big flashy mini-ads or any of that crap). The purpose? If a customer wants to buy something that's out of stock or internet-only or something, the employee takes the customer's information and logs in using his employee ID. I've never used this part, but the customer supposedly pays in-store, then the employee puts the confirmation number into the site, and the item is either shipped to the customer or the store.

    (CompUSA has a similar site, though in their case the customer (usually business account customers) can access it too -- http://compusabusiness.com/ [compusabusiness.com] )

    Now, I'm interested in seeing what the result of the investigation is, but this doesn't seem to scream conspiracy. Maybe there was a discrepancy, and the employee pointed to that site because, well, that's the site he always uses. I make a best buy purchase every couple weeks, and always check the site first (mostly because best buy's stock sucks, and I have to figure out which of the 2 stores in town has what I need), and I have never seen a price discrepancy between bestbuy.com and in-store.
  • so inevitably.... (Score:4, Informative)

    by AnalogueDarkness (1070874) on Saturday March 03 2007, @12:56AM (#18215546)
    there has to be a comment with an "i work for best buy" in here. well, i do. and it's ironic that this comes up at such a time as today. At work earlier today, I actually saved some customers several hundred dollars by ordering off of our "secret" internal intranet .com site rather than off of the regular internet. The customer in question wanted to order a laptop and have it shipped to a friend in California, and I noted that when i used our Clearwire internet terminal, the price came out to 1,049, but when i used the internal site, it matched our store savings down to 899.99. And the same with another laptop we are running on sale. I'm not sure how well the awareness of this internal site has been spread throughout the company ranks, but at my store at least, we are always up to honor a .com price, and we have non-intranet connected computers on our Verizon Wireless and Clearwire kiosks that allow us (and our customers) to verify a .com price against the internal website.
  • by xPsi (851544) on Saturday March 03 2007, @01:36AM (#18215706)
    I used to enjoy shopping at Best Buy because at least they had stuff I generally wanted and needed. Also, the stores were pretty ubiquitous and the prices were basically competitive. The customer service was all over the place, sometimes right on, sometimes not, but usually nothing special. But then I tried interacting with the morons at Geek Squad. They make some pretty heavy promises (which Best Buy sponsors) on the web site like "Geek Squad® Agents fix any PC problem anytime, anywhere" and "Service guarantee -- If you're not completely satisfied with our service, the problem is remedied fast and free". So I bring a computer into the store and tell the agent "My computer won't boot and I think its a problem with the power chain, the hard drive isn't getting any power. It may need a new power supply -- but probably its just a broken connection." In other words, I told them the problem and what to fix -- or at least a good starting point. I didn't have the time to deal with it myself, so since they can "fix anything" (their agent on the hotline told me it would be "no problem" to debug the power chain) I figured I had nothing to loose (and if they couldn't fix it, I could bank on the service guarantee). So the guy at the store tells me, "great, we'll do a $70 diagnostic and get back to you." A week later they call me to say "we tried to do a diagnostic, but the computer won't boot, so you need to take it to the manufacturer." Fix any computer problem indeed. So when I went to pick up the computer I told the "agent" I wasn't satisfied with the service and wanted my 70 bucks back. Why should I be satisfied? I spent money and waited a week for them to tell me what was written right on the trouble ticket in my own words. Needless to say, this sparked a little "philosophical" discussion between me, the "agent", and his manager about what "service guarantee" means and why it's on their website if they won't honor it. In the end, they openly accused me of trying to get something for nothing. They kept telling me that since they had already done the work "someone had to pay." I pointed out that their "service guarantee" implies that, as a customer, I can, after service is performed, assess my own degree of satisfaction based on my own (presumably reasonable) standards. If I am not, then I get my money back. Case closed. This is called "customer service." My (fairly reasonable) basis for dissatisfaction was their claim to be able to "fix any computer problem" but yet charging me $70 just to tell me my computer wouldn't boot -- the very reason I brought it in to begin with. So I wrote a nice letter to Best Buy Corporate and ccd Geek Squad. Not an email, an actual formal, professional letter. I received a formal, professional response letter back from Best Buy "customer service" about two weeks later stating simply (in goofy corporate jargon) that, while they valued me as a customer, they were not in the business of reimbursing dissatisfied customers for work already performed on computers. Never mind the "service guarantee" paradox that "satisfaction", by definition, must be assessed after the work was performed.


    Needless to say, I'm not a big fan of Best Buy, so am glad someone is calling them publicly on this intranet pricing thing (potential scam).

  • The old addage... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Excelcia (906188) <kfitzner@excelcia.org> on Saturday March 03 2007, @01:56AM (#18215786) Homepage
    The old (for computers) addage goes: "The difference between a used car salesman and a computer salesman is that a used car salesman knows when he's lying".

