[rockya]

Sam-

There's no way this should be an opt out. Loopt is trading on the business's good name and offering a "deal" that doesn't exist.

It's inconveniencing the business and potentially damaging their relationships with customers to the benefit of Loopt.

It's just plain wrong and indefensible.

(Author of the original post.)

[netcan]

Do you think clearer messaging would fix this? Seems to me like a problem only if it seems to people that this business is offering the deal. If its clear that isn't the case, would you still have issues with this?

[rockya]

Associating discounts with businesses who haven't agreed to them is problematic for me.

Many manufacturers have MAP guidelines so that they don't get to be perceived as bargain basement providers. Some (e.g. Bose) also require that their products be excluded from all storewide discounts.

They have high affinity and a premium value and want to protect that.

Sam claimed that they posted what they think is a reasonable discount. That's not for him to decide. If I'm as popular as Bi-Rite, I don't consider 33% a reasonable discount for my product.

[netcan]

Again, I think it may be about messaging. The problem comes from the association with daily deal sites. If you think about it (and communicate it clearly) as an offer/demand/bargaining attempt and less like an existing discount/offer, which it is not, I'm not sure there would be a problem.

Imagine the business had started this way: You have lots of friends who like to do the kind of stuff they're promoting. You have some guy in the group who is willing to call around and bargain. We'll fill 10 tables @ 4pm tomorrow if you give us the free appetizers & desert. Then he decides to create a scalable process for this kind of bargaining to happen. That might look similar to the business they're building here.

[rockya]

That negotiation happens in private and some businesses might be willing to entertain that.

The fact that this happens in the open has significant potential to devalue the brand.

Under very specific conditions, I will do free or discounted consulting. But I don't want "free" or $25/hour associated with my brand when someone does a Google search.

[zaidf]

Associating discounts with businesses who haven't agreed to them is problematic for me.

That's a much broader net than this specific issue.

Run of the mill coupon websites have been associating businesses with coupon/discount verbiage for a long time, some even profitably.

To be clear, where do you stand on verbiage such as "If x people vote to request a 50% off coupon at Premium Brand, we will talk to Premium Brand."

Personally I have no problem with this - it may screw up the premium brand when it comes to SEO but that is Team Google's problem to improve search quality.

[rockya]

a) Coupon/discount verbiage is typically done with the consent of the business.

b) Please try doing this with Bose and Apple. Let me know how it works out.

[zaidf]

http://www.retailmenot.com/view/apple.com

http://www.retailmenot.com/view/bose.com

http://www.bargainist.com/deals/stores/amazon/#b

http://dealspl.us/zappos-coupons

[georgemcbay]

Loopt is going to settle this matter tomorrow by putting up an offer for 50% off the iPad 2 redeemable at your local Apple store.

Wait, they aren't going to do that? Well, they really should... don't you all agree with me, guys?

Snarkiness aside, this illustrates why I don't like the Loopt model. Even if you ignore the trademark use issues, the whole system sets up a situation in which an outside party is allowed to set another business up as the bad guy for not honoring arbitrary deals they may never had any intention of offering.

IMO this is way worse than Groupon because at least with Groupon you sign up to be screwed.

[rockya]

Those are compilations of actual deals offered by the merchant, not stuff that was made up by others deciding what sort of discount a merchant might offer.