    I imagine, as far as most of the sales people goes, this is probably the case here. I doubt most of them even knew that the prices were different.
  • by PoopDaddy (1064616) on Saturday March 03 2007, @02:52AM (#18215950)
    "I'm sorry, I cannot divulge any information about our company's secret, illegal website."



    "Oh crap. I shouldn't have said it was a website.

    Oh crap! I shouldn't have said it was a secret!

    Oh crap! I CERTAINLY shouldn't have said... it was ILLEGAL!"

  • Works Both Ways (Score:4, Informative)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Saturday March 03 2007, @09:41AM (#18217444)
    The Intranet version of the BestBuy website is well-known on the DVDTalk bargains forum.
    That's because it lists the "in store" prices and there is a whole slew of anime DVDs for which the "in store" price is super-discounted compared to anywhere else, including the extranet version of the same website.

    The common link seems to be that these anime dvds are either out of print or nearing out of print status. So even though the "in store" prices are really great, very few stores actually have them in stock. But, BBY's warehouse still has many of them in stock. So to exploit the situation, people have taken to using the in-store kiosks to place orders that are shipped directly from the warehouse to their home. If they were to place the same order using the BBY website from home, the cost would be 3x-4x as much.

    For a while there I poked around BBY's DNS and neighboring IP numbers in the hope of finding a way to access the intranet version from the internet and thus skip the trip to the instore kiosk. I don't remember the specifics, but I think we were able to identify the ip address and name of the intranet server (somebody used an in-store system to resolve www.bestbuy.com and compared it to what it resolves to for everyone else on the regular internet), but even though it was pingable, and in the same class-c subnet as the main internet website, it would not accept connections coming in from the regular internet.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Best Buy has a modest contract with Accenture (old Author Anderson) helping them re-design their IT. Coincidence?

      Accenture [wikipedia.org] was formerly Andersen Consulting, which split from Arthur Andersen [wikipedia.org] in 1989, and it apparently wasn't exactly a friendly split. To my knowledge, most of the accounting problems regarding Enron and Arthur Andersen happened in the 1990s.

    • Re:Enron 2.0? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MickDownUnder (627418) on Saturday March 03 2007, @01:23AM (#18215650)
      I bet there's no dark plot here. You really think they could purposefully implement systems requiring dozens of staff with deliberate fraudulent intent and not have someone blow the whistle??

      I bet this is nothing more than just your standard run of the mill incompetence.

      I imagine they have an intranet site which has some information which is for internal use mixed with information that is meant to be the same as the online content. Due to the incompetence of those implementing these systems their intranet and extra-net sites are getting out of sync with each other.

      Guess what the result is?

      Every time the price difference is to the advantage of the customer there's not a peep to be heard.

      As soon as the price difference is to the customer's disadvantage! All hell breaks loose, they go into the store go "WHAT ITS NOT THAT MUCH". Pissed off, they refuse to buy it, go home, check the price again... boom major shit and fan action.
      • by jcr (53032) <jcr&mac,com> on Saturday March 03 2007, @12:18AM (#18215356) Journal
        All of the spawn of AA shared a common corporate culture of sleaze. Andersen Consulting split off because the partners in the consulting side of the business didn't like paying their partners on the accounting side of the house what they were due under the terms of their operating agreements. The accountants were plently sleazy themselves (as the enron debacle demonstrates), but the consultants were willing to ignore the fact that the arthur andersen name is what got them in the door.

        After seeing how AA fucked over McCaw Cellular in the mid-90's, I wouldn't let them within a hundred miles of any job I'm running.

        -jcr

        • by Dan Farina (711066) on Saturday March 03 2007, @02:27AM (#18215874)
          Actually they didn't like it (and won the suit) largely because Arthur Anderson had its own competing consulting practice -- effectively competing with the Anderson Consulting arm. This was found to be a breach of agreement and was how the divorce was finally settled. Wikipedia has (had?) all this information.

          It was a fortuitous breaking off, too -- not long afterwards Anderson Consulting changed its name to Accenture did Arthur Anderson implode due to Enron.
    • by wile_e_wonka (934864) on Saturday March 03 2007, @12:05AM (#18215298)
      I'm not positive, but this seems very similar to me to "bait and switch," which is illegal. In that scheme, the store would advertise an exceptionally low price on an object...but only had 3 in stock. Then, when you come to the store as the 100th person looking for that item, they say, "sorry we ran out... but since you came, we can offer you a "good deal" on this other similar item for only a slightly higher [and much more profitable] price!"

      This is similar, except the low price draws customers to the store, and then...where's the low price? That's fraudulant. Also--it's especially bad because it involves deceiving the consumer: "You say you saw a lower price on the internet? Why don't we look at the site right now..." Outright deception is rarely legal